# Malaysia's New Asylum Policy



## dutchie (13 July 2011)

The Malaysian government has devised a new solution to their asylum seeker problems.

The new policy involves sending a boatload of 400 asylum seekers from their shores and aimed for Australian waters.

These four hundred or their equivalent will then be sent directly back to Malaysia, by Australia, under the new plan and in return Australia will accept 2000 asylum seekers from Malaysia. 

The Malaysian foreign affairs minister has produced figures to show that at the rate of one boat a week the Malaysian government should be rid of all of their 84,200 current asylum seekers within a year.

He also stated that he could not believe how simple the solution was and encouraged other Asian governments to follow their lead.


----------



## drsmith (13 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> The Malaysian government has devised a new solution to their asylum seeker problems.



They probably had a quiet phone call from the Greens. 

Psssst........


----------



## noco (13 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> The Malaysian government has devised a new solution to their asylum seeker problems.
> 
> The new policy involves sending a boatload of 400 asylum seekers from their shores and aimed for Australian waters.
> 
> ...




Dutchie you are hilarious.


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2011)

Which grin is the cheesiest?






Chris Bowen and Dato Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein. 

They played us off a break and done us like a dinner.



> The deal places onerous conditions on Australia, which must meet almost all of the costs associated with the transfer, care and processing of asylum-seekers, no matter where they are to be sent.
> 
> Mr Bowen said the government had budgeted for $296 million over the four years, although he said Australia would continue to cover the costs of asylum-seekers who remained in Malaysia after the deal elapsed.
> 
> He said Australia's financial obligations could extend beyond the four-year period of the agreement, but he said the costs would be "modest" and noted they would have work rights, meaning they could support themselves.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ian-refugee-deal/story-fn59niix-1226101665766


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Which grin is the cheesiest?



Hard to say.

Labor has put Australian taxpayers in a bend over posture and both have had their way.


----------



## Knobby22 (26 July 2011)

THis government has got to stop announcing deals before they are done.
We are not dealing with New Zealand!


----------



## blackjack (26 July 2011)

ALL good news for Lynas

should settle the waters now


----------



## sails (26 July 2011)

Here is a link to Alan Jones talking to Scott Morrison on the Malaysian debacle. 

Morrison explains it very clearly in this short interview: 
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2011)

> Australia will take 4,000 established refugees from Malaysia in return for 800 units of unprocessed human misery picked up on our own shorelines and territorial waters. We'll pay for transport and health checks and health care and education and special welfare needs for these 800, and all the costs of checking - in Malaysia - their bona fides. Malaysia has agreed to abide by the principles of non-refoulement, which means that even if an applicant is found not to be a refugee from specific persecution, he or she should not be repatriated into a war zone or similarly perilous circumstance. But Australia will pick up the tab for Malaysia's concession. If the transferred asylum seekers are found not to be refugees, but are in need of international protection, we'll pay for them to be resettled in another country. If they're not in need of international protection, we'll pay them to return to their country of origin. Escorts, translators and so on will be our responsibility.




Ouch!



> Australia is super-eager for this deal, and is throwing some cash at the situation - about $300 million, it's estimated at this stage. It's not a treaty, a memorandum of understanding or even an agreement. It's an arrangement - one of the least-binding instruments you can get in the world of international diplomacy, where lawyers are habitually commitment-shy. Australia and Malaysia are listed not as "parties", but as "participants", and clause 16 provides that the arrangement is a record of "intentions and political commitments" only, and is "not legally binding".
> 
> Australia will accept all 4,000 of the Malaysian refugees, even if it doesn't get to 800 transferrals the other way within the four-year span of the arrangement (an outcome for which, it must be said Immigration Minister Chris Bowen would give just about anything).




Double OUCH.

Stop PLEEEEASE.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-26/crabb-malaysian-prenup-whats-in-it-for-the-government/2810988


----------



## Julia (26 July 2011)

Malaysia must be hardly able to believe its luck.  What a deal!
Once again the Australian taxpayer gets thoroughly dudded.


----------



## bellenuit (26 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Malaysia must be hardly able to believe its luck.  What a deal!
> Once again the Australian taxpayer gets thoroughly dudded.




How stupid must we look in their eyes.  It's embarrassing in the extreme.


----------



## sails (27 July 2011)

bellenuit said:


> How stupid must we look in their eyes.  It's embarrassing in the extreme.




Yeah - this based on a nursery rhyme is probably quite fitting:

Dud and Dill went up the hill
With policies of disaster
Dud fell down and broke his crown
and Dill came tumbling after

(Still waiting for the last line...)

I wonder if Australia gets any say in the 4000 that we have to bring here?  IMO, we need more of those who are willing to assimilate rather than bring the oppressive cultures from which they are supposedly fleeing.


----------



## Calliope (1 August 2011)

I would love to be there to see Gillard's enforcers trying to put these 54 illegals on the plane to go to Malaysia. Maybe they will have to use cattle prods.



> "People will be given an instruction to board a plane. We will be looking to people to obey that instruction. If it's not obeyed then we have security personnel, we have the Australian Federal Police, we also have counsellors available to talk things through with people.
> 
> "We are determined to get this done. The Australian Federal Police can speak on operational matters, but we will do what is necessary to ensure that people who are taken to Malaysia under the agreement are taken."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-01/gillard-on-asylum-seekers/2818958


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2011)

Calliope said:


> I would love to be there to see Gillard's enforcers trying to put these 54 illegals on the plane to go to Malaysia. Maybe they will have to use cattle prods.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-01/gillard-on-asylum-seekers/2818958




Thats IF it happens, the lawyers will have a field day this one.LOL
It has the potential to be another stuff up.


----------



## Julia (1 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Thats IF it happens, the lawyers will have a field day this one.LOL
> It has the potential to be another stuff up.



Yes it does, but the Malaysia deal also has the potential to actually stop people coming in the dreaded boats which, after all, is the sole purpose of the government's plan.

If it works (ignoring the human rights situation) it will deprive Mr Abbott of one of his strongest points against the government.


----------



## drsmith (1 August 2011)

Julia said:


> If it works.........




???



> The removal of the first group, which is en route to Christmas Island, could take several weeks as final preparations are made in Malaysia to receive them.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-profile-removal/story-fn59niix-1226106007093

In the meantime, is People Smuggler Inc about to offer a 2 for the price of 1 deal ?

Family groups with small children preferred.
Hurry. Offer limited to the first 801.


----------



## dutchie (1 August 2011)

Julia said:


> If it works (ignoring the human rights situation) it will deprive Mr Abbott of one of his strongest points against the government.




No worries - there are *so many* others to choose from!


----------



## drsmith (1 August 2011)

How will this look on camera to get them on the plane to Malaysia ?



> A spokesman for the Australian Federal Police has told ABC News Online that officers will be empowered to use "the same options" they can use on the mainland.
> 
> According to AFP documents, these include Tasers, batons, tear gas, capsicum spray and handcuffs - but the guidelines emphasise the use of force should be the "minimum force reasonably necessary".




The asylum seekers could always start mooing, if it actually gets that far.



> ''It could take as long as a number of weeks for the first boatload to go - after that all boats will adhere to the 72-hour turnaround time,'' a spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said.
> 
> Ms Gillard conceded processing the first asylum seekers would "take some time".




To top it off, Julia Gillard is practicing for her post-political career as a comedian.



> "I think it just stands to common sense that the first time you do something you learn along the way," she said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-01/gillard-on-asylum-seekers/2818958


----------



## sails (1 August 2011)

> "I think it just stands to common sense that the first time you do something you learn along the way," she said.





Common sense?  Does she actually knows what that means? What common sense decision has Gillard ever made? ...

Trading 800 boat arrivals for 4,000.  Common sense seems very lacking.  And not only in this area...


----------



## bellenuit (1 August 2011)

Apparently some in the Malaysian legal fraternity have suggested that the Malaysian solution could actually entice migrants currently residing in Malaysia to try and get to Australia as they would, if successful, be returned to Malaysia and accorded more rights than they currently have - rights in relation to education, punishment etc.

Seems far fetched, but that is what some are saying.


----------



## drsmith (2 August 2011)

sails said:


> Common sense?  Does she actually knows what that means? What common sense decision has Gillard ever made? ...



The ABC's Annabel Crabb does not hold back in this piece,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-02/crabb-morphine-dreams-and-soothing-fibs-in-the-alp-er/2820860


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> The ABC's Annabel Crabb does not hold back in this piece,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-02/crabb-morphine-dreams-and-soothing-fibs-in-the-alp-er/2820860




She might not hold back, but it would have been much easier just to say Gillard talks a load of crap.


----------



## drsmith (2 August 2011)

And the crap just keeps coming, thick and fast.



> The government inked the deal last week and talked up the "active role" of the UNHCR in the transfer process.
> 
> One cabinet minister, Stephen Conroy, even claimed that Geneva had signed off on the people swap deal.
> 
> ...




http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ack-people-swap-deal-oppn-20110802-1i8vz.html


----------



## noco (3 August 2011)

What a joke thsi Green/Labor socialist left wing governemnt is to think the people smugglers will stop sending boats. 
There are more holes in their policy than a piece of Swiss cheese and they (THE PEOPLE SMUGGLERS) will exploit it to the limit. They are by far smarter than Gillard and Bowen.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-send-children/story-fn59niix-1226107026021


----------



## Julia (3 August 2011)

Let's wait and see, noco.  If the transfer of the first lot of asylum seekers to Malaysia occurs without incident, I'll be surprised if quite some numbers of aspiring asylum seekers are not deterred.


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2011)

I wouldn't be suprised if the government doesn't ask for volunteers and provide financial incentives.


----------



## noco (4 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Let's wait and see, noco.  If the transfer of the first lot of asylum seekers to Malaysia occurs without incident, I'll be surprised if quite some numbers of aspiring asylum seekers are not deterred.




Gillard said the fisrt lot would go back within 72 hours. They are still here and Gillard/Bowen are now talking one month.

The people smugglers are already exploiting the children.

How will they control a riot on a plane heading back to Malaysia. I think the Feds. will have ther hands full.

Lets see how the Greens play out on this.


----------



## noco (4 August 2011)

noco said:


> Gillard said the fisrt lot would go back within 72 hours. They are still here and Gillard/Bowen are now talking one month.
> 
> The people smugglers are already exploiting the children.
> 
> ...




The last boat load of people smuggled into Australia contains 19 children; 15 unaccompanied. These smugglers sure know how give Gillard/Bowen a headache.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

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


----------



## Julia (4 August 2011)

There's time enough for him to change his tune, of course, but this evening on "PM" Chris Bowen was talking tough about the unaccompanied children, saying "we have made it clear there will be no blanket exceptions".  

This is an absolute test case for the government.   They are damned whatever they do.
If they send the children to Malaysia they will be slammed for being cruel, and if they don't, they'll be lambasted for not being tough enough.

It will be fascinating to see how it plays out.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 August 2011)

noco said:


> Gillard said the fisrt lot would go back within 72 hours. They are still here and Gillard/Bowen are now talking one month.
> 
> The people smugglers are already exploiting the children.
> 
> ...




The Greens have no answers, only questions.

They use the blood of innocent refugees for their hegemonic goals.

gg


----------



## drsmith (4 August 2011)

Julia said:


> It will be fascinating to see how it plays out.



Labor has abandoned its principals.

There's only one way it can play out for this government.


----------



## drsmith (4 August 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Greens have no answers, only questions.
> 
> They use the blood of innocent refugees for their hegemonic goals.
> 
> gg



The Greens have long since decided that it's better to be in bed with labor than the Coalition, regardless.

They have managed to get Labor to crucify itself on the carbon tax.


----------



## dutchie (4 August 2011)

Question:
Does one child sent to Malaysia mean 5 children are sent to Australia?


----------



## dutchie (5 August 2011)

Since there has been such a long time since the announcement of this policy all the smugglers and illegal boat people know the consequences. If the 800 positions are therefore filled it will mean another failed policy.

If the children (unaccompanied or not) are exempt from the transfer to Malaysia then this will worsen the situation as the smugglers will no doubt send boatloads of children who will then stay in Australia (establish themselves) and then expect their families to follow under reunion rules.

A multiplier effect one way or the other.


----------



## noco (5 August 2011)

dutchie said:


> Question:
> Does one child sent to Malaysia mean 5 children are sent to Australia?





Good question dutchie.


----------



## Happy (5 August 2011)

Didn’t take long Malaysia to consider refusal of children in swap deal:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-05/malaysian-bar-council-on-asylum-seeker-swap/2826654

“Malaysians ask own officials to reject children swap”

It will be something like 4,000 for 800 plus 4,000+ of children.

It is upsetting that smugglers can determine so much of our immigration.


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2011)

Another boat load today, it won't take long to fill a plane at this rate.
The 800 quota also should be filled within a month or two. Another stroke of genious by our incompetent government.


----------



## DB008 (7 August 2011)

Meet the Press - Channel 10

Interview with Chris Bowen (Immigration Minister) today - 7th August 

Chris Bowen is under the assumption that 800 asylum seekers won't risk 15k to get shipped to Malaysia and we will never reach the quota. 

He also admitted that there is 'NO PLAN B' after 800 quota. 

Chris Bowen also said something along the lines of how good the current Government is in regards to managing the economy/financial credentials are.......


----------



## sails (7 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Meet the Press - Channel 10
> 
> Interview with Chris Bowen (Immigration Minister) today - 7th August
> 
> ...





Bowen really is living with the fairies, isn't he?   Clearly, no idea of reality.

He's already had one boat load arrive a few days ago and now another one  - both arrivals have come since the signing of the Malaysian deal.  Unbelievably stupid by the look of things.

From news.com: Boat with 50 passengers and 2 crew has been intercepted off Christmas Island


----------



## noco (7 August 2011)

This deal with Malaysia is heading for another Green/Labor party "stuff up".

Bowen does not reveal from where these latest boats departed.

Did they leave Indonesia or Malayasia?

If indeed they left from Malayasia, boy, are we in for a flood.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...christmas-island/story-e6freoox-1226110184011


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 August 2011)

noco said:


> This deal with Malaysia is heading for another Green/Labor party "stuff up".



Disagree. This action could see the racquet stop literally overnight.


----------



## DB008 (7 August 2011)

http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=41949&movideo_m=122663

Good stuff starts around the 2:50 minute mark.


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Thats IF it happens, the lawyers will have a field day this one.LOL
> It has the potential to be another stuff up.




And here we go taxpayer funded GRAVY TRAIN. LOL

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...sia-refugee-swap/story-fn59niix-1226110402616


----------



## noco (7 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> And here we go taxpayer funded GRAVY TRAIN. LOL
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...sia-refugee-swap/story-fn59niix-1226110402616




As I stated before, this whole deal with Malayasia has more holes in it than a kilo of Swiss cheese. The Malayasians and the people smugglers are far more smarter than Gillard and Bowen.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2011)

What a mess.


----------



## Julia (7 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> What a mess.




All because they refused to consider using Nauru on a purely political basis.

However, if the court challenge ultimately fails and the people are deported to Malaysia, it could be the start of a win for the government.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2011)

The Labor government created the problem by unwinding the previous Coalition Government's policies. This government at attempt whatever to stop the boats has abandoned its principals utterly.

It won't be a win for this government regardless of the outcome.


----------



## sails (7 August 2011)

Here's an article by the ABC - full story here:  High Court delays Malaysia swap 



> The High Court has granted a temporary reprieve to the first group of asylum seekers due to be transferred to Malaysia under the Government's people swap deal.
> 
> In a special hearing, the High Court in Melbourne ordered a temporary injunction, stopping their removal until tomorrow afternoon.
> 
> The Government had been preparing to send the first group of 16 asylum seekers to Malaysia at 11.30am tomorrow.


----------



## noco (8 August 2011)

sails said:


> Here's an article by the ABC - full story here:  High Court delays Malaysia swap




Here is a bit more on the High Court challenge.

Anybody want to swap places with Bowen? I'm sure he would accept you.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ops-deportations/story-fn59niix-1226110504615


----------



## sails (8 August 2011)

noco said:


> Here is a bit more on the High Court challenge.
> 
> Anybody want to swap places with Bowen? I'm sure he would accept you.
> 
> ...





Yes, Bowen has some problems now.  But I think Gillard is too stuborn to care about Bowen or anyone else for that matter.

But it is amazing that we have the facilities at Nauru for which we have paid and now it is sitting empty.  It definitely deterred the welfare rorters (economic refugees) while giving a place of safety for those genuinely fleeing for their lives.  There is no risk of torture or abuse and kids remain with those with whom they came.

It is like owing a home and then deciding to rent from a land lord who is intent on ripping you off - and yet you continue with the rip off while leaving your own home empty.  It's totally crazy.

The graph below shows how clearly our facilities pus Temporary Protection Visas worked so well after it was introduced by Howard in 2002 - and then what has happened since labor abolished it with increasing arrivals in the last two years.  This graph only goes until the end of 2010.


----------



## sptrawler (8 August 2011)

Yes sails, this government gets arrogance mixed up with stupidity their behaviour is nothing short of chidish. But they still carry on as if there is no retribution to payed for continually wasting OUR money.
Time will tell how the voters view this sort of behaviour.


----------



## DB008 (8 August 2011)

Sails - I think I've found what you mean...


Normal people thinking; 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Current Government thinking; 'If it ain't broke, lets break it!'.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2011)

Of all the stupidities perpetrated by Gillard government, the Malaysian solution takes the cake. It was never going to work and it never will. The High court appeal, if successful will at least give her the excuse to back off and accept the Nauru solution and save a bit of face.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2011)

Temporary Injunction extended



> The injunction preventing the removal of asylum seekers to Malaysia has been extended until there is a full hearing later this month.
> 
> In a special hearing on Sunday afternoon, the High Court placed a temporary injunction on the Federal Government's plans to deport 16 asylum seekers under its so-called Malaysia swap deal.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-08/high-court-asylum-swap-decision/2829446


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2011)

Calliope said:


> Temporary Injunction extended
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-08/high-court-asylum-swap-decision/2829446



Another nail in the coffin of Gillard Labor.


----------



## dutchie (8 August 2011)

High Court action - wasting more of our money!


----------



## noco (8 August 2011)

Poor JU-LIAR, she just can't take a trick. The people smugglers have out smarted her. I would say they knew there would be a legal challenge. Why would they continue to come?
Also I asked the question of which many of us would like an answer. What was their country of departure? Was it Indonesia or Malayasia?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ops-deportations/story-fn59niix-1226110504615


----------



## sails (8 August 2011)

dutchie said:


> High Court action - wasting more of our money!





Yeah, this government seems to think money is a never ending stream - like kids who think it comes from the hole in the wall - and if runs dry -  just tax the workers a bit more - they wouldn't miss a bit would they?  

But hang on, that's what thieves think too, don't they?


----------



## pixel (8 August 2011)

It's quite simple, really:
Let all the bleeding-heart do-goodies put their money where their mouths are; take one or an entire family into their home and heart, look after them and make sure - that first and foremost - that the new arrivals abide by Australia's laws and customs.
In other words: Put up or shut up.


----------



## noco (8 August 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Disagree. This action could see the racquet stop literally overnight.




Wysiwyg, do you still disagree? Those people smugglers are smarter than our JU-LIAR.


----------



## Julia (8 August 2011)

I'm not sure why Ms Gillard is copping all the blame here.  Surely it's Chris Bowen's responsibility to have ensured all the possible legal loopholes had been investigated and covered before the policy was announced.


----------



## sptrawler (8 August 2011)

Blind Freddy could see that this was going to be legally challenged, so why did Julia try to make political milage out of it?
Shows a degree of panic. Bowen, anyone can see he is a puppet, and is just hoping to hold his portfolio and a bigger pension.
It all is starting to ring of crisis management and nothing is being thought through because the problems are mounting.IMO


----------



## dutchie (10 August 2011)

Fixing the problem that did not need fixing:

1. Get rid of Nauru and TPV's
2. Increase the capacity of Christmas Island (because of increase of illegal immigrants due to 1.)
3. As Christmas Island is full, set up other centres around Australia.
4. Paper work is slowing down the process (because illegals throw away their papers)
5. Illegals burn and destroy property because they are impatient at slowness of system (see 4.)
6. Lets send the problems overseas
    "We have a solution - East Timor
    "We have a solution - PNG
    "We have a solution - Manus Island
    "We have a solution - Malaysia
7. Net result: Malaysia dumps us with 4000 illegals 
7a. Problem continues to grow.
8. This system is so successful government uses same logic with economy.


----------



## sails (10 August 2011)

dutchie said:


> Fixing the problem that did not need fixing:
> 
> 1. Get rid of Nauru and TPV's
> 2. Increase the capacity of Christmas Island (because of increase of illegal immigrants due to 1.)
> ...




+ many 1s...

And worse still, it seems we have to take the 4,000 whether or not we send even one of ours. 

Here is the PDF of this terribly negotiated agreement for Australia: 

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/_pdf/20110725-arrangement-malaysia-aust.pdf

An excerpt:

*Clause 7
    (Agreed Numbers)*

    1.  The Government of Malaysia will accept up to an agreed maximum of eight hundred (800) Transferees. The Participants understand that the agreed number of transfers may occur prior to any resettlement pursuant to Clause 5.

    2.  The Government of Australia will resettle four thousand (4,000) persons over four (4) years as referred to in Clause 5 commencing from the date of this Arrangement at a rate of approximately one thousand (1,000) per year, (although recognizing that less may be settled in the first year and any shortfall will be taken up in subsequent years);

    3.  This number of persons will be resettled by Australia even if the Government of Australia does not seek to transfer the total eight hundred (800) Transferees to Malaysia.​
and from the Australian:

Jesuit priest Frank Brennan argues Malaysia Solution worse option than Howard's Pacific Solution 

And thanks to Andrew Bolt for finding the above links.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2011)

Well sails, that takes the cake doesn't it.


----------



## dutchie (11 August 2011)

Another boatload 0f 100 has arrived.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...carrying-100-intercepted-of-christmas-island/

Can anyone tell me why we don't prosecute and give long sentences to the skippers (and crew) of these boats?


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2011)

It won't take long to fill our 800 quota at this rate, thats about 200 in 3 weeks.
The Malaysia solution isn't proving to be much of a solution.LOL


----------



## noco (11 August 2011)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure why Ms Gillard is copping all the blame here.  Surely it's Chris Bowen's responsibility to have ensured all the possible legal loopholes had been investigated and covered before the policy was announced.




The buck stops at the top. A general never blames his lieutenants.

It would have been a cabinet decision with Gillard right behind it and I am sure she would have read the fine print. But then again, one just has to view the history of this Prime Minister of ours. Not too bright on anyone project where she has been involved.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2011)

So, what's gone wrong for the government today ?



sptrawler said:


> It won't take long to fill our 800 quota at this rate, thats about 200 in 3 weeks.



205/800,

counting.............


----------



## sails (11 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> So, what's gone wrong for the government today ?
> 
> 
> 205/800,
> ...





And they've all put their feet on Australian soil and now are using our tax payer funded legal system to fight going to another country.  So, it's still likely that we will send none and still get 4,000.

Really, both Bowen and Gillard should be sacked over this deal alone...surely?


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2011)

sails said:


> So, it's still likely that we will send none and still get 4,000.



The Greens will be happy.


----------



## sails (11 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> The Greens will be happy.




And I wonder how many of them actually pay any tax? 
They might see if differently if they did...


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2011)

Greens spend.

Others pay tax,

EDIT:
and they are very happy about that.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

This will help eight more customs patrol boats. May as well base them at Christmas Island.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/10029981/austal-wins-330m-customs-boat-contract/


----------



## Happy (12 August 2011)

We've been taken for a ride if you ask me.

Pity we elect Government that does not have to worry about opinion of big portion of voters.
50.1% majority leaves 49.9% that are not too happy to start with.


----------



## dutchie (13 August 2011)

Another boat - 62 people


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2011)

dutchie said:


> Another boat - 62 people




So that means 267/800, dutchie.
We are obviously scaring the crap out of the boat people with the Malaysian solution.LOL
Another stuff up by the fools. 
Oh well lets move onto something bigger, we can't seem to get this right.


----------



## sails (13 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> So that means 267/800, dutchie...




Yes, in a couple of weeks since signing of the Malaysian deal we have had as many boat arrivals as there were in * three *years under the Pacific Solution.  Years 2004, 2005, 2006 there were 261.  And labor calls this a solution?

And this graph is a few months old - the number would be higher for 2011 by now.


----------



## drsmith (13 August 2011)

Another day, another boat.

It's all very predictable.


----------



## Happy (14 August 2011)

I can be probably excused for thinking that Pacific Solution is the way to keep doors wide open while pretending shutting them.

(Would not be surprised if before I send this post there will be score 300+/800)

Let's not forget that $10,000 or is it now $15,000 boat ticket is a lot of money and in those regions can support whole family for years.
Hardly an act of desperation, especially that to get to us they have to cross quite a few borders where they can apply for asylum there.

Promise of “Milk and honey” with lifelong unemployment guarantee and massive support (medicare, housing commission houses) for multi-child families is too tempting.

Funny, I am sick and tired having my tax money diverted to some of those causes and I almost have no say in that matter.

(Only method of protest would be to go on dole myself, wander how many people do that as act of disagreement to Government policy?)


----------



## sails (14 August 2011)

Happy said:


> ...(Only method of protest would be to go on dole myself, wander how many people do that as act of disagreement to Government policy?)




And, if you did, you would have to provide ID and explain why you couldn't work. And you are not allowed to fib.

Now, why one rule for us and one rule for boat arrivals who expect everything to be provided once the feet touch Aussie soil?  

And the genuine refugees waiting in cramped camps around the world have to wait longer because of the massive resources milked by those posing as refugees, possibly illegally, and then using further tax payer funds to pay for their appeals.  In the end, perhaps it's cheaper to let them stay, but that doesn't mean they were legit in the first place, imo.  

And, I understand, approved migrants who come here to work have very tight restrictions and have to support themselves.  It seems the milkers have it all going their way.


----------



## noco (14 August 2011)

Happy said:


> I can be probably excused for thinking that Pacific Solution is the way to keep doors wide open while pretending shutting them.
> 
> (Would not be surprised if before I send this post there will be score 300+/800)
> 
> ...





Happy, we do have a say but you will have to wait untill the next election whenever that may be. In the meantime, we have to sit back and watch another Green/Labor socialist left debacle unfold and the damage they cause.


----------



## Happy (14 August 2011)

Is it only me, or it is possible that in democratic way we are able to kill our beautiful country?

If we get enough (majority) of “Green/Labor socialist left” they will win every election until we all go down under. 
(Wrong pun but fits well)


----------



## noco (15 August 2011)

Happy said:


> Is it only me, or it is possible that in democratic way we are able to kill our beautiful country?
> 
> If we get enough (majority) of “Green/Labor socialist left” they will win every election until we all go down under.
> (Wrong pun but fits well)




Happy, I don't believe you will see that happen as more and more voters start to realize the damage that is being done to this once great country of ours.

It is my belief a change is coming sooner rather than later and all it needs is a catalist to set it off.

One could be the charging and conviction of NSW MP Craig Thompson who is currently being investigated for fraud. If that happens, there may be a by-election before Xmas.

Another could be the resignation of one Kevin Rudd.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2011)

Another boat this morning. How to change 800 into 3800, what a classic.LOL


----------



## Calliope (15 August 2011)

Happy said:


> Is it only me, or it is possible that in democratic way we are able to kill our beautiful country?




It is not politically correct to say so, but I believe that the immigration policies in Great Britain have led to the lawless depravity which has ruined irreversibly "that green and pleasant land" which is the England which most of us knew.

Our turn will come.


----------



## DB008 (15 August 2011)

Calliope said:


> It is not politically correct to say so, but I believe that the immigration policies in Great Britain have led to the lawless depravity which has ruined irreversibly "that green and pleasant land" which is the England which most of us knew.
> 
> Our turn will come.




Yep.

Merkel says German multicultural society has failed


Dutch News - Multiculturalism must go: Donner


Multiculturalism doesn't work in France, says Sarkozy



Having posted this, l will no doubt get labelled a racist, which l am NOT.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2011)

Enoch Powell spoke of the racial problems that Britain are now facing and he was shouted down as being a racist. Apparently he was a brilliant person who spoke his mind.

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

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder021698.html


----------



## Happy (15 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Yep.
> 
> Merkel says German multicultural society has failed
> 
> ...




Even recently heard few politicians and academics telling that Australia is different.

Yep, pull the other leg.

Same thing as 10 years ago police ministers categorically stated that in Australia we don’t have gang problems.
Recently all of the sudden it is stated that gangs are out of control.

(In a meantime I run out of legs for pulling)


----------



## sails (15 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Yep.
> 
> Merkel says German multicultural society has failed
> 
> ...





Yes, it's sad when people (usually lefties) want to bring in racial issues where there is none.

I see people as human no matter the colour of their skin or their culture.  But I do object to any religious group trying to enter civilised countries posing as refugees, living off their new country's welfare, but then can't wait to bring in their laws from which they presumably were fleeing.  Nothing racial about that.  Put the name of any religion or group or any nationality.  If this is the case, it's not acceptable, imo.

And worse still, they are most likely causing other genuine refugees to wait as they are clogging up the refugee system by coming here by boat without papers.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Another boat this morning.



I can't find any info on this.


----------



## nioka (16 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Enoch Powell spoke of the racial problems that Britain are now facing and he was shouted down as being a racist. Apparently he was a brilliant person who spoke his mind.




Pauline Hanson was not brilliant but she did speak her mind and what she said would happen is happening. I'd sooner have her having a say in parliament than Bob Brown. ( In my thoughts when something GREEN turns BROWN it goes into the compost bin).


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> I can't find any info on this.




On checking I think it was an earlier report. My mistake


----------



## Happy (16 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> On checking I think it was an earlier report. My mistake




Not too happy to make jokes about it, but:

1)   you mixed up departure time with arrival time

2)  in other words it is matter of time


----------



## sails (18 August 2011)

Looks like Gillard is getting a name for herself throwing money around like confetti to try and control the people smugglers.  Now PNG has put forward their demands if they re-open the detention centre.  It seems there are no limits to this highway robbery of Aussie tax payer dollars.

It's almost looking like extortion now where other countries see our predicament and now want big money if their country is to be used for detention.

Full story at Yahoo: *Infrastructure plea on PNG detention centre island*

Manus Island wants an assistance package to fund 28 major infrastructure projects as part of a deal with Australia to reopen its immigration detention centre...

...The projects it wants funded include fixing local roads and highways, upgrading the domestic Momote Airport, fixing parts of the island's water supply, police housing, upgrading the local hospital, building a technical high school and a broadband network.​
IMO, this is clearly further mismanagement by Gillard to have put Australia into such a difficult position.  Both Manus Is and Nauru were working perfectly well before Rudd and Gillard decided they knew better.  They clearly have no idea how to run a country.

This is sickening.

Perhaps Australia should remove itself from the UNCHR and tell everyone else to settle down.


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2011)

sails said:


> Looks like Gillard is getting a name for herself throwing money around like confetti to try and control the people smugglers.  Now PNG has put forward their demands if they re-open the detention centre.  It seems there are no limits to this highway robbery of Aussie tax payer dollars.
> 
> It's almost looking like extortion now where other countries see our predicament and now want big money if their country is to be used for detention.
> 
> ...




Yes,sails, it's a shame the Labor devotees can't remove their heads for long enough to read the writing on the wall.


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2011)

And so they keep comming.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/10075618/asylum-boat-intercepted-off-christmas-island/


----------



## Happy (20 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> And so they keep comming....




Didn't take long (just 3 days) for your boat to arrive.
(They must have been boarding as you wrote)

Interesting if any betting site takes bets on dates of boats arrival?
(Happens so often it would be probably too easy to win)

Also what happens after we reach 4-years quota of 800?
Back to old business of processing here?

WHAT A JOKE MS GILLARD!!!

Another thing that makes me not very happy is, that we elected ONE Prime Minister and we will pay lifetime pension with all the perks for TWO.
Shouldn't they go halves?

(Gold Medicare, office + 3 secretaries, lifetime free business class air travel, lifetime indexed PENSION, chauffer + government car and few more times TWO!)


----------



## sptrawler (31 August 2011)

Well that worked out exactly as we thought, priceless.
What a disgrace.


----------



## noco (31 August 2011)

One more gigantic stuff up by this enept Green/Labor socialist left wing government. 

The high court has over ruled the Malayasin deal. As I said on a previous post, the people smugglers are much smarter than Gillard and Bowen who both said they had checked out the legal aspect of the Malayasian deal. Both have a very low IQ as far as I am concerned.

Bowen should be sacked.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...dering-next-move/story-e6freonf-1226126651891


----------



## dutchie (31 August 2011)

Juliar is a fantastic negotiator.

Juliar to Malaysian Foreign Minister:"Look the best I can do is take 4000 of yours and we send you 400 of ours"

MFM to Juliar: "Aw .....  "

Juliar to MFM: "OK OK  you drive a hard bargain - what about you send us 4000 and we wont send you any!"

MFM to Juliar: "Its a deal!!!"


----------



## sails (31 August 2011)

noco said:


> One more gigantic stuff up by this enept Green/Labor socialist left wing government.
> 
> The high court has over ruled the Malayasin deal. As I said on a previous post, the people smugglers are much smarter than Gillard and Bowen who both said they had checked out the legal aspect of the Malayasian deal. Both have a very low IQ as far as I am concerned.
> 
> ...





I suspect Bowen was only doing the bidding of the PM.  I appeared she was the one desperate to find a solution, any solution but the Pacific solution which labor sucessfully wrecked.  Shouldn't she be sacked too?


----------



## sails (31 August 2011)

Annabel Crabb  from the ABC tells it like it is:

High Court climax to a tale of rambling incompetence


----------



## Tink (1 September 2011)

sails said:


> ...........
> 
> *Both Manus Is and Nauru *were working perfectly well before Rudd and Gillard decided they knew better.  They clearly have no idea how to run a country.
> 
> ...




Well looks like they cant use either now, going by the news report, after the High Court decision 

(my bolds)


----------



## Calliope (1 September 2011)

sails said:


> Annabel Crabb  from the ABC tells it like it is:
> 
> High Court climax to a tale of rambling incompetence




I have always admired Annabel Crabb's ability to hone in on the ridiculous, where other ABC journalists will not go.


----------



## joea (1 September 2011)

sails said:


> Annabel Crabb  from the ABC tells it like it is:
> 
> High Court climax to a tale of rambling incompetence




If she told it like it was, we would all know why Naru was set up.
The Australian people need to be told the whole story.

If Australia was serious we would process the seekers on Australian soil with haste.
If that took 6 months then the kids could be schooled here.
Why does it take so long?. This is one of the answers we need.!!!!

So why do we set up something off shore in another country to do the job, and we pour millions into the scheme.

There is something more behind the scene. Is this how we utilise some our foreign aid money more effectively?. Like getting something for the money in return, instead of just wasteing it and getting nothing in return.
Is it a scheme to improve their economy and create some jobs for them.?
Or is to do with trade.? i.e. (you do something for us and we buy your sugar and grain!!!)

joea


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2011)

Well it looks as though Gillard and her bunch of donkeys have even stuffed up the Nauru option.
So now we can't even help a small island neighbour make some money. LOL
They were screaming to have the refugees back to help their economy and it would have been simple to ensure the refugees were looked after.
Now it is a loose win. We Loose the People Smugglers win.
Why doesn't Gillard just give up, they couldn't run a p!zz up in a brewery.


----------



## Calliope (1 September 2011)

I almost felt sorry for that poor incompetent clown, Chris Evans. Caught like a rabbit in the headlights, this was one case where the policy "to blame Tony Abbott" for all Labor's ills would not fly, even though it has some validity.

Labor would have settled on Nauru before Malaysia if Abbott had surrendered his gloating rights on the back-flip.


----------



## Julia (1 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well it looks as though Gillard and her bunch of donkeys have even stuffed up the Nauru option.



Have they?   There seem to be a variety of opinions about this, some suggesting the same principle as held in yesterday's judgment would apply to Nauru and others disagreeing.

If Nauru has signed or is in the process of signing the convention and asylum seekers would be assured safety there, plus education and whatever else we bestow upon them, it's a whole different proposition from Malaysia which came nowhere near meeting UNHCR standards.




Calliope said:


> Labor would have settled on Nauru before Malaysia if Abbott had surrendered his gloating rights on the back-flip.



1.  That would be a huge ask, i.e. to surrender gloating rights.
2.  I'm not sure that even if he'd said nothing at all, Labor could have brought themselves to adopt any aspect of what had worked during the Howard government.
Understandable, given how they rubbished all of it!
Bet they're having some second thoughts now.  What an unspeakable mess.


----------



## sails (1 September 2011)

Here's a PDF of the judgement:

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/08/31/1226126/565000-high-court-judgment.pdf


And it seems that Malaysia not being a signatory to the UNCHR was part of the issue.  Will be interesting to see if that means the Pacific Solution can still be used.

If not, I would think Australia will urgently need to withdraw from the UNCHR, at least temporarily, until something can be worked out before we are absolutely inundated with more boat arrivals than we can handle.  I think Australia has already reached saturation from those arriving by boat.

And it means that anyone can fraudently pose as a refugee and get set for life in this country.  Something needs to be done to prevent welfare rorters from putting foot on our soil and then claiming legal aid to fight their rejection.

If boats are towed to Nauru, then they have never set foot on Australian soil.  Interesting first sentence of the above judgement (bold is mine):



> Today the High Court held invalid the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers *who entered Australia at Christmas Island *can be taken for processing of their asylum claims.



and


> The Court also held that the Minister has no other power under the Migration Act to *remove from Australia *asylum seekers whose claims for protection have not been determined.




If they haven't actually arrived in Australia, then perhaps the above judgement doesn't apply.  Any thoughts?


----------



## bellenuit (1 September 2011)

sails said:


> If not, I would think Australia will urgently need to withdraw from the UNCHR, at least temporarily, until something can be worked out before we are absolutely inundated with more boat arrivals than we can handle.  I think Australia has already reached saturation from those arriving by boat.




Something I personally think should have been done a long time ago. We should permanently withdraw from the refugee convention, but at the same time increase our refugee intake by 10% say. Withdrawing would remove most if not all the legal issues pertaining to what we can or cannot do regarding refugees and allow us to take refugees on our terms only. It would be a lot less costly than the current system. Increasing our intake would demonstrate that we are more than willing to do our bit to share the burden of displaced refugees, while at the same time not being bound by outmoded treaties.


----------



## noco (1 September 2011)

Well folks, get ready for an armada of boat people. I reckon the people smugglers are working overtime tonight in preparation for a flood of boats to leave Indonesia tomorrow.

The worst part about this Malaysian deal is Australia looks like having to still take the 4000  without being able to send back the 800 to Malaysia.

Both the Malaysian government and the people smugglers are much smarter than our Prime Minister and the Immigration Minister. They both have a very low IQ I'm afraid.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/navy-on-alert-for-boats/story-e6freooo-1226126810894


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2011)

Just when you thought Julia couldn't stuff up any more on this issue, she blames the high court 6 to 1 ruling.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dennis/story-fn59niix-1226127337399

I don't know where P.M's stand with regard contempt of court. LOL
It's probably only her personal opinion. IMO


----------



## Julia (1 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Just when you thought Julia couldn't stuff up any more on this issue, she blames the high court 6 to 1 ruling.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dennis/story-fn59niix-1226127337399
> 
> ...



I couldn't believe she would go this far and imo it's a new low in her totally inappropriate behaviour, ie essentially accusing Justice French of inconsistency!

Sails and Bellenuit, agree entirely.  However, can you even begin to imagine the hysterical response from The Greens were the government to withdraw!!!

There seems no other realistic choice.  Unless some definitive legal opinion can assure them (and the opposition) that reverting to The Pacific Solution  will not - when it's inevitably challenged - result in the same sort of judgment as occurred yesterday.


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 September 2011)

With reference to the title - *Malaysia's New Asylum Policy* - the Court's unanimous decision now means this thread is technically "dead".  

Perhaps all further correspondence regarding refugees & asylum seekers should continue henceforth in "The Gillard Government" thread - at least in the short term....


----------



## Calliope (2 September 2011)

*Shock! Horror!* Gillard has criticised the high court's judgment



> The real story is the magnitude of the court's intrusion into the executive realm by substituting its own policy for that of the government.
> 
> It has gone too far.
> 
> This decision humiliates Labor, strikes a blow against a substantial effort to halt the boats and gives non-citizens not yet found to be refugees rights  that inhibit any Australian government acting in the public interest from negotiating regional and offshore processing arrangements.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-but-it-is-sound/story-e6frgd0x-1226127699957

These pompous clowns, wearing fancy dress and living and working in splendid and luxurious isolation from their fellow citizens now think that can usurp decisions made by an elected government. Gillard has every right to be annoyed, and the Coalition should be worried about this intrusive judgment too, rather than trying to score points.


----------



## sails (2 September 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> With reference to the title - *Malaysia's New Asylum Policy* - the Court's unanimous decision now means this thread is technically "dead".
> 
> Perhaps all further correspondence regarding refugees & asylum seekers should continue henceforth in "The Gillard Government" thread - at least in the short term....




Aussiejeff, the Malaysian debacle might be off, but the problem with boat arrivals and determining who is a legit refugee and who is fake is still very real.  There are noises that boat loads are preparing to come.

And once they land in Australia, they have access to everything at taxpayer expense including using our free legal system to appeal against us if they are deemed not to be a genuine refugee.  Unbelievable.

There are only 22 million Aussies and many of those are children too young to work.  How are we supposed to keep supporting thousands of fraudsters?

Surely, something needs to be done urgently to stop this.


----------



## sptrawler (2 September 2011)

Aside from the financial cost sails, this debacle could end up with a lot more refugees taking the risky crossing as we enter cyclone season.
None of us want to see another disaster with people drowning on national t.v.
Because this was handled so badly the smugglers will use it to encourage refugees to attempt the crossing.


----------



## sails (3 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Aside from the financial cost sails, this debacle could end up with a lot more refugees taking the risky crossing as we enter cyclone season.
> None of us want to see another disaster with people drowning on national t.v.
> Because this was handled so badly the smugglers will use it to encourage refugees to attempt the crossing.




I wonder if they are showing the mansions where boat arrivals are being housed when they are offering as little as $468 as down payment to come to Australia.  

And do they mean jobs - or so they mean the stupid Austrlians giving them a house, free medical, free legal aid if they try to send them home and money deposited fortnightly for no work?




> PEOPLE smugglers are offering asylum seekers in Indonesia passage to Australia by boat for as little as $US500 ($468) upfront, with the rest being paid after they are granted residency and find work, Afghans in Cisarua, West Java, have said.



Read more from the SMH by Tom Allard, West Java: 

On sale now - a small downpayment and the rest when you have a job


----------



## sails (3 September 2011)

Good on Abbott for putting the country first before politics.  The Pacific Solution is clearly a policy winner for the coalition and they would lose that edge if labor decide to re-instate it, imo.



> TONY Abbott is offering to work with the Gillard government on a policy of processing asylum-seekers offshore, if Nauru is included, as Labor faces a split over how Australia handles refugees.




Read more from the Australian National Affairs by Dennis Shanahan, Political editor:

*Tony Abbott puts Nauru deal to Julia Gillard as Labor faces split on detainees*


----------



## noco (3 September 2011)

sails said:


> Aussiejeff, the Malaysian debacle might be off, but the problem with boat arrivals and determining who is a legit refugee and who is fake is still very real.  There are noises that boat loads are preparing to come.
> 
> And once they land in Australia, they have access to everything at taxpayer expense including using our free legal system to appeal against us if they are deemed not to be a genuine refugee.  Unbelievable.
> 
> ...




Yes,. and you can bet your boots, 90% are Muslims. It is all part of a plot to infiltrate the Western World and we are led to  believe they are fleeing perecution from their own country. The worst part about all this, is the majority are unskilled and unemployable and will be forever dependant on the Australian tax payer.


----------



## noco (3 September 2011)

So where to from here DEAR JU-LIAR?



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...or-julia-gillard/story-e6frgd0x-1226128419421


----------



## Julia (3 September 2011)

noco said:


> Yes,. and you can bet your boots, 90% are Muslims. It is all part of a plot to infiltrate the Western World and we are led to  believe they are fleeing perecution from their own country. The worst part about all this, is the majority are unskilled and unemployable and will be forever dependant on the Australian tax payer.



If, as seems inevitable, we're about to receive exponentially increased numbers of boat arrivals, regardless of where they are processed, a very unfortunate side effect of this is that all those people who have been waiting in the camps for years will be further pushed back. 

 These are the folk who have actually applied through the UNHCR to come to Australia.  This is a point that all those who advocate just letting all the boat arrivals straight through conveniently overlook.

We've seen some of these Burmese people in television interviews and they're immensely grateful for the opportunity to come here.  The ones I've seen totally lack the sense of entitlement and arrogance that often typifies the Muslims.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 September 2011)

Julia said:


> If, as seems inevitable, we're about to receive exponentially increased numbers of boat arrivals, regardless of where they are processed, a very unfortunate side effect of this is that all those people who have been waiting in the camps for years will be further pushed back.
> 
> These are the folk who have actually applied through the UNHCR to come to Australia.  This is a point that all those who advocate just letting all the boat arrivals straight through conveniently overlook.
> 
> We've seen some of these Burmese people in television interviews and they're immensely grateful for the opportunity to come here.  The ones I've seen totally lack the sense of entitlement and arrogance that often typifies the Muslims.




I would agree Julia, I find the immigration debate very distressing, we are talking about human beings. 

The queue for legal entry in to Australia from countries with a poor human rights record such as Malaysia, will lengthen as a result of the Gillard Labor/Green government's incompetence.

gg


----------



## joea (3 September 2011)

What I cannot understand is that in the future we are going to need food.
I see the seekers an opportunity to get a foodbowl going in the Ord or whereever.
If these people were given an opportunity to work growing food, and also an opportunity to own their own business  or whatever, Australia would be the winner.

I watched the ethnic business awards in Perth last year, and I was very moved on how some of them spoke.
What was significant to me was that, these people love Australia more than some born Australians.

Of course this is just MO.

joea


----------



## sails (3 September 2011)

joea said:


> ...I watched the ethnic business awards in Perth last year, and I was very moved on how some of them spoke.
> What was significant to me was that, these people love Australia more than some born Australians.
> 
> Of course this is just MO.
> ...




Joea, I have found genuine refugees usually make good citizens in their new country.  It's those who are posing as refugees by destroying their ID with no intention of ever working and living off the Aussie taxpayer purse  that's wrong, imo.  It is the frauds who come in the back door by boat that are also denying genuine refugees legitimate entry into this country and more likely the ones burning down our facilities.

With our border security so slack, anyone from any country can float their way here without papers and then lie about their refugee status.  If they are found not to be genuine refugees, it seems they then use our legal aid system to appeal and keep appealing until they get to stay.

The link below shows that a large percentage of boat arrivals don't end up supporting themselves and this would be in stark contrast to most genuine refugees who are keen to get on with life in their new and safer country.



> FOUR out of five refugee households are relying on welfare.
> 
> And more than 60 per cent of refugees have failed to get a job after five years, according to a damning Federal Government report into the humanitarian settlement program.
> 
> A total of 83 per cent of refugee households now rely on welfare payments for income.




Read more from the Australian by Simon Benson: Most refugee households rely on welfare


----------



## Happy (3 September 2011)

It almost looks that we should revoke signature, that effectively gave illegal boat people so much power.

Turn boats around with arrogants that expect lifetime on welfare and start again as loved Howard said that we should decide who is acceptable to our country.


----------



## Calliope (3 September 2011)

Julia said:


> We've seen some of these Burmese people in television interviews and they're immensely grateful for the opportunity to come here.  The ones I've seen totally lack the sense of entitlement and arrogance that often typifies the Muslims.




Yes these people are genuine refugees fleeing from a nasty regime. They will make excellent immigrants and a cut above the ones that turn up in the boats.


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

Just had a thought, maybe Labor aren't that stupid, if they can drop Australias living standard low enough nobody will want to come here.

Thats got merit, especialy if we are the only country in the world running on renewables and breathing clean air.

Then we can change our name to Avatar, where the rest of civilization can come and mine our world and we can fly around on the back of birds.
I think I have become a Labor/Green voter.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

This will turn out very interesting, If the left faction win and allow all processing to be in Australia, the government may as well buy some cruise liners.
The influx of asylum seekers will be phenomenal.


----------



## Calliope (5 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> This will turn out very interesting, If the left faction win and allow all processing to be in Australia, the government may as well buy some cruise liners.
> The influx of asylum seekers will be phenomenal.




Do not be surprised if a large landing-craft type ship loaded with illegals suddenly appears on a beach near you. I have heard that the smugglers are trying to procure these vessels.


----------



## Julia (5 September 2011)

The government is in a horrible position.  If they appease the Left faction it will, as pointed out above, be open slather for people smugglers and asylum seekers.  Further, it would outrage a large proportion of the electorate.

If they accept Tony Abbott's offer to co-operate in changing the legislation, they have a split within their own party.

This might, however, be worth risking for the sake of achieving a workable solution, plus it would give an appropriate message to The Greens that they're not actually running the show totally.

Bet they're wishing they'd never taken the moral high ground and dismantled all that was working so well under the Howard government.


----------



## noco (5 September 2011)

This Prime Minister of ours is so stubbin. She knows dam well, Narua is the last ditch stand and she is still trying to avoid it. She still believes she can beat the courts with the Malaysian deal.

We have a leader with half a brain and a low IQ.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-turns-the-screw/story-e6frgd0x-1226129288624


----------



## Happy (5 September 2011)

noco said:


> ...
> 
> We have a leader with half a brain and a low IQ.
> 
> ...




Not happy that even if she is changed for somebody else, at the end of day we will have 3 people with generous EX-PM entitlements for the rest of their lives !!!

(Luckily it will not account for billions it will only be sub billion, especially that there was talk about Kevin coming back so it will only be 2)


----------



## Julia (5 September 2011)

noco said:


> This Prime Minister of ours is so stubbin. She knows dam well, Narua is the last ditch stand and she is still trying to avoid it. She still believes she can beat the courts with the Malaysian deal.



The High Court ruling does not make Nauru a fail-safe option any more.  David Manne has already said he will happily lodge another high court case if the government were to adopt Nauru as their policy.

So, imo, Ms Gillard is being quite sensible in taking some time to consider all the options.  Further, there is the simple fact that most of those deemed genuine refugees while on Nauru were eventually settled in Australia anyway, so the Left has somewhat of a point in saying it simply represents an expensive geographical deviation for people who are going to come to Australia anyway.

From what I can gather at this stage, if both the government and the opposition are united in wanting to pursue offshore processing, whether in Nauru or Malaysia, there is going to have to be some change in the legislation so the Court cannot once again veto their proposals.  This will require the government and the opposition voting together, leaving the Greens fuming on the sidelines.  This is something I would just love to see.

In terms of either policy representing a block to people smugglers and asylum seekers, I'd say the Malaysia Solution would be more effective than Nauru because once sent back to Malaysia they go "to the back of the queue" and the 4000 we do take are those who have been patiently waiting in Malaysian camps.  That, imo, is how it should be.

I've seen and heard Chris Bowen in several interviews in the last few days and - considering the stress he must be under - I think he has performed well.  



> We have a leader with half a brain and a low IQ.



I'm absolutely no fan of Ms Gillard but I rather wish you'd reconsider this obsession with decrying the level of her IQ.  I have no idea what it is, but I'd say it would be above average.  IQ is no measure of political savvy or social judgment, however, or integrity for that matter, so imo her IQ is less relevant than the above factors.

You can have a person with a genius level IQ, noco, and that person can be socially inept and utterly lacking in e.g. political judgment.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

The stupidity was in dismantling a sytem that was in place and was working, the influx of refugees taking the treacherous route had ceased.
Like all good debaters the story will change and adapt to suit the present circumstance, irrispective of whether it was self induced.


----------



## sails (6 September 2011)

Julia said:


> The High Court ruling does not make Nauru a fail-safe option any more.  David Manne has already said he will happily lodge another high court case if the government were to adopt Nauru as their policy....





Julia, as I understand it, Abbott is offering bipartisan support to legislate necessary changes to our migration act to allow offshore processing to countries who are signatories to the UNHCR.  That will make it difficult for the likes of David Manne to use our legal aid system to fight us in the high court with our taxpayer funds if the offshore processing is humane and under the control of Australians.

If labor and the coalition combine, they will override the green vote in the senate and easily have the numbers to support changes in legislation.

Something needs to be done urgently, imo, otherwise Australia will literally be taken over by queue jumpers who may not even be genuine refugees.  There are only 22 million of us and many of those are children, elderly or on welfare leaving a huge financial strain on a those  who are working to support so many unskilled people and let alone our own homeless.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-people-policy-again-20110904-1jsh6.html#poll


----------



## Happy (6 September 2011)

sails said:


> …
> Something needs to be done urgently, imo, otherwise Australia will literally be taken over by queue jumpers who may not even be genuine refugees.  There are only 22 million of us …





Yes are only 22 millions of us and if you exclude groups with other interests at heart, when for example religion comes first then nation and even not sure if our nation numbers drastically change.

Further demographic dilution will democratically take away any powers that we have left and all of the sudden we will become foreigners in our own country.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 September 2011)

Happy said:


> Yes are only 22 millions of us and if you exclude groups with other interests at heart, when for example religion comes first then nation and even not sure if our nation numbers drastically change.
> 
> Further demographic dilution will democratically take away any powers that we have left and all of the sudden we will become foreigners in our own country.




This has nothing to do with it.
Immigration was tripled under the Howard government and the boat people make up less than 1% of that.

Sails, the High Court has spoken and even if the LIbs and Labourites went into coalition it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The only way out is to back out of the refugee agreement we signed with the UN. Then we could do what we liked. The fact is we did sign it and therefore the High Court has the power to hold us to it.


----------



## Julia (6 September 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Sails, the High Court has spoken and even if the LIbs and Labourites went into coalition it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The only way out is to back out of the refugee agreement we signed with the UN. Then we could do what we liked. The fact is we did sign it and therefore the High Court has the power to hold us to it.



Well, why are both the government and the opposition openly discussing changing the Migration Act, *clearly saying that the aim in so doing would be to put their chosen policy beyond the reach of the Court?*

I've heard interviews with more than one so called legal expert which have suggested this is indeed quite possible.


----------



## Calliope (6 September 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> This has nothing to do with it.
> Immigration was tripled under the Howard government and the boat people make up less than 1% of that.




Yeah, but we chose the 99%. This 1% of privileged opportunists chose us. And there are many bad apples among them.



> During the riot at the centre (Villawood) in April, when nine buildings were set alight, medical equipment including a machine for testing multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis was destroyed by inmates.
> 
> The machine was being used to test the effectiveness of antibiotics given to tuberculosis carriers. Multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis is the most dangerous form of tuberculosis and has been found among Afghans arriving by boat.
> 
> ...





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...n-with-ship-20110904-1js8n.html#ixzz1X8q8NAFE


----------



## Knobby22 (6 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Well, why are both the government and the opposition openly discussing changing the Migration Act, *clearly saying that the aim in so doing would be to put their chosen policy beyond the reach of the Court?*
> 
> I've heard interviews with more than one so called legal expert which have suggested this is indeed quite possible.




Maybe, but I have heard opinions also that it isn't possible (including David Manne). We shall see. The problem is not so much the offshore processing but sending the ones we don't want back. If they all end up being accepted then what''s the point? I actually think we should tear up our treaty and renegotiate a new one, if both parties agreed to that it could be done. The arg=ument the Libs used was that they didn't enter Australia so we can do what we like. My reading of the High court is that we can't. Hope I am wrong.

Calliope, You misunderstood my point. Happy was talking about demographic dilution. This is caused by our huge increase in immigration.


----------



## sails (6 September 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> This has nothing to do with it.
> Immigration was tripled under the Howard government and the boat people make up less than 1% of that.
> 
> Sails, the High Court has spoken and even if the LIbs and Labourites went into coalition it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The only way out is to back out of the refugee agreement we signed with the UN. Then we could do what we liked. The fact is we did sign it and therefore the High Court has the power to hold us to it.





Knobby, you may be correct, however, I thought the courts are there to uphold the law as set out by by our legislators and passed by both houses of parliament.  If that's not the case, then shouldn't Australia should withdraw from the UN until there can be a satisfactory method of preventing criminals and religious groups from taking over this country?  It doesn't seem fair to the genuine refugees that rorters can potentially jump the queue illegally and then use our legal aid system to fight being sent home.

If the high court can decide what is law and what isn't, what's the point of having two houses in parliament? 

I understand Abbott is willing to side with labor so that laws can be sucessfully passed without the greens meddling and which would enable off shore processing with other UNHCR countries.

PS - sorry - had a couple of interruptions while typing this post and I see there's been further discussion which probably answers my questions.  Although David Manne might feel he owns the world with his high court win, but that doesn't necessarily make him an expert on legislating law.


----------



## Calliope (6 September 2011)

If Abbott has his wits about him he should do everything in his power to facilitate Gillard's offshore policy, whether Malaysian or Pacific, by legislation.

This could achieve good outcomes;

. continue disruption in the Labor party

. upset all the open-door luvvies like David Manne

. wipe the smirk off Bob Brown's face.


----------



## Julia (6 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> If Abbott has his wits about him he should do everything in his power to facilitate Gillard's offshore policy, whether Malaysian or Pacific, by legislation.
> 
> This could achieve good outcomes;
> 
> ...



Agree on all points.  The Libs have nothing to lose and much to gain by offering a bipartisan approach on this.


----------



## noco (6 September 2011)

I'm absolutely no fan of Ms Gillard but I rather wish you'd reconsider this obsession with decrying the level of her IQ.  I have no idea what it is, but I'd say it would be above average.  IQ is no measure of political savvy or social judgment, however, or integrity for that matter, so imo her IQ is less relevant than the above factors.

You can have a person with a genius level IQ, noco, and that person can be socially inept and utterly lacking in e.g. political judgment.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the 'hollier than thou sermon' on my comments relating to our Prime Minister's intelligents, however, when one looks back at the decisions she has made or approved viz....the Carbon tax she said she would not bring in under the government she leads..........the premature annoucement on East Timor.............the error she made on the Malaysian deal...........the verbal roasting she gave the high court on their decision to prevent sending illegal boat people, including children, back to Malayasia................the verbaling of the CEO of News Limited over her dealings with the AWU boss Mr. Wilson where she set up a bogus account for him to rort union members.......... the BER debacle..............can only lead  77% of the Australian voters to  form one opinion and that  is the intellect of this woman to make sound decisions in the interest of this nation is extremely poor and that must relate to her IQ.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful until somebody tries their hardist to gag you..


----------



## Julia (6 September 2011)

Noco, we will have to simply disagree about how IQ is measured.  

Meantime, here's the link for how to use the Quote Tags:

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=Tags


----------



## noco (6 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Noco, we will have to simply disagree about how IQ is measured.
> 
> Meantime, here's the link for how to use the Quote Tags:
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=Tags




Thanks for the link Julia, I often tried to work out how it was impilmented and I note you may have had the same problem back in 2005.


----------



## Julia (7 September 2011)

noco said:


> Thanks for the link Julia, I often tried to work out how it was impilmented and I note you may have had the same problem back in 2005.




Indeed I did.  Undoubtedly a reflection of my low IQ.


----------



## noco (7 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Indeed I did.  Undoubtedly a reflection of my low IQ.




Come on now Julia, you don't have to be like that.


----------



## Julia (7 September 2011)

Noco, your insistence that Ms Gillard must have a very low IQ, and the basis on which you have come to this conclusion which I regard as faulty to say the least, prompted me to put the question to her biographer, Jacqueline Kent, who - having spent countless hours with Ms Gillard in the preparation of her book - would be in a position to make an informed judgment.

You might be interested in her reply to my email:



> Dear Julia
> She certainly doesn't have 'a low IQ'.  She is a highly intelligent woman. I agree with you that political acumen and judgment, etc., are not measured by IQ tests.
> Cheers
> Jacquie


----------



## sptrawler (8 September 2011)

Well as we predicted, here come the boats.
Prepare to repel boarders. LOL
Yes with Julia and Wayne we are in safe hands.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/10211088/new-wave-of-asylum-boats-to-land-in-days/


----------



## sptrawler (8 September 2011)

Maybe the answer is for Bob Brown to have them in Tasmania. He cares enough, maybe he could locate them in his electorate untill they are processed. 
Fat chance of that happening eh Bob.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-cruel-territory/story-fn3dxity-1226132237076


----------



## Happy (8 September 2011)

Looks that we lost control of our borders big way!

Next thing our welfare budget will be blown out as after 5 years 80% of those who pay up to $12,000 per seat on boat are on welfare payments.


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2011)

All the indications are that if Abbott doesn't support legislation to make the Malaysia solution foolproof, we will end up processing the boat people on the mainland.

Forget Nauru, there is no other solution. Gillard would win back the left. the Greens and all the illegal migrant support luvvies.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2011)

Tony Abbott will be very foolish if he doesn't allow Ms Gillard her Malaysian solution. He will win the next election and then have to deal with the thousands of asylum seekers streaming in, secure in the knowledge they will have immediate access to living in the community in Australia.

Meanwhile, all those already proven refugees who are waiting in camps in Malaysia will just be ignored.

Imo it's as much in the opposition's interest to allow the Malaysian deal as it is in the government's.


----------



## noco (10 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Tony Abbott will be very foolish if he doesn't allow Ms Gillard her Malaysian solution. He will win the next election and then have to deal with the thousands of asylum seekers streaming in, secure in the knowledge they will have immediate access to living in the community in Australia.
> 
> Meanwhile, all those already proven refugees who are waiting in camps in Malaysia will just be ignored.
> 
> Imo it's as much in the opposition's interest to allow the Malaysian deal as it is in the government's.




I do not see your point in quoting Abbott as foolish for not allowing Gillard her Malaysian deal. 

Would you prefer to allow Gillard to send unaccompanied children back to Malaysia without education and health care. Anyone who would go along with Gillard's Malaysian solution would not appear to have much compassion for these kids.

The first step Abbott shoud do is to Legislate on a bi-partisan basis with Labor to change the immigration act and take the next step from there.


----------



## bellenuit (10 September 2011)

noco said:


> I do not see your point in quoting Abbott as foolish for not allowing Gillard her Malaysian deal.
> 
> Would you prefer to allow Gillard to send unaccompanied children back to Malaysia without education and health care. Anyone who would go along with Gillard's Malaysian solution would not appear to have much compassion for these kids.
> 
> The first step Abbott shoud do is to Legislate on a bi-partisan basis with Labor to change the immigration act and take the next step from there.




I agree with those who say Abbott should make the changes necessary to allow the Malaysian solution to be implemented. Not to do so will backfire on him when the coalition eventually gain government.

Noco, while I agree that sending unaccompanied children to Malaysia is distasteful, in the long run it may be for the best if it stops the boats, which it may well do. Perhaps accept genuine orphans into Australia, but send children whose parents are using them as bargaining chips to Malaysia. They will be no worse off than the thousands of children already waiting in Malaysia, whose opportunity to come to Australia has been delayed by boat arrivals.  Presumably their parents will use the money that they would have spent on people smugglers to instead go to Malaysia to meet up with the children or spend the money bringing the kids back to Indonesia or wherever they took the boat from.

There is no non-distasteful solution other than Australia saying they will accept everyone that wants to get here no matter what.


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2011)

If Labor wants the Coalition to support Malaysia, Labor should at the very least support the Coalition's policies such as Nauru and tempory protection visas.

Labor, after all, took something that wasn't broken and wrecked it.


----------



## bellenuit (10 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> If Labor wants the Coalition to support Malaysia, Labor should at the very least support the Coalition's policies such as Nauru and tempory protection visas.
> 
> Labor, after all, took something that wasn't broken and wrecked it.




I don't think The Coalition should insist that Labor use Nauru as a solution, but they should ensure that whatever legislation is enacted also allows Nauru to be used. That will give them the option to use Nauru should they regain government and find that the Malaysian solution doesn't work for whatever reason, or isn't enough on it own.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2011)

noco said:


> I do not see your point in quoting Abbott as foolish for not allowing Gillard her Malaysian deal.



Can't you see that if he doesn't accept their determination to include Malaysia and is rigid about not providing support to the legislation for this, the alternative will be that the Labor Left and the Greens will get their way and have all asylum seekers processed on the mainland.  The detention centres can't cope with the anticipated influx if this happens and the asylum seekers will have to be housed in the community.  Is this what you want to happen?

It's pretty clear that the government want to persist with the Malaysia deal and I agree with them that the deterrent effect of this will be considerable.
Nauru *on its own* which is what Tony Abbott is insisting upon, is simply not the same deterrent.

Ideally both sides will accept the other's point of view and the upshot will be an offshore solution which incorporates both Malaysia and Nauru.

Bellenuit makes a good point about genuine orphans being definitely accepted here and appropriately cared for.  They are a totally different category to those sent by parents as bait for the whole extended family to later be added.

The government have never categorically said that unaccompanied minors will be sent to Malaysia.  Rather they have said each case will be assessed individually.  That seems reasonable and sensible.



> The first step Abbott shoud do is to Legislate on a bi-partisan basis with Labor to change the immigration act and take the next step from there.



Well, yes, obviously, but it's that next step that matters.  What do you suggest this next step should be, assuming the migration act is duly changed?



bellenuit said:


> I don't think The Coalition should insist that Labor use Nauru as a solution, but they should ensure that whatever legislation is enacted also allows Nauru to be used. That will give them the option to use Nauru should they regain government and find that the Malaysian solution doesn't work for whatever reason, or isn't enough on it own.



Exactly.


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Nauru *on its own* which is what Tony Abbott is insisting upon, is simply not the same deterrent.



I assume the context of this remark relates to location of offshore processing only and not broader asylum seeker policy as a whole.

In relation to Malaysia, does it follow that the Coalition should support processing them on Mars if it was on Labor's list of options ?

Let's not forget that Labor lost its moral compass with its Malaysian solution.


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2011)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think The Coalition should insist that Labor use Nauru as a solution, but they should ensure that whatever legislation is enacted also allows Nauru to be used. That will give them the option to use Nauru should they regain government and find that the Malaysian solution doesn't work for whatever reason, or isn't enough on it own.



I personally think Tony Abbott should keep his cards close to his chest and let Labor stew in its own juice. 

The card to play may then become more obvious as the situation evolves.

What's disturbing about this discussion is that the focus has turned to Tony Abbott when the current problems are purely of the government's making.


----------



## startrader (11 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> I personally think Tony Abbott should keep his cards close to his chest and let Labor stew in its own juice.
> 
> The card to play may then become more obvious as the situation evolves.
> 
> What's disturbing about this discussion is that the focus has turned to Tony Abbott when the current problems are purely of the government's making.




I totally agree.  He shouldn't be supporting such an ill-conceived plan, which in my opinion was never going to work.  Labor had the solution to stopping the boats staring them in the face but had to do things their way which, as usual, was a complete stuffup and which has just created a new set of problems.  

The Libs know how to stop the boats and when they get back into power that's what they will do.


----------



## noco (11 September 2011)

startrader said:


> I totally agree.  He shouldn't be supporting such an ill-conceived plan, which in my opinion was never going to work.  Labor had the solution to stopping the boats staring them in the face but had to do things their way which, as usual, was a complete stuffup and which has just created a new set of problems.
> 
> The Libs know how to stop the boats and when they get back into power that's what they will do.




Yes and I concur.

Fisrt thing Abbott has to do is change the immigration act with bi-partisan support from Gillard. Brown won't like it, but who cares.

Secondly, Abbott has to pull out of the UNHCR convention.

Thirdly, Abbott has to strenghten boarder security and start turning the boats back to where they came from before they cross into Australian waters without outside influence to the contrary. As John Howard quoted,"we will decide who comes to Australia and the manner in which they come". No more offshore/onshore processing.

IMHO I do not believe these boat people are genuine refugees but a plot in gigantic proportions to infiltrate the Western World with Muslims. The Muslim movement are seeking an Islamic World state with Sharia law. The larger the Muslim population grows in the Western World the greater influence they will have on our society.  Denmark and Holland are already taking drastic steps and I believe a Dutch MP is to be interviewed on ABC on Monday. The Muslim population is rapidy growing some four times that of the Western World.

Our new immigration policy should include people who not Muslim, can speak English and have some trade or professional qualifications. This happened after WW11 when our immigration policy allowed English, German and Italian tradesmen into Australia. 

Do we really need these illegal immigrants here to bludge on our welfare for the rest of their lives?

Wake up Australia before it is too late. Put the "FULL HOUSE SIGN" NOW.


----------



## Calliope (11 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> I personally think Tony Abbott should keep his cards close to his chest and let Labor stew in its own juice.
> 
> The card to play may then become more obvious as the situation evolves.
> 
> What's disturbing about this discussion is that the focus has turned to Tony Abbott when the current problems are purely of the government's making.




It is not at all disturbing. It is about common sense. Julia and bellenuit are right on the money.

The problem is that the Coalition could stew in the same juice. The overriding necessity is for the Government and the Coalition to combine to legalise an off-shore solution. This is the first priority. For Labor this would legitimise  the Malaysia solution. If Abbott wins the next election he could legally change to his Pacific solution.

The result of Abbott's non-cooperation would be that a future Coalition would have nowhere to go but to accept on-shore processing, which is the least attractive option for most Australians.


----------



## sails (11 September 2011)

I think the coalition would go ahead and re-instate the Pacific Solution when they get back into power.  If that is either disallowed by the high court or the senate blocks it, I guess they could look at pulling out of the UNHCR convention. Perhaps this could be done by referrendum.

With the anniversary of September 11th, I think there are valid concerns as to who is coming into our country posing as refugees.  How many terrorists are on those boats?  These are vexing questions and clearly our border security should be tightened to keep this country and her citizens safe.


Julie Bishop spoke of this issue on Bolt's show this morning and seemed pretty confident of the coalition's position. (The show should be repeated around 4:30pm - channel 10.)


----------



## noco (11 September 2011)

sails said:


> I think the coalition would go ahead and re-instate the Pacific Solution when they get back into power.  If that is either disallowed by the high court or the senate blocks it, I guess they could look at pulling out of the UNHCR convention. Perhaps this could be done by referrendum.
> 
> With the anniversary of September 11th, I think there are valid concerns as to who is coming into our country posing as refugees.  How many terrorists are on those boats?  These are vexing questions and clearly our border security should be tightened to keep this country and her citizens safe.
> 
> ...




Yes Sails that is my argument also. If one out of a hundred were terrorists, then that is one too many.

Stop the boats and save our tax payers money and the fear of terrorists.


----------



## DB008 (11 September 2011)

Maybe we could take some lessons from the Dutch?

ABC - Foreign Correspondant - The stop and go back man
(Video at top of article)



> Once they were renowned for their easy going attitude to just about everything. Marijuana and gay marriage, legalised euthanasia. To be Dutch was to be inclusive and proudly multicultural, socially progressive and accepting of difference.
> 
> Today, it’s spun 180 degrees and is speeding in the other direction. Friction has grown between ethnic communities and minorities such that the government has declared its experiment with multiculturalism over. New laws have been passed making it much harder for prospective immigrants. They must now speak Dutch and show they’ve hit a basic salary scale before they’re allowed to join relatives already living there. And there’s a push to outlaw face coverings, and stop the construction of mosques.
> 
> “I would not want to live or my children or grandchildren to live in a country where the ideology of Islam becomes more dominant every day, because the more Islam you have in a society, the less freedom you will have.” Geert Wilders, Freedom Party.


----------



## noco (11 September 2011)

DB008 said:


> Maybe we could take some lessons from the Dutch?
> 
> ABC - Foreign Correspondant - The stop and go back man
> (Video at top of article)




Thanks Dannyboy, I watched that video twice and hope every other Australia can watch and take note.

Is it too late for Australia to heed the warning? I don't believe so, so long as we could be blessed with a strong politician like Gerrt Wilders to take a stand. If we don't we will end up with an ethnic division of gigantic proportions. This illegal refugee situation we are currently faced with is a SCAM.

 Perhaps Geert Wilders on his visit to Australia late this year or early next year will wake up Australia as to what is going on with the Islamic movement throughout the world today.

We are in the enviable position of being surrounded by water where as in Europe, boarder crossing become easy. Our boarders can and must be controlled to stop this influx.

Let us continue to call Australia OUR HOME.


----------



## drsmith (11 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> The problem is that the Coalition could stew in the same juice. The overriding necessity is for the Government and the Coalition to combine to legalise an off-shore solution. This is the first priority.



True, but that does not mean that the Coalition has to accept Labor's Malaysia solution as part of any deal between the two parties.


----------



## sptrawler (11 September 2011)

I think the Malaysian solution has more holes than Swiss cheese, there is very little hope of getting it up. The problem is you can't guarantee their safety, whereas with Nauru you can.
As for it not being a deterrent, it never was it was the temporary visas that were the deterrent.
Gillard is trying to pull the wool over Abbott, if he agrees to push through with Malaysia it all falls over and the Greens win and Julia walks away smilling. IMO


----------



## drsmith (11 September 2011)

Malaysia in return for TPV's is a card in TA's hands.


----------



## Calliope (12 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> As for it not being a deterrent, it never was it was the temporary visas that were the deterrent.
> Gillard is trying to pull the wool over Abbott, if he agrees to push through with Malaysia it all falls over and the Greens win and Julia walks away smilling. IMO




In other words  Nauru would be no different to Christmas island, and be more expensive. So what's the big attraction?

As for Malaysia being a Green's win. The Greens are the loudest opposition to the Malaysian solution. Without Liberal support for Gillard legislation, off-shore processing woud be dead in the water for all time.

I can't believe that Abbott would be so short sighted as to oppose changing the legislation. When he becomes PM he will need *off-shore processing.*


----------



## Julia (12 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I
> Gillard is trying to pull the wool over Abbott, if he agrees to push through with Malaysia it all falls over and the Greens win and Julia walks away smilling. IMO



What on earth do you mean "the Greens win" if TA agrees to Malaysia?
The Greens are apopleptic about Malaysia!


----------



## Happy (12 September 2011)

noco said:


> …
> Perhaps Geert Wilders on his visit to Australia late this year or early next year will wake up Australia as to what is going on with the Islamic movement throughout the world today.
> 
> …





Heard comments that he might not be allowed to enter Australia as some people stir up already.

Toyed with idea, how much pride would have to swallow each side for Labor and Liberals to form the block to put Greens back a bit?


----------



## Calliope (12 September 2011)

Happy said:


> Heard comments that he might not be allowed to enter Australia as some people stir up already.
> 
> Toyed with idea, how much pride would have to swallow each side for Labor and Liberals to form the block to put Greens back a bit?




Forget about pride and think *common sense*. The Greens are a far greater danger to Australia's well being than Labor, and the Greens are as big a threat to Labor as to the Liberals.

If Capitalism could combine with Communism to defeat the Nazis, then Labor and Liberal should combine in the Senate to defeat the Green scourge to achieve tactical victories, when it is in Australia's best interests.


----------



## Calliope (12 September 2011)

The Coalition's muddled thinking on the Malaysian solution is emphasised by coalition spokesman Scott Morrison's fallacious argument in The Australian today;



> THE government's great failing on its Malaysia proposal is not that Immigration Minister Chris Bowen failed to have a crystal ball on the decision of the High Court. The problem is that he failed to put any meaningful protections in place in Malaysia for the people, including children, that he wanted to send there.
> 
> There is no doubt the High Court decision has changed judicial interpretation of the Minister's discretionary powers under section 198A of the Migration Act. However, that does not excuse the primary weakness of the Minister's policy, and now lack thereof, that adequate protections were not in place. These protections seemed to be of secondary importance to the government and once again Labor had failed to think its policy through.




He deliberately ignores the fact that the vastly improved conditions for the 4000 genuine refugees we take in exchange, would greatly off-set any problems the 800 illegals would face. Besides the boat people always have the option of going home. The refugees in Malaysia from Burma do not have this option.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-sunk-from-start/story-e6frgd0x-1226134275371


----------



## Julia (12 September 2011)

From the above article by Scott Morrison:


> But it is not just the protections that are deficient in this policy. The limit of just 800 transfers creates a clear use-by date that can be tactically exhausted by the people-smugglers. This has become obvious to everyone other than the government, when, after signing the agreement, more than 300 people had turned up. That figure now stands at more than 400. Since the agreement was first announced almost 1000 people have arrived. For this arrangement to have the deterrent effect the government boldly claims, it would have to be open ended, as is the case with temporary protection visas. If the transfers are conditional upon receiving additional refugees at a rate of five to one, then this presents significant problems for achieving an open-ended arrangement.



Little attention seems to have been directed toward this very relevant point.  What is the government's plan when the 800 limit has been reached?

If the Coalition refuse to co-operate unless Nauru is specified rather than Malaysia, there's no way the government can get this legislation through.  How is that going to advantage the Opposition in the longer term? 

  Can anyone who supports the Opposition's rigid stand on Nauru but not Malaysia explain why we would not then end up with no offshore facility and therefore the Greens' solution of onshore processing with non-proven refugees being housed in the community?

If anyone thinks the Opposition can veto the government's proposal now, and then magically get their co-operation to change the law when they take government, they're dreaming.

Further, on Nauru, if that were to go ahead, aren't those who are eventually proven to be genuine refugees going to be settled in Australia anyway, as has happened in the past?  What other countries are going to feel obliged to take them?


----------



## sptrawler (16 September 2011)

You have to love how thick skinned Conroy is, he epitomises the arrogance and stupidity of this Government.
Watching him on T.V saying it is the oppositions fault a tsunami of boats are going to arrive, just cracks me up.
Hello wasn't there a policy in place that had stopped the boats, when they came into office.
This is the fundamental fault with this Government, they persist in the belief that voters are stupid.
The real problem is that the Government are putting in place policy and projects that are going to set us back years.IMO
Actually watching Conroy reminds me of a lot of fire and brimstone union meetings I have attended. Looking back I see how naive I was, time has shown how shallow a lot of the narrators were.
By the way Malaysia are still keen, suprise, suprise.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dont-give-up-on-deal-malaysia-20110915-1kbzv.html


----------



## sails (16 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Further, on Nauru, if that were to go ahead, aren't those who are eventually proven to be genuine refugees going to be settled in Australia anyway, as has happened in the past?  What other countries are going to feel obliged to take them?





Julia, I don't know all the ins and outs of the Pacific Solution, however what I have heard is that the Temporary Protection Visas were an important part of the solution together with a place such as Nauru.

I heard recently on the Bolt Report from either  John Howard or Julie Bishop (as I recall) saying there were only *four* arrivals left in detention when Rudd took over.

According to the chart below, there were around 400 arrivals in the six years from the time the Pacific Solution was introduced in 2002 to the time it was abolished in 2008.  You can also see the dramatic drop in the chart below.  It looks as if those trying to get in illegally (fraudsters posing as refugees) decided not to come.  Possibly because they didn't have access to our free legal aid system being in Nauru and with TPVs.

If we could again reduce arrivals to genuine refugees, then Australia could fly in more genuine refugees such as some of these in Malaysia.  But while we are overrun with anyone from any country on earth who has the money and ID to fly themselves into Indonesia and then more thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers while thowing their ID overboard, it is denying genuine refugees a chance of a better life. It is also wasting Australian resources in trying to sort out who is genuine. 

And, in my experience, genuine refugees are far less likely to be burning our property down or trying to make their religion law in their new country.  Genuine refugees are usually people who want to support themselves and who will assimilate into their new country. 

I suppose the Pacific Solution including TPVs  is a proven system where the Malaysian deal is not.  I am all for giving genuine refugees fleeing persecution a fair go and it seems the Pacific Solution did just that.


And this chart below was done earlier in the year, so the 2011 bar would now be much longer:


----------



## drsmith (16 September 2011)

Julia said:


> From the above article by Scott Morrison:
> 
> Little attention seems to have been directed toward this very relevant point.  What is the government's plan when the 800 limit has been reached?
> 
> ...



Watching the ABC news last night, Tony Abbott has broadened his commentary to include Nauru and tempory protection visa's, or to put it more broadly, to reflect the Coalition's policies.

Smart move.

Labor was quiet happy to support the Greens policy of a carbon tax this term in return for their cooperation, despite what it said prior to the election on pricing carbon.


----------



## Julia (16 September 2011)

sails said:


> Julia, I don't know all the ins and outs of the Pacific Solution, however what I have heard is that the Temporary Protection Visas were an important part of the solution together with a place such as Nauru.
> 
> I heard recently on the Bolt Report from either  John Howard or Julie Bishop (as I recall) saying there were only *four* arrivals left in detention when Rudd took over.
> 
> ...



Agree entirely with all you say, Sails.  I'm just a bit concerned that if the Libs believe they can just revert to using Nauru as they did in the past, they could find themselves facing a similar High Court challenge as has just occurred.  For that reason, imo they'd be better to co-operate in establishing legislation that precludes such a court challenge.



drsmith said:


> Watching the ABC news last night, Tony Abbott has broadened his commentary to include Nauru and tempory protection visa's, or to put it more broadly, to reflect the Coalition's policies.
> 
> Smart move.
> 
> Labor was quiet happy to support the Greens policy of a carbon tax this term in return for their cooperation, despite what it said prior to the election on pricing carbon.



So you're suggesting Labor should in this instance be similarly prepared to go with everything the Libs want in order to get their co-operation?


----------



## drsmith (16 September 2011)

Julia said:


> So you're suggesting Labor should in this instance be similarly prepared to go with everything the Libs want in order to get their co-operation?



If they were to be consistent, yes. 

While both sides publically support offshore processing, Tony Abbott has every right to strip some remaining flesh off this rotting carcass of a Labor government in return for his support.

Lets not forget that this whole situation is Labor's mess. It's not up to the opposition to hand out a get out of jail free card whenever the government trips and falls flat on its face.

Ultimately, Julia might have to go back to the Greens. If she does, it might test the price in principal are they prepared to pay for their carbon tax.


----------



## Julia (16 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> If they were to be consistent, yes.
> 
> While both sides publically support offshore processing, Tony Abbott has every right to strip some remaining flesh off this rotting carcass of a Labor government in return for his support.
> 
> ...



I totally agree - when just looking at the short term.

But imo it's in the best interests of both major parties to co-operate on this. 
As I understand what Ms Gillard is currently proposing, it will be up to the government of the day to use whatever offshore facility they choose.  Ergo, the government gets its Malaysia deal and the Opposition gets Nauru.

I don't think if the Coalition agree to this, they can reasonably be accused of "approving of Malaysia", but rather the broader principle of being able to decide where asylum seekers are to be processed.

I expect there will be some horse trading happening eventually, maybe the government will have to write in the acceptance of TPV's, and they'll both reluctantly come to a compromise.  The alternative is, I'd have thought, completely unacceptable to both parties.


----------



## IFocus (16 September 2011)

1st time Abbott has put himself into a position that may well wedge him.

The Pacific Solution was never really tested from push factors a minor fact largely over looked by conservative commentators.

Part of the coalition pass policy was to turn back boats that is push them back to Indonesia, yes that would be to put them into an uncertain future.

Would that be more uncertain than Malaysia which Morrison is crying is inhuman?   

Given Abbott will win the next election he would be a fool to give up Malaysia as an option as its the only real start to a regional solution.


----------



## sails (16 September 2011)

Julia said:


> I totally agree - when just looking at the short term.
> 
> But imo it's in the best interests of both major parties to co-operate on this.
> As I understand what Ms Gillard is currently proposing, it will be up to the government of the day to use whatever offshore facility they choose.  Ergo, the government gets its Malaysia deal and the Opposition gets Nauru.
> ...




Interesting Telegraph article from Piers Akerman: *There is only one solution - Labor must go*


----------



## drsmith (16 September 2011)

Julia said:


> I totally agree - when just looking at the short term.
> 
> But imo it's in the best interests of both major parties to co-operate on this.
> As I understand what Ms Gillard is currently proposing.......



I read the above, and the following question comes to mind,

In terms of co-operation, why is Tony Abbott limited to agreeing with what Julia Gillard has proposed ?



Julia said:


> I don't think if the Coalition agree to this, they can reasonably be accused of "approving of Malaysia", but rather the broader principle of being able to decide where asylum seekers are to be processed.



Not reasonably, but they can be accused. According to Labor, the opposition are somehow responsible for solving the current problem even though they are not in office.

That's politics.


----------



## drsmith (16 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> 1st time Abbott has put himself into a position that may well wedge him.
> 
> The Pacific Solution was never really tested from push factors a minor fact largely over looked by conservative commentators.
> 
> ...



After the mess Labor has made of this.


----------



## Julia (16 September 2011)

sails said:


> Interesting Telegraph article from Piers Akerman: *There is only one solution - Labor must go*



 It's pretty silly for commentators to be repeating the mantra "Labor Must Go" and mr Akerman should know better.

Why on earth would the government willingly go to an election they are certain to lose?
And no other party has the capacity to bring on an election.

So to continue to make remarks like this is imo simply unrealistic and failing to deal with the reality of the current situation.

For those of you who are certain Mr Abbott should not give any ground in allowing the government to instigate legislation which will prevent the courts in the future deciding government policy on immigration, what exactly do you think will happen when Gillard & Co are unable to get this legislation through?

Why do you not think that then the Greens et al will get their way and any and all asylum seekers will have to come to mainland Australia where they will be housed in the community while being processed simply because our detention centres are full.
Is this what you actually want?

And then, projecting forward to the Coalition winning the next election, how exactly do you believe they are going to get legislation through themselves legitimising offshore processing?

I've asked this before, but no one has provided an answer, just continued to say that Tony Abbott should not get the government out of its mess.
Why are you not feeling able to consider that it will become the Coalition's mess when they take government and then - having been thwarted at this stage - there will be no way in the world Labor will be prepared to play ball with the sort of legislation they themselves are proposing at present.

Further, according to "PM" this evening, there is being mounted by a national coalition of legal aid lawyers court challenges for many who are charged with people smuggling.
Flushed with the success of the recent High Court case, they are now proposing that it should not be considered illegal to bring asylum seekers to Australia.

If the Courts follow the example recently set, this bunch of lawyers are likely to be successful and if so, can't you just anticipate the unrestricted flow of boats that will follow??

Fantastic that taxpayer funded legal aid can be so readily made available for people smugglers whilst many Australian taxpayers in disadvantaged circumstances are unable to get any legal aid at all.


----------



## sptrawler (16 September 2011)

I still think Tasmania has merit as the Australian based detention centre camp.
Also in honour of Bob Brown being the main driving force behind onshore processing.
I feel the detention centre camps should be named in his honour.
Therefore I put forward the next detention centre camp is called. I tried a few names but they didn't read quite right.
Camp Tassie
Camp -------.
Tassie detention camp
Camp Van Demon


----------



## drsmith (17 September 2011)

Julia,

It's looking like Tony Abbott is asking Julia Gillard to adopt his policies as a whole for his support. 

That puts the ball firmly back into the PM's court.



> Earlier in the day, in Melbourne, Mr Abbott was briefed about the proposed new laws.
> 
> Mr Abbott has repeatedly said he did not believe the Federal Government should proceed with its Malaysian solution, because he said it was a bad deal.
> 
> ...



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...r-migration-laws/story-fn7x8me2-1226139293218


----------



## Calliope (17 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> Julia,
> It's looking like Tony Abbott is asking Julia Gillard to adopt his policies as a whole for his support.
> That puts the ball firmly back into the PM's court.




You think so? It is strange that Laura Tingle of the Fairfax press, can sum up neatly the stupidity of Abbott's shortsightedness, which people on this thread confuse for good tactics.



> The Coalition appeared to move this week beyond considering the implications of its own actions in the interests of getting into office. Bugger actually having any policies: Tony Abbott, seeking a short-term political gain against a mortally wounded government, *is leading an alternative which is prepared to destroy things it may itself need.*



(My bolds)


----------



## drsmith (17 September 2011)

Laura's Tingle's comments (above) are difficult to understand. First, the Coalition does have a policy (see quote within my above post) and Labor are the ones who have destroyed resulting in the current situation. It's Labor's problem first and foremost as they are the ones currently in office (I don't say power as that currently resides with the Greens and independents).

It's actually shortsighted for Tony Abbott to capitulate to Labor when Labor itself created the current mess. 

It's good tactics for Tony Abbott to negotiate. He is overwhelmingly in a strong position. Labor has little choice but to negotiate if it does not want to lose office over this issue, which was their overriding consideration in relation to Malaysia in the first place. 

As for the negotiations, do I now hear in the distance the trembling voice of Julia Gillard saying, Please Tony pleeeease, help me pleeeease ?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...r-migration-laws/story-fn7x8me2-1226139293218


----------



## Julia (17 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> Julia,
> It's looking like Tony Abbott is asking Julia Gillard to adopt his policies as a whole for his support.
> 
> That puts the ball firmly back into the PM's court.




Well, that scenario does at least make sense and would explain his present dogmatic stand.  And I suppose it's not as risky as it seems on the basis that Ms Gillard seems determined not to cave in to the Greens on this.

Mr Abbott, however, is taking a pretty audacious gamble if he's prepared to consider nothing other than Nauru and TPV's written in stone.  If he can bring it off it will be a huge political victory for him.   

I can't begin to imagine the humiliation the government must be presently feeling in having to effectively grovel to Mr Abbott.
Maybe if they'd been a bit less free with some of the insults in the Chamber, they might not be meeting such intense resistance.


----------



## sptrawler (17 September 2011)

I think Mr Abbott and drsmith have called this exactly right. 
Why panic and fold to bring in stupid legislation, that will be the laughing stock of the world.
Can you imagine it ' Australia legislates that you can send your refugees anywhere, can we rent a space shuttle '. 
The whole idea of giving the minister the right to send people anywhere is stupid. Typical knee jerk reaction .
I tend to think Abbott is a lot smarter than people give him credit for.
When he continues his way through the school of hard knocks, I am sure he will emerge a terrific leader.

However it it all falls over, chuck the boat people in BOB'S backyard.


----------



## Calliope (18 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I tend to think Abbott is a lot smarter than people give him credit for.




He's not to bright if the Greens and the Labor left share his views.


----------



## sails (18 September 2011)

Take it or leave it - here is an article.  I don't know enough detail to make a judgement on this but it would seem Gillard is desperate and that doesn't always make for good policy, imo... 

I am sure coalition lawyers would have been all over it as they would not want to spoil their chances of re-instating the Pacific Solution so we can only hope they get it right. 

From the Australian: PM faces revolt over migration law changes


----------



## joea (18 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> He's not to bright if the Greens and the Labor left share his views.




I am not real sure if they share his views, but I do know they oppose Gillards views.
So thats a different aspect of this particular problem.
What is interesting is that more people are now joining ranks to oppose Gillards views.
Surely the Labor machine cannot bear this for much longer.
joea


----------



## Julia (18 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> He's not to bright if the Greens and the Labor left share his views.



  There is no common ground in the views of the Coalition and the Greens/Labor Left, as you absolutely know, Calliope.
I think drsmith is on the money with his suggestion that Mr Abbott is playing hardball with the conviction that the government is so desperate to get this legislation through they will modify it to include everything the Coalition wants, e.g. Nauru and TPV's.

The option of letting the legislation fail and as a result essentially inviting the asylum seekers of the world to come rushing into Australia for quick processing on the mainland, access to welfare, medical care, education, the judicial review system etc, is surely completely unacceptable to both the major parties.

I guess we'll know some time this week.


----------



## JTLP (18 September 2011)

Very thankful Abbott is nutting this out and standing by Coalition policy. I seriously despise Labor now...forget all the other stuff ups (other threads out there)...to try and ping this on the Coalition for not siding with their woeful deal (why does Malaysia get the upper hand? 4000 for 800? Who the hell came up with that figure?) is politically weak.

Labor need to F&%K off the Greens; swallow some pride and just get the Pacific Solution back in action. Then maybe the government can salvage some pride...


----------



## Calliope (19 September 2011)

Julia said:


> There is no common ground in the views of the Coalition and the Greens/Labor Left, as you absolutely know, Calliope.




It seems to me that the Coalition has now joined the Greens, the Labor left and the bleeding hearts espousing protection rights for illegal immigrants and yet "turning back the boats" is still in their policy If their bluff fails we will end up with on-shore processing with all the rights that go with it. I hope I am wrong. 



> Opposition frontbencher Greg Hunt has warned coalition support for the changes was "exceptionally unlikely" because the draft laws strip out protections for asylum seekers.
> "This is a first for Australia," he said, challenging Ms Gillard to nominate another developed nation that had done the same





Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/lef...rs/story-e6frfkvr-1226140248799#ixzz1YLqiJcuX


----------



## Julia (19 September 2011)

The following is an extract from an article by Malcolm Farr in "The Punch" today.
It's what I've been emphasising and underlines the huge risk Tony Abbott is taking in not being prepared to compromise with the government if necessary.



> So let’s imagine what might happen in three years time, after a slaughter of Labor numbers at an election, Prime Minister Abbott finds Nauru isn’t a lawful destination for asylum seekers.
> 
> He is old and a master of the House of Representatives, but in the Senate, because the election was for just half the members, he still is in a minority.
> 
> He would have to ask Labor and the Greens to back his legislation, which might loom a lot like the bills he today is likely to reject. The Greens won’t budge and the ALP Opposition is unlikely to feel any need to help him.


----------



## Ferret (19 September 2011)

Bob Brown has come out and said that the law changes are illegal and inhumane and the Greens won't be supporting them.  

That's enough to make me think the changes must be a good thing.


----------



## drsmith (19 September 2011)

Ferret said:


> Bob Brown has come out and said that the law changes are illegal and inhumane and the Greens won't be supporting them.



Julia by now might be considering what Bob Brown's revised price is,

$40.00 per tonne ??
$50.00 per tonne.............


----------



## Knobby22 (20 September 2011)

Looks like we are going to end up with onshore processing.

Labor want to make offsure processing legal but the Colaition say only if you accept the Nauru policy which is a very expensive policy to taxpayers in my opinion. 

It is the responsibility of the executive government to apply the law, not the opposition.
The Coalition should just reset the laws so they get past the High court and then if they really want to go the Nauru route they can do that when they are in power.

But instead they appear to be trying to make political capital, counting on the fact that their action will force Labor to go the onshore processing route and increase illegal immigration.

They will have achieved fantastic wedging of the Left of Labor and the Greens with the right of Labor to the detriment of our country. 

At present the Liberal poll levels have dropped but I expect they expect to get them back up by posting advertisements of the rise of illegal immigration under Labor.

I hope they are proud of themselves when the next boat sinks. We have hit a real low point.


----------



## bellenuit (20 September 2011)

I believe Abbott is absolutely stupid in rejecting Gillard's legislation. It is utter hypocrisy to want to include a clause that says the recipient country must be a signatory to the refugee convention, when he was proposing all along Nauru as a solution, whether they signed the convention or not. Nauru's intention to sign is to placate opposition to using that country, not a requirement that the Liberals imposed.

To then on television say that the Malaysia solution was just dumping the refugees is again hypocrisy, when his policy also advocates turning the boats back if it is safe to do so. I'm not saying they shouldn't, but I can't quite see how that is different to dumping.

I believe he has given Gillard the upper hand and every boat from now on, assuming onshore processing is adopted, will be blamed partially, if not 100%, on him.

If he had an inkling of intelligence on this issue, he would have stood up in parliament and said that he is supporting the legislation because it removes any uncertainty about his own proposals, but at the same time condemn the Malaysian solution and urge the government to instead adopt the Nauru option. 

The legislation would be passed, but the government would be highly damaged by the sight of the Greens, possibly the independents and possibly some on the Labor left crossing the floor. Additionally, when the policy gets acted upon and police are needed to force women and children on to planes to go to Malaysia, with all the howling and tears, Abbott would be able to take the high moral ground and condemn Gillard for her inhumanity. IMO this will be a turning point in the support for Abbott.


----------



## Calliope (20 September 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Looks like we are going to end up with onshore processing.
> ...I hope they are proud of themselves when the next boat sinks. We have hit a real low point.




We have hit the "real low point" now. Blame Abbott if a smuggler's boat sinks.

Strangely enough I am with Gillard on this one. To dump 800 illegal no-hopers in Malaysia in order to rescue 4000 genuine Burmese refugees from abject misery is a proposition that appeals to me.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> We have hit the "real low point" now. Blame Abbott if a smuggler's boat sinks.
> 
> Strangely enough I am with Gillard on this one. To dump 800 illegal no-hopers in Malaysia in order to rescue 4000 genuine Burmese refugees from abject misery is a proposition that appeals to me.




Bellnuit explained it better above. He should be a government advisor.

In football parlance: Abbott has been given a handpass in front of goal and has decided to kick it out on the full.


----------



## Julia (20 September 2011)

bellenuit said:


> I believe Abbott is absolutely stupid in rejecting Gillard's legislation. It is utter hypocrisy to want to include a clause that says the recipient country must be a signatory to the refugee convention, when he was proposing all along Nauru as a solution, whether they signed the convention or not. Nauru's intention to sign is to placate opposition to using that country, not a requirement that the Liberals imposed.
> 
> To then on television say that the Malaysia solution was just dumping the refugees is again hypocrisy, when his policy also advocates turning the boats back if it is safe to do so. I'm not saying they shouldn't, but I can't quite see how that is different to dumping.
> 
> ...



Totally agree on all points, Bellnuit.  I just can't believe Tony Abbott is actually going to go through with his short sighted political oneupmanship.  I keep thinking he's stringing the government along and will reach a compromise at the last minute.
If he doesn't, then he absolutely does not deserve to ever lead the country.

If he continues with his irrational obstinacy he is proving right all those who accuse him of having as first interest his own political aims rather than the national interest.




Calliope said:


> Strangely enough I am with Gillard on this one. To dump 800 illegal no-hopers in Malaysia in order to rescue 4000 genuine Burmese refugees from abject misery is a proposition that appeals to me.



Agree.  The Burmese are a very different proposition from the detainees who burn down our infrastructure and assault staff.


----------



## dutchie (20 September 2011)

Its not Abbotts' responsibility to fix Labours' stuffups (whilst they are in government).

If the Liberals are saying no all the time then its the responsibility of Labour to  do something about it.  

Obviously Labour have no capacity whatsoever to fix things they are just good at stuffing them up!

The pressure, emphasis and exposure should be on Gillard not Abbott (got that ABC?).


----------



## sails (20 September 2011)

I'm not sure what I'm missing here but admit I have been out a fair bit in the last couple of days.  Here's what Scott Morrison had to say:



> The opposition wants legislative changes to ensure only signatories to the UN refugee convention can become offshore processing countries - an amendment the government is refusing to support.




What's so wrong with that?  I understood that one of the main reasons the high court ruled out Malaysia is that they are not a signatory to the UN refugee convention together with Malaysia's not so pleasant history of refugee treatment.

If not being a signatory is a problem to the high court, why would the coalition proceed to pass legislation that has a good chance of being knocked down again by the high court?  Isn't it better that Gillard agrees to using countries that are signatories?  She seems to be stubbornly refusing for this to be included in her legislation.

What am I missing?...



Above quote from this link: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nauru-processing/story-fn9hm1gu-1226141740267


----------



## DB008 (20 September 2011)

JTLP said:


> Very thankful Abbott is nutting this out and standing by Coalition policy. I seriously despise Labor now...forget all the other stuff ups (other threads out there)...to try and ping this on the Coalition for not siding with their woeful deal (why does Malaysia get the upper hand? 4000 for 800? Who the hell came up with that figure?) is politically weak.
> 
> Labor need to F&%K off the Greens; swallow some pride and just get the Pacific Solution back in action. Then maybe the government can salvage some pride...




Spot on!
That post says it all JTLP and I agree wholeheartedly. 

Gillard is too arrogant to admit they stuffed up by scrapping the Pacific Solution.

Is it that hard to say, 'We stuffed up by scraping the Pacific Solution, we can't find another solution to this problem at the moment, we will now go back to the Pacific Solution, which worked at the time.' 
Gillard is now wheeling out a 'It will cost $1billion to get Naru up and running' line.


You'd think Australia is run by teens who are going through puberty, over-run with jealousy/first love issues, instead of grown-ups.
What a joke.



dutchie said:


> Its not Abbotts' responsibility to fix Labours' stuffups (whilst they are in government).
> 
> If the Liberals are saying no all the time then its the responsibility of Labour to  do something about it.
> 
> ...




I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Ferret (20 September 2011)

sails said:


> Isn't it better that Gillard agrees to using countries that are signatories?  She seems to be stubbornly refusing for this to be included in her legislation.
> 
> What am I missing?...




She is a stubborn #@! and she is not going to back down on her Malaysia solution, hence she won't agree that countries have to be signatories.

But Abbott is being equally stubborn and extremely shortsighted in refusing to let the legislation pass.  If he suceeds in making Labor look bad by blocking the legislation now, Labor will never, ever support similar legislation when the Libs get into power.  Abbott will be stuck with on-shore processing because of his own actions now.

To me this just reinforces that Abbott is perhaps the best opposition leader we have ever seen, but is not going to cut it as a PM.


----------



## Julia (20 September 2011)

Ferret said:


> She is a stubborn #@! and she is not going to back down on her Malaysia solution, hence she won't agree that countries have to be signatories.
> 
> But Abbott is being equally stubborn and extremely shortsighted in refusing to let the legislation pass.  If he suceeds in making Labor look bad by blocking the legislation now, Labor will never, ever support similar legislation when the Libs get into power.  Abbott will be stuck with on-shore processing because of his own actions now.
> 
> To me this just reinforces that Abbott is perhaps the best opposition leader we have ever seen, but is not going to cut it as a PM.



Perfect summary, Ferret.  Mr Abbott has been very successful at knocking the government down with his one liners (all of which have been justified btw), but it's quite unbelievable that he seems to be going to choose a very short term political victory over the government over a long term solution which he is going to badly need when he takes government.

On a previous occasion I've argued with Noco when he alleged Julia Gillard's multiple stuff ups indicated she was of low intelligence.  Tony Abbott is presently demonstrating the exact same principle, showing that his reasonably high IQ is no measure of political acumen.


----------



## bellenuit (20 September 2011)

sails said:


> If not being a signatory is a problem to the high court, why would the coalition proceed to pass legislation that has a good chance of being knocked down again by the high court?




Sails, that would in fact be a fantastic outcome for the coalition. 

Let's say, as I suggested in my previous note, the coalition supports the legislative changes, but makes a big statement when doing so that the only reason they are doing it is to facilitate a Nauru or similar type solution (assuming these alternative countries become signatories). They emphasise, for the record, that they are vehemently opposed to  the Malaysian solution because Malaysia is not a signatory and they urge Gillard to back away and adopt Nauru instead. The legislation will then be passed with coalition support, but with the Greens and possibly some of the Labor left opposing (which will look bad for Gillard).

Now if they try to send refugees to Malaysia, there will certainly be a high court challenge. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the challenge could be against the legislation itself, as that doesn't specify Malaysia anywhere within it. I think the challenge would have to be based on the act of sending refugees to Malaysia and would be based on Australia's responsibilities under the convention.

If the government loses that high court challenge and the loss is based on the fact that Malaysia is not a signatory, then Gillard is in deep poo. Her legislation will have put beyond doubt the ability to use Nauru as an offshore processing centre, but the high court will have scuttled her Malaysian option based on an issue that doesn't apply to Nauru. She will be forced to again change policy, which will mean onshore processing (she and she only gets the blame for any boats that come) or using Nauru for offshore processing (the ultimate humiliation and certainly the end of her as leader). The coalition could rightfully claim that they warned her and she wouldn't listen and they end up with possibly enough legislative changes so that their Nauru solution is beyond challenge when/if they regain government.

Should the government win the high court challenge, then the coalition's main fear might be that the Malaysian solution might work. But that is to their benefit too if it stops the boats and there are enough other issues that has Labor on the nose with the voters that one less won't make a huge difference.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 September 2011)

Its somewhat refreshing to see some/most of the ASF right do actually see that 1 vote Tony has shot himself in the foot/kicked an own goal/made himself look like a complete tool etc.

For the first time in maybe 18 months the opposition got totally and justifiably hammered in parliament today....didn't have even half a leg to stand on...1 Vote Tony will never be PM, he's a political light weight, a career politician of little consequence.

Hands up who could see Malcolm doing what Tony did today? committing such an act of political stupidity, appealing to the pure idiot right, even when Jonny actually did that it was by stealth and with out political responsibility.

I reckon its time someone tapped Tony on the shoulder and told him it was time.


----------



## Julia (20 September 2011)

Bellnuit, once again you have it spot on.

So cynical:  don't be so confident Malcolm Turnbull would get it right.
Don't you remember the Grech debacle???

I do, however, agree with you about Mr Abbott apparently embarking on his own self made suicide mission.


----------



## drsmith (20 September 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I reckon its time someone tapped Tony on the shoulder and told him it was time.



The polls suggest otherwise.

Labor won't accept Nauru + TPV's and the Coalition won't accept Malaysia.

In such a stalemate, Labor will lose as their own policy decisions in government have brought them to this point and Malaysia is a total abandonment of their own idiological principals.

Julia Gillard knows this and hopes Tony Abbott will blink.

Not likely.


----------



## drsmith (20 September 2011)

Julia said:


> I do, however, agree with you about Mr Abbott apparently embarking on his own self made suicide mission.



If Tony Abbott refused regardless, that would be a poor choice, but he is offering Labor an alternative to it's own proposal. The responsibility of choice therefore rests with the government.

EDIT: The following article which discusses the potential implications of Malaysia to the Coalition is an interesting read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-no-to-malaysia/story-e6frgd0x-1226141170738


----------



## So_Cynical (20 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> If Tony Abbott refused regardless, that would be a poor choice, but* he is offering Labor an alternative to it's own proposal. The responsibility of choice therefore rests with the government.*
> 
> EDIT: The following article which discusses the potential implications of Malaysia to the Coalition is an interesting read.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-no-to-malaysia/story-e6frgd0x-1226141170738




Dr your making a similar argument to Tony...and the general electorate isn't buying it, the press isn't buying it and i doubt most of the Liberal party is buying what Tony's selling...because clearly its all about political point scoring and opposing for the sake of spoiling.

The general public see that as very cynical and a big turn off....Labor is offering him the ability to do whatever he wants in government, and that's a hell of alot more than what 1 vote Tony's offering them....if you want to buy the weakest political spin ive seen in the last 5 years (since Howard back flipped on Kyoto right at the death) then your in the minority.

-------------------------------

Ill quote one of the more stupid pieces in the linked Australian story.

_As well as those who oppose offshore processing, there are a significant number of Liberal MPs who support offshore processing who will not countenance Malaysia. "We cannot allow ourselves to support something [that] is morally repugnant," another influential frontbencher insisted.* "Who is going to be the first to send a 12-year-old girl to Malaysia unaccompanied?"*_

1 Vote Tony wants to "turn the boats around" like Howard did...so what's going to happen to those unaccompanied 12 year old girls on the boats that get turned around? are they safer in Indonesia than they are in Malaysia?

What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

As I said before So_Cynical, the polls suggest otherwise.

Neither side is politically pure on this, but Labor's position is worse than the Coalition's for reasons I have stated above.



drsmith said:


> Labor won't accept Nauru + TPV's and the Coalition won't accept Malaysia.
> 
> In such a stalemate, Labor will lose as their own policy decisions in government have brought them to this point and Malaysia is a total abandonment of their own idiological principals.




That's not anyone's political spin, it's simple logic.

It's also simple logic that Labor can accept offshore processing under the Coalition's terms should it choose.


----------



## dutchie (21 September 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Dr your making a similar argument to Tony...and the general electorate isn't buying it, the press isn't buying it and i doubt most of the Liberal party is buying what Tony's selling...because clearly its all about political point scoring and opposing for the sake of spoiling.
> 
> The general public see that as very cynical and a big turn off....Labor is offering him the ability to do whatever he wants in government, and that's a hell of alot more than what 1 vote Tony's offering them....if you want to buy the weakest political spin ive seen in the last 5 years (since Howard back flipped on Kyoto right at the death) then your in the minority.
> 
> ...






So when the Labour government comes into power they abandon a Liberal system that is working perfectly (see no. of boats yadaa yadaa yadaa). They muck around with multiple stuff ups and solutions. Then realising that they should go back to the Liberal system they plead with Tony to help them out and chastise him for not helping!

Now that's a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Julia (21 September 2011)

dutchie said:


> So when the Labour government comes into power they abandon a Liberal system that is working perfectly (see no. of boats yadaa yadaa yadaa). They muck around with multiple stuff ups and solutions. Then realising that they should go back to the Liberal system they plead with Tony to help them out and chastise him for not helping!
> 
> Now that's a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!



Of course it is.  But, when you're agreeing that what Mr Abbott is doing now is right, you're ignoring the fundamental fact that (unless a miracle happens) he will take government at the next election and will then himself have to deal with what you'd have to anticipate will be a flood of asylum seekers, all just thrilled that they will acquire instant admission to the community in Australia, no nasty detention camps in unpleasant environments, instead lots of Left Luvvies just dying to make them welcome.

Meantime, the Australian public is increasingly enraged about this, if attitudes about boat arrivals to date are anything to go by, so how exactly do you think Tony is going to fix the problem?

With his current obduracy and the Greens never going to support offshore processing, quite clearly Labor won't be giving him any help, so he will find himself in the exact same bind the government is in right now.

What does he do?


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Of course it is.  But, when you're agreeing that what Mr Abbott is doing now is right, you're ignoring the fundamental fact that (unless a miracle happens) he will take government at the next election and will then himself have to deal with what you'd have to anticipate will be a flood of asylum seekers, all just thrilled that they will acquire instant admission to the community in Australia, no nasty detention camps in unpleasant environments, instead lots of Left Luvvies just dying to make them welcome.



By miracle, I assume you are referring to a change in government before this one goes full term ?



> Meantime, the Australian public is increasingly enraged about this, if attitudes about boat arrivals to date are anything to go by, so how exactly do you think Tony is going to fix the problem?
> 
> With his current obduracy and the Greens never going to support offshore processing, quite clearly Labor won't be giving him any help, so he will find himself in the exact same bind the government is in right now.
> 
> What does he do?



The difference between the Coalition and the Greens and Labor and the Greens is that Labor has chosen to share its bed with the Greens in exchange for office.

If Labor is not happy with what the Coalition is offering, it can always negotiate with it's power sharing partners.

In an article that is otherwise negative on Tony Abbott's stance, his negotiating position is summed up brilliantly in the following paragraph,



> In political terms, however, Gillard as Prime Minister will carry the bulk of the blame for this failure. One of the obligations on any prime minister is to protect Australia's borders from unauthorised boat arrivals by people who have self-selected this country as destination of residence.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-fails-boat-test/story-e6frgd0x-1226142100161

It will be even worse for Labor if they fail to accept a compromise from the Coalition or negotiate succesfully with the Greens and independents.


----------



## Calliope (21 September 2011)

If the Coalition votes with the Greens to overturn this bill and effectively ensure mainland processing, it will be the culmination of all Abbott's stupidities. By definition any outcome desired by Brown and his gang cannot be in Australia's interests. They are committed to destroying our way of life.


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> If the Coalition votes with the Greens to overturn this bill and effectively ensure mainland processing, it will be the culmination of all Abbott's stupidities.



As I have said above, Labor can accept the Coalition's terms or negotiate with the Greens. 

The ball is in their court.



Calliope said:


> By definition any outcome desired by Brown and his gang cannot be in Australia's interests. They are committed to destroying our way of life.



Then Labor had better kick them out of their bed quick smart. 

They won't because that's the price Labor expects Australia to pay so they can cling on to office a little longer.


----------



## Calliope (21 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> As I have said above, Labor can accept the Coalition's terms or negotiate with the Greens.




I'd say that the Coalition is accepting the Green's terms, i.e. mainland processing.


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> I'd say.......



It's Labor that's accepting mainland processing if it does not agree to the Coalition's terms or negotiate with the Greens.

That's not opinion, it's fact.


----------



## startrader (21 September 2011)

The Coalition said that they would only support the amendments to the Migration Act if the countries where asylum seekers were sent complied with the obligations of the UN refugee convention.  I would have thought that any sensible person would agree with this.  The government's proposed changes to the Migration Act would not so comply so of course Tony Abbott refused to support them.  How on earth there can be any finger pointing at Tony Abbott beats me.  

It's not the Coalition's fault the the government is in this mess and, yes, there should immediately be a huge influx of boat people - probably precipitating some sort of crisis in this government.  The Gillard government has shown that it is incapable of stopping the boats and they will not give up on their brilliant "Malaysia solution" which would be a solution to nothing at all.  How anyone could have come up with such a ridiculously crazy plan at all I find amazing and the fact that this government won't give up on it I find incredibly pig headed and idiotic, but not a surprise going on their track record for everything else that they have touched.  

Everything they do is costing this country so much and their disastrous policies are going to have to be unwound - also at great cost - but don't blame the Coalition for any of this.  Labor can take the full credit for it all.


----------



## Julia (21 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> By miracle, I assume you are referring to a change in government before this one goes full term ?



No.  By a miracle I was referring to the government regaining the confidence of the electorate and winning the next election.  If that were to happen obviously they'd themselves continue to have to deal with the mess they have made on migration policy.  But if, as expected, Mr Abbott wins the next election (and it's irrelevant when it's held if offshore processing is eliminated in the meantime) *it's Mr Abbott who will have to find a solution.   I'll ask again:  what will Mr Abbott do in this very likely future scenario???*

Several people here keep banging on about how Labor deserves to be in the mess it now finds itself, and that Mr Abbott has absolutely no responsibility to save them from further political humiliation.  

I don't argue with that in the least, but it doesn't alter the future fact that The Coalition is going to inherit onshore processing when they take government and they will, as far as I can see, have no hope of acquiring the co-operation of any other party to make the change back to offshore.

So, I'll keep hoping that one of you geniuses who fully support the Libs not co-operating with the government will tell me how Mr Abbott is going to deal with the situation when it becomes his problem, as it sure as hell will.



Calliope said:


> I'd say that the Coalition is accepting the Green's terms, i.e. mainland processing.



Exactly.  In focusing on the Libs getting back at the Coalition, people are ignoring the huge victory that will accrue to The Greens!


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

Julia said:


> In focusing on the Libs getting back at the Coalition, people are ignoring the huge victory that will accrue to The Greens!



Julia,

This is a response of fear, not logic.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> Julia,
> 
> This is a response of fear, not logic.




You didn't answer Julia's question.


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> You didn't answer Julia's question.



I lack the minimum qualification as I am not a genius.

It's not a question of the Coalition co-operating with Labor, it's a question of Labor co-operating with the Coalition.


----------



## sails (21 September 2011)

It's not only the coalition opposing Gillard's changes to the migration act (which apparently may not hold up in court anyway), it's also some in her own party as it appears she is out of line with the labor party too.  This from Labor Party elder John Faulkner:



> Senator Faulkner, a former cabinet minister, told caucus the government should not be bringing forward legislation that conflicted with the platform - especially when there was an ALP conference later this year.
> Advertisement: Story continues below
> 
> The Faulkner challenge over the platform is important because under Labor rules the government is not supposed to contravene the platform. Ms Gillard said publicly on Monday, ''It's clearly my view that the Malaysia arrangement is in accord with Labor's platform.''




Full story from The Age by Michelle Grattan: Faulkner challenges Gillard on offshore scheme


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

Faulkner challenges Gillard on offshore scheme 

Parliamentary secretary and QC Mark Dreyfus might have been talking to the party faithfull, but he might as well have been on his knees begging to the opposition,



> Mr Dreyfus warned caucus ''this is crunch time - it is essential the Prime Minister be supported. If we do not support the Prime Minister and the government, we're f---ed.''




It's either the opposition's compromise or continued policy failure. 

They're ------ either way.


----------



## Calliope (21 September 2011)

*Tony Abbott Fails Boat Test*

As Paul Kelly says, Abbott must take the blame for the weakening of our border protection policies, but the Government will bear the political fallout  However it's a Pyrrhic victory for Abbott.



> AUSTRALIA now confronts an institutional failure in its border protection policies with the parliament about to confirm by omission the recent High Court decision to remove, in effect, offshore processing policy from the discretion of the executive government.
> 
> *Responsibility for this failure will lie essentially with the Coalition*.* Its stand constitutes a tangible weakening of Australia's border protection framework and a deeper entrenchment of the 1951 refugee convention in Australian law.
> 
> The Coalition's refusal to support Julia Gillard will limit the scope for offshore processing, encourage the people-smuggling industry and more boat arrivals.* *Tony Abbott's de facto allies are the Labor Left that distrusts the Malaysia Solution and the human rights lawyers who seize each chance to limit the power of the Australian government to curb the boats.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-fails-boat-test/story-e6frgd0x-1226142100161

And the real winner is;


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 September 2011)

Julia said:


> No.  By a miracle I was referring to the government regaining the confidence of the electorate and winning the next election.  If that were to happen obviously they'd themselves continue to have to deal with the mess they have made on migration policy.  But if, as expected, Mr Abbott wins the next election (and it's irrelevant when it's held if offshore processing is eliminated in the meantime) *it's Mr Abbott who will have to find a solution.   I'll ask again:  what will Mr Abbott do in this very likely future scenario???*
> 
> Several people here keep banging on about how Labor deserves to be in the mess it now finds itself, and that Mr Abbott has absolutely no responsibility to save them from further political humiliation.
> 
> ...




Tony Abbott is correct in opposing the Malaysia deal. 

It is a heartless plan by Labor to fix a mess of their own making.

Don't worry about the Greens. Fundamental godbothering millenarianist parties all go the same way, look at what happened to the Democrats.

gg


----------



## drsmith (21 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> And the real winner is;




That's Labor's choice, if they are as weak as they were with the carbon tax.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> It's also simple logic that Labor can accept offshore processing under the Coalition's terms should it choose.




Dude seriously

Off shore processing according the 1 vote Tony's rules...is very different to off shore processing where the Govt of the day gets to do what ever it wants. 

That simple enough for ya?


----------



## sails (21 September 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Dude seriously
> 
> Off shore processing according the 1 vote Tony's rules...is very different to off shore processing where the Govt of the day gets to do what ever it wants.
> 
> That simple enough for ya?





The government of the day should be listening to the people whom they are supposed to be representing. You know, the same people who pay their salaries and all their travel and other perks.

It should never be a government who just does what it wants and thumbs it's nose at the people.  You would think Gillard would have remembered what happened to Howard when he did his own thing.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 September 2011)

sails said:


> The government of the day should be listening to the people whom they are supposed to be representing. You know, the same people who pay their salaries and all their travel and other perks.
> 
> It should never be a government who just does what it wants and thumbs it's nose at the people.  You would think Gillard would have remembered what happened to Howard when he did his own thing.




I believe the Majority want the illegal boat trade stopped, i also believe that the Malaysia deal is rather brilliant and will break the people smuggler trade...stop the boats completely...and i just cant see any other way of doing it humanely.

Howard style off shore processing slowed the boats dramatical but didn't stop them and was not a good solution because it didn't break the smugglers...Liberal style off shore processing simply moved the problem and encouraged boat skippers to blow up their boats.

The Malaysia deal stops all that rot as the boat people are sent to Malaysia to join the back of the legitimate refugee cue...we get real refugees in place of phoney ones with money.


----------



## Julia (21 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> Julia,
> 
> This is a response of fear, not logic.



I disagree.  It's simply thinking about the reality of what will happen as opposed to sticking your head in the sand with righteousness about so doing because the government 'deserves to be punished for its foolishness'.
Yes it does, but not at the expense of the opposition shooting itself in the foot for the future.
If you don't get what I'm trying to say here, I give up.

And, as Knobby has pointed out, you have failed to come up with a solution for what Mr Abbott will be able to do when he takes government if no change to the Migration Act takes place under Labor.

As I understand what the government is suggesting, they are not specifying the use of Malaysia under their proposed legislation, but rather that the government of the day may decide the place to which asylum seekers will be sent.  So if Labor want to use Malaysia, they can do that, and if the Coalition want to use Nauru, likewise they can do that.  It seems pretty reasonable to me if we regard Malaysia purely as a deterrent, and ignore any human rights concerns.  This latter very real problem will always be quite clearly sheeted home to Labor, so the Libs would retain the moral high ground if that's their concern.

I'll try one last time.  Let's pretend there's no compromise as looks certain at present, and offshore processing including Malaysia and/or Nauru is off the agenda.

There is an election in a month's time and the Libs take government.
What exactly do you suggest Tony Abbott is going to do about the flood of boats that have already and are in the future going to be pouring into Australia?

The Dept is flat out processing these people plus furiously accommodating them in hotels throughout the country because all the detention centres are overflowing, and in the meantime, the legitimate people such as the Burmese who have already been determined to be genuine refugees and who have been patiently waiting their turn in Malaysia, are pushed further and further back with no realistic hope of ever getting here.

What is Mr Abbott going to do?   If anyone thinks Labor will at that stage even remotely consider co-operating in legislating for any change, they're totally dreaming.



So_Cynical said:


> I believe the Majority want the illegal boat trade stopped, i also believe that the Malaysia deal is rather brilliant and will break the people smuggler trade...stop the boats completely...and i just cant see any other way of doing it humanely.



I reluctantly agree.   If they were able to move quickly enough before the quota of 800 is exhausted, imo it's likely to be pretty offputting to people smugglers and would be asylum seekers.  
The problem here, though, is that the government appears to have no plan for what to do after the 800 have been sent to Malaysia.



> The Malaysia deal stops all that rot as the boat people are sent to Malaysia to join the back of the legitimate refugee queue...we get real refugees in place of phoney ones with money.



I agree.  To me, the question of the fairness of whom we accept to come into Australia should be at the basis of the policy.


----------



## Calliope (21 September 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I believe the Majority want the illegal boat trade stopped, i also believe that the Malaysia deal is rather brilliant and will break the people smuggler trade...stop the boats completely...and i just cant see any other way of doing it humanely.
> 
> Howard style off shore processing slowed the boats dramatical but didn't stop them and was not a good solution because it didn't break the smugglers...Liberal style off shore processing simply moved the problem and encouraged boat skippers to blow up their boats.
> 
> The Malaysia deal stops all that rot as the boat people are sent to Malaysia to join the back of the legitimate refugee cue...we get real refugees in place of phoney ones with money.




I never thought I would say this, but you are right. Sending these phonies to Malaysia would be the best deterrent. All this bullsh*t from Abbott and the "human rights lawyers" about it violating their rights doesn't stack up. They wouldn't have to go to Malaysia anyway. All they would need to do is to go home. I'm sure they could afford it.


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2011)

Julia said:


> .......And, as Knobby has pointed out, you have failed to come up with a solution for what Mr Abbott will be able to do when he takes government if no change to the Migration Act takes place under Labor.
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 
> I'll try one last time.  Let's pretend there's no compromise as looks certain at present, and offshore processing including Malaysia and/or Nauru is off the agenda.




This outcome assumes Labor falls on its own political sword as warned to Labor caucus by Parliamentary secretary and QC Mark Dreyfus, 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23046&p=659612&viewfull=1#post659612

Even the Australian's Paul Kelly, who disagrees with Tony Abbott's approach, aknowledges that the primay responsibility for policy outcomes lies with those in office,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23046&p=659523&viewfull=1#post659523

The government can yield to the opposition's policy position if it wants to maintain offshore processing. 

From a negotiation standpoint, the opposition holds a far stronger hand due to the government's mismanagement in what it regards as a key policy area. That's the point I'm making.


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2011)

Also how does the Government get off saying, we are signatories to the U.N convention. 
But actually we don't give a rats ar#e about it because we will send people to places that are not.
Abbott is doing the right thing not selling out his decency by siding with the Government. Two wrongs don't make a right, let Labor stew in their own juice.
What would have been said if Howard had come up with the Malaysia policy. Jeez the ABC, SMH etc would have been all over it screaming.


----------



## Calliope (22 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Abbott is doing the right thing not selling out his decency by siding with the Government.




Decency? Siding with the Greens.

Paul Sheehan thinks otherwise. He thinks it has an aura of cant and hypocrisy, and I agree. Drsmith and sptrawler; Which part of Paul Sheehan's statement which I have accentuated in *bolds* do you disagree with?



> His decision to join the Greens in opposing, and thus sinking, legislation that will toughen up the Migration Act to allow for offshore processing of asylum seekers is, I think, the first serious misstep of his leadership.
> 
> His decision may prove successfully pragmatic but as a matter of principle it has an aura of cant and hypocrisy. *The great majority of the people who would vote for an Abbott-led Coalition want strong border protection. It is a core issue. It is a matter of principle. This large constituency loathes the human rights industry and immigration industry thriving off the chaos of current policies. This constituency wants punitive policies in place to end people smuggling. It hates the idea that people can self-select to come to Australia. Above all, this large constituency loathes the idea that thousands of people are gaining permanent residency in Australia after destroying their identity papers.*





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...r-deserters-20110921-1kl4d.html#ixzz1YfCaNrmn


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> Decency? Siding with the Greens.



Perfect timing.

I just posted this in another thread,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20515&p=659896&viewfull=1#post659896


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> Paul Sheehan thinks otherwise. He thinks it has an aura of cant and hypocrisy, and I agree. Drsmith and sptrawler; Which part of Paul Sheehan's statement which I have accentuated in *bolds* do you disagree with?




Paul Sheehan highlights a problem of the government's making.

The solution is up to the government as I have posted above.



drsmith said:


> The government can yield to the opposition's policy position if it wants to maintain offshore processing.
> 
> From a negotiation standpoint, the opposition holds a far stronger hand due to the government's mismanagement in what it regards as a key policy area. That's the point I'm making.


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> Decency? Siding with the Greens.
> 
> Paul Sheehan thinks otherwise. He thinks it has an aura of cant and hypocrisy, and I agree. Drsmith and sptrawler; Which part of Paul Sheehan's statement which I have accentuated in *bolds* do you disagree with?
> 
> ...




Paul Sheehan can use "loathes, hates, chaos" and plenty of other colourful descriptions to fire up his readers. The fact remains the Howard Pacific solution HAD stopped the boats.
This Government said it was inhumane and disbanded it.
Now they are in Government they would rather put in something far worse, than adopt the former Governments postion.
Then they are audacious enough to say it is the oppositions fault there is a problem.
How can anybody accuse Abbott of hypocrisy and support Gillards position.
Gillards position is hypocrisy personified, It is just another stupid knee jerk policy.
It will not get up, it will continue to be legally contested because it conflicts with Australias stated position as a signatory to the U.N position.
This isn't rocket science, the government is putting up a smoke screen to reach the end result of processing onshore.
That is why someone should put forward to the Greens if there is processing onshore, it should be done in Tasmania in Bob Browns electorate. It is the best place for it, minimal population and no strategic significance and I'm not being funny. It is about time someone grew some B@lls and put it back to Bob.
I am getting sick of my world changing in one term of Government.


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> This isn't rocket science, the government is putting up a smoke screen to reach the end result of processing onshore.



Julia Gillard's plan X ?

If so, it will cost her her prime ministership, but that won't bother Kevin Rudd (or the Labor left ?). 5 minutes of prime ministership as revenge against Julia Gillard would be satisfaction enough for him I suspect.



sptrawler said:


> That is why someone should put forward to the Greens if there is processing onshore, it should be done in Tasmania in Bob Browns electorate.



Don't be silly.  

Tasmania's reserved as the pigs domestic holiday destination.


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2011)

drsmith, I'm not being funny, the way this is heading it is going to lead to onshore processing.
What I am saying is if that is the outcome that the Greens want, it should be in the most practical place for Australia in general.
I for one am sick of the undesirable illegal queue jumpers being thrown into W.A. 
Why if Bob is so concerned, doesn't he put forward a processing centre in Tassie. 
Look this is really starting to pissssssssss me off why doesn't someone put the acid on him.


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2011)

I'm trying to be funny and serious at the same time. Without humour, this is all very depressing.
As for sending them all to Tasmania, ...............:horse:


----------



## Julia (22 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> Decency? Siding with the Greens.
> 
> Paul Sheehan thinks otherwise. He thinks it has an aura of cant and hypocrisy, and I agree. Drsmith and sptrawler; Which part of Paul Sheehan's statement which I have accentuated in *bolds* do you disagree with?



I agree entirely with the bolded part of Paul Sheehan's remarks.
Tony Abbott is being almost as hypocritical as the government, and if he thinks most of his voter base will not be furious if offshore processing (by whatever means it is arrived at) has been eliminated, I reckon his support will be significantly reduced.

To suggest Mr Abbott is 'siding with the Greens' is not true.  His philosophy has absolutely nothing in common with that of the Greens.  They are just by default ending up together in voting against the government, but for utterly different reasons.

And, yet again, none of you who insist Mr Abbott should not negotiate with the Prime Minister have come up with any sort of answer as to what Mr Abbott would do about the flood of asylum seekers being processed onshore, with all the attendant benefits, if and when he takes government.

*That the government is in a mess of its own making and that it absolutely deserves to be humiliated as a result is not in question.

I'm just asking you to think forward somewhat and tell me how Mr Abbott is going to solve the ongoing problem to which he is contributing by being obstinate at present?????*

Any ideas at all?  I think this is about the fourth time I've asked but the only response is that Mr Abbott has no responsibility to get the government out of its mess.


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2011)

Julia said:


> I think this is about the fourth time I've asked but the only response is that Mr Abbott has no responsibility to get the government out of its mess.



That is the political reality.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> That is the political reality.




So you would say, he is right to hurt the country as long as it helps him politically.


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2011)

Everybody is taking onboard that the Howard Pacific solution would not work now, because WHY someone says so.
Maybe the temporary protection visas need tweaking, SO WHAT.
I cannot understand why a policy in tatters has more credibility than a policy that worked.
Everyone needs to step back and say "shut up Julia it is not all about you"

How Labor supporters can condem Liberal party policy,that was humane and worked. 
Then now support Labor Malaysia policy is incomprehensible


----------



## sptrawler (22 September 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I believe the Majority want the illegal boat trade stopped, i also believe that the Malaysia deal is rather brilliant and will break the people smuggler trade...stop the boats completely...and i just cant see any other way of doing it humanely.
> 
> Howard style off shore processing slowed the boats dramatical but didn't stop them and was not a good solution because it didn't break the smugglers...Liberal style off shore processing simply moved the problem and encouraged boat skippers to blow up their boats.
> 
> The Malaysia deal stops all that rot as the boat people are sent to Malaysia to join the back of the legitimate refugee cue...we get real refugees in place of phoney ones with money.




So what you are saying who cares about them, if they get here just pizz them off somewhere else. Why not to Africa, there are plenty of genuine refugees there?


----------



## drsmith (23 September 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> So you would say, he is right to hurt the country as long as it helps him politically.






drsmith said:


> The government can yield to the opposition's policy position if it wants to maintain offshore processing.
> 
> From a negotiation standpoint, the opposition holds a far stronger hand due to the government's mismanagement in what it regards as a key policy area. That's the point I'm making.




In addition to the above, I add that it's the government that is responsible for its own policy failures.


----------



## Ferret (23 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Everybody is taking onboard that the Howard Pacific solution would not work now, because WHY someone says so.
> Maybe the temporary protection visas need tweaking, SO WHAT.
> I cannot understand why a policy in tatters has more credibility than a policy that worked.




You clearly don't understand the implications of the high court decision.  The "policy that worked" doesn't anymore, unless Abbott starts thinking ahead a little.


----------



## sails (23 September 2011)

Ferret said:


> You clearly don't understand the implications of the high court decision.  The "policy that worked" doesn't anymore, unless Abbott starts thinking ahead a little.





I understand that one of the significant reasons Malaysia became unlawful is largely because it is not a signatory to the UN and their history of refugee treatment.

 Nauru is now a signatory and the detention centre there was run by Australians and asylum seekers were free to move around the island. Nauru has no history of abusing the refugees - to my knowledge. 

While I'm not a lawyer, I'm not so sure that ALL off shore processing has been denied by the high court as some of the reasons given in the judgement do not apply to the Pacific Solution.

Here is a link to the high court judgement PDF:  http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/08/31/1226126/565000-high-court-judgment.pdf

And even Malaysians don't want our refugees due to increased security risk which raises serious security questions for us as well, imo.

From the Malaysian Insider: Malaysia-Aussie refugee swap national security risk, says Kok


----------



## startrader (23 September 2011)

Ferret said:


> You clearly don't understand the implications of the high court decision.  The "policy that worked" doesn't anymore, unless Abbott starts thinking ahead a little.




The implications of the high court decision are worse for the labor party than the Coalition.  It is forcing them more and more into a corner because they insist that their "Malaysia solution" is the only way to go and they are relying on the Libs to get them out.  According to the Coalition's legal advice the high court decision does not rule out using Nauru.  Now that is not labor's advice, but their advice has been shown to be completely wrong up to now so I know whose advice I would trust more.  Also, the High Court doesn't make the laws in this country - it just interprets them and laws can always be changed.  

I don't subscribe to the view that the Coalition should give in to Labor's demands because if they don't something terrible is going to happen and it will be all on their shoulders.  The Coalition have to continue with their current stance in my opinion.

A few of us seem to be on completely different planets in regard to our opinions on this issue.  

It will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Calliope (23 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> In addition to the above, I add that it's the government that is responsible for its own policy failures.




And Abbott will be held responsible for his own stupidities.


----------



## sails (23 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> And Abbott will be held responsible for his own stupidities.




A coalition leader doesn't have the same dictatorial powers as a labor leader.  Labor MPs are NOT permitted to cross the floor - I guess the best they can do is replace their under performing leader.

While  coalition MPs would be strongly encouraged to vote within party line, there is nothing stopping them crossing the floor.  For this reason, there is a lot more team effort required.

Gillard is not listening to her own people (links posted in my last post in another thread) so she is fully accountable for her own decisions.  

And Morrison is also very involved in this as shadow immigration minister.  I have heard him a couple of times on 2GB where he comes across very well.  He seems to be genuinely in step with Abbott over these issues - perhaps he has future leadership potential.

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


----------



## Julia (23 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> That is the political reality.



Yes, but that same political reality will fall on Mr Abbott when/if he takes government.

So are you actually saying that you genuinely believe Australia should give up the idea of offshore processing and be prepared to admit any and all asylum seekers to Australia, to be housed in the community while the government attempts to find out who they are?



sptrawler said:


> Everybody is taking onboard that the Howard Pacific solution would not work now, because WHY someone says so.
> Maybe the temporary protection visas need tweaking, SO WHAT.
> I cannot understand why a policy in tatters has more credibility than a policy that worked.
> Everyone needs to step back and say "shut up Julia it is not all about you"
> ...



You're right, sp, about the total about face of Labor on this.

Re Nauru, I haven't heard too many people say Nauru definitely would not work now.
Rather, that - following the High Court decision - a similar challenge could be mounted as has succeeded re Malaysia.  On what exact basis, I don't know, because as Sails has pointed out, now that Nauru is a signatory to the convention and detainees kept there would be totally cared for by Australia, it seems a completely different proposition from Malaysia.


----------



## Ferret (23 September 2011)

startrader said:


> According to the Coalition's legal advice the high court decision does not rule out using Nauru.



I haven't heard that.  If that was the case, why were the Liberals offering bi-partisan support for law changes in the first place?



> Also, the High Court doesn't make the laws in this country - it just interprets them *and laws can always be changed*.



This is the point.  The Greens can block any law changes unless Labor and Liberal vote together.


----------



## Calliope (23 September 2011)

Julia said:


> On what exact basis, I don't know, because as Sails has pointed out, now that Nauru is a signatory to the convention and detainees kept there would be totally cared for by Australia, it seems a completely different proposition from Malaysia.




Nauru won't work as a deterrent without the total Howard package of temporary visas and turning back the boats.

Border protection is now a complete failure with the human rights and immigration industries having the upper hand. It will probably be impossible for any government to put a deterrent in place where we can send these people off-shore or  back to where they came from. Nobody is sent back now, because Afghanistan is the only country that will accept their illegals back, but the appeals process (at taxpayers' expense) makes sure that even that is not happening.

The Malaysia solution at least threw a scare into them. but the do-gooders scuttled that. It was the only solution where we were physically rid of them and beyond the claws of the do-gooders.


----------



## sails (23 September 2011)

Two more boats headed our way with 126 passengers and 5 crew.  Who knows if they are genuine refugees or terrorists infiltrating our country.  Anyone's guess, I suppose. It seems some of the Iranians have had military backgrounds and Iran will not accept them back.

Two boats boarded off Christmas Island


Here is part of the article by ANDREW PROBYN and NICK BUTTERLY, CANBERRA, The West Australian (bolds are mine):



> And authorities strongly suspect some of the Iranians denied refugee status have military backgrounds, given the group drills they have been observed performing in exercise yards.
> 
> *More Iranians have made their way to Australia this year by boat than any other nationality*, with 950 asylum seekers arriving. People from Afghanistan come a close second.
> 
> ...


----------



## drsmith (23 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes, but that same political reality will fall on Mr Abbott when/if he takes government.
> 
> So are you actually saying that you genuinely believe Australia should give up the idea of offshore processing and be prepared to admit any and all asylum seekers to Australia, to be housed in the community while the government attempts to find out who they are?



You're welcome to try and find where I've said that.


----------



## Happy (23 September 2011)

Julia said:


> ...
> 
> So are you actually saying that you genuinely believe Australia should give up the idea of offshore processing and be prepared to admit any and all asylum seekers to Australia, *to be housed in the community while the government attempts to find out who they are?*
> ...




This worries me most.

Other thing, that even if they don't pose threat, employment statistics worry me too, that very high percentage doesn't work even after 5 years, which comes out in social security payment straight out of our pockets.

Can we really afford to have them?

... while we have thousands homeles with public housing queue is up to 10 years and public dental services queue up to 12 years ???


----------



## Julia (23 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> You're welcome to try and find where I've said that.



 I didn't say you had said it.
I was asking if that is your view.


----------



## drsmith (23 September 2011)

Julia,

Both yourself and anyone else who has read my contributions to this thread knows what my view is. I see little point in repeating over and over in response to how you wish to interpret it.

Perhaps it's best if we just agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2011)

Julia said:


> I agree entirely with the bolded part of Paul Sheehan's remarks.
> Tony Abbott is being almost as hypocritical as the government, and if he thinks most of his voter base will not be furious if offshore processing (by whatever means it is arrived at) has been eliminated, I reckon his support will be significantly reduced.
> 
> To suggest Mr Abbott is 'siding with the Greens' is not true.  His philosophy has absolutely nothing in common with that of the Greens.  They are just by default ending up together in voting against the government, but for utterly different reasons.
> ...




Well the problem is, imo. 
If Abbott backs Gillards law changes and then they are challenged and found to be incorrect in the eyes of the law, where to then? Really big problem.
Far better letting Gillard run her stupid race and fix it up when they are thrown out. 
Rather than back them and then try and back fill the hole you helped dig.
Supporting stupid legislation for the sake of it is not clever. You end up tarred with the same brush.
You will end up being a party to the ruling and it will be difficult to adopt a different stance at a later date. IMO


----------



## drsmith (23 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> And Abbott will be held responsible for his own stupidities.



In Labor and it's power sharing partners are able to agree on a carbon tax, then why not Malaysia ?

The argument that the Coalition is somehow responsible for the outcome if Tony Abbott does not agree to Labor's terms is flawed on multiple fronts.

Here's another,



sptrawler said:


> If Abbott backs Gillards law changes and then they are challenged and found to be incorrect in the eyes of the law, where to then? Really big problem.
> Far better letting Gillard run her stupid race and fix it up when they are thrown out.
> Rather than back them and then try and back fill the hole you helped dig.




Labor's Malaysia solution was not exactly meant to run foul of the courts in the first place was it.


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2011)

Well drsmith in a previous post I think I alluded to that theory. This whole situation could have been orchestrated.
If Abbott was drawn into something as stupid as that, it would be curtains.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> How Labor supporters can condem Liberal party policy,that was humane and worked.
> Then now support Labor Malaysia policy is incomprehensible




LOL

Processing taking 2 years +
Sitting on the Tampa for what a month in a container = humane 

Dude your delusional. 

Malaysia is Humane because of the certainty...get on a boat = get sent to Malaysia and join the back of the legitimate cue...outcome = don't get on a boat.


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL
> 
> Processing taking 2 years +
> Sitting on the Tampa for what a month in a container = humane
> ...




Who is delusional, the 800 to Malaysia is allmost booked out.
Maybe it should be the Malaysia solution 2, now booking, filling fast get in early.LOL what a policy.
By the way sitting on the Tampa was better than being thrown on rocks in rough seas, which is what happens when you have nill border policy.


----------



## drsmith (24 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well drsmith in a previous post I think I alluded to that theory. This whole situation could have been orchestrated.



If so, that would make for a change in Gillard Labor's track record.

The only thing they've been able to successfully execute is themselves.



sptrawler said:


> If Abbott was drawn into something as stupid as that, it would be curtains.



Tony Abbott keeps dishing out political lessons to Labor and Labor continues to underestimate him and the public at large.

That's their biggest mistake.


----------



## IFocus (24 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> If so, that would make for a change in Gillard Labor's track record.
> 
> The only thing they've been able to successfully execute is themselves.
> 
> ...




Abbott lives because of Labors weakness not because of Abbotts political skills how hard is it to say no to every thing (stolen from the US Republicans)

Bill Hassell is a former WA State leader of the Liberal Party and agrees with some of the comments above.


"Abbott risks self-harm in stand-off"



> The coalition is not the government. The danger is that the coalition is seeking to take over the Government's responsibility for border protection.





http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/theburningissue/post/1878/comment/1


----------



## sails (24 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> ...Tony Abbott keeps dishing out political lessons to Labor and Labor continues to underestimate him and the public at large.
> 
> That's their biggest mistake.




I agree, Drsmith.

The coalition are clearly far more experienced in running the country than the previous gang of four  and now it seems to be Gillard on her own.  Richo has explained in a link I posted recently that she's not keen on taking advice from the good people around her.

Proficient politicians know they must have good advisors as no one person can know everything.   There is no training for the job of PM and so experts in their relevant fields are there to give sound guidance to a minister.


----------



## drsmith (24 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott lives because of Labors weakness.........



Without a doubt, Labor's weaknesses helps Tony Abbott's cause.



IFocus said:


> Bill Hassell is a former WA State leader of the Liberal Party and agrees with some of the comments above.
> 
> "Abbott risks self-harm in stand-off"
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/theburningissue/post/1878/comment/1






> The coalition is not the government. The danger is that the coalition is seeking to take over the Government's responsibility for border protection.



That is very thin gruel from an article that is otherwise highly critical of the mess Labor has created. The Coalition is not seeking to take over the Government's responsibility for border protection, it is simply trying to make the government accountable for border protection, as any good opposition should do. It is not up to the opposition to save the government from its own mess with a policy it does not agree with. If the opposition does that, it is, like Labor, joined at the hip to this policy, warts and all. Tony Abbott is not that foolish.

If, after all it's policy failures, the Government is not happy with the Coalition's alternative, it can turn to its power sharing partners for a solution. If that solution is onshore processing, then that's the government's responsibility.

This Labor government after all chose who it would share power with for the spoils of office.


----------



## sails (1 October 2011)

Another boat with 70 on board and the Malaysian deal would soon be exhausted. 




> Since the Malaysia deal was signed in July, *728* people and 24 crew have been picked up and taken to Christmas Island for processing




and comments from opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison:



> "Ten boats have now turned up in just 10 weeks, highlighting just how easily people smugglers can overwhelm this flawed and failed Malaysian arrangement,"




Full article from SMH: New arrival belies people swap: opposition


----------



## drsmith (13 October 2011)

A day after shafting us with their carbon tax, it's back to normal transmissions from Gillard Labor.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-13/government-to-process-asylum-seekers-onshore/3570236

Nothing vindicates Tony Abbott's position more than the fact that when push came to shove, Labor lacked the courage to put its own amendments to a vote.


----------



## Julia (13 October 2011)

The Greens are doing a pretty good job of containing their exultation at the government's capitulation to Greens desire to have onshore processing.
They must, indeed, be quite beside themselves with the government's announcement that it intends to considerably reduce even community detention time and to issue bridging visas to asylum seekers so that they may access all welfare and be allowed to work.

Whacko!   Exactly what the Greens have dictated, and a policy which will inevitably pull many more to our shores.

Meantime, of course, it's all the fault of Tony Abbott.

How about remember, Ms Gillard, that you can still have your offshore processing if you are prepared to accept just one amendment as offered by the Opposition.


----------



## noco (13 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> A day after shafting us with their carbon tax, it's back to normal transmissions from Gillard Labor.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-13/government-to-process-asylum-seekers-onshore/3570236
> 
> Nothing vindicates Tony Abbott's position more than the fact that when push came to shove, Labor lacked the courage to put its own amendments to a vote.




Well, Gillard and Bowen have delayed the humuliation now untill the 31/10/11 which is the next sitting of parliament.
I wonder what they will come up with before then, in the meantime maybe another 400 illegal boat people will arrive. Yes, it's all Tony Abbott's fault.
Why can't this inept Prime Minister of ours swallow her pride and accept Abbott's ammendments? It is all about compromise.


----------



## drsmith (13 October 2011)

noco said:


> Why can't this inept Prime Minister of ours swallow her pride and accept Abbott's ammendments? It is all about compromise.



That's a compromise that would upset her power sharing partners.


----------



## drsmith (13 October 2011)

Julia said:


> How about remember, Ms Gillard, that you can still have your offshore processing if you are prepared to accept just one amendment as offered by the Opposition.



On that, she might have got "the look" from one of her power sharing partners.


----------



## sails (13 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> That's a compromise that would upset her power sharing partners.




I think Gillard is using her power sharing partners as an excuse.  It's clear that none of them are going to support the coalition.  She could tell them all to go jump and they would still prefer labor over the coalition.

Unfortunately for Gillard, every time she blames Abbott for more boats, she will be booed from the arm chairs and will continue to lose respect, imo.  Rudd and Gillard deliberately wrecked the Pacific Solution and clearly  have only themselves to blame for this mess.

Gillard could re-instate the Pacific Solution with bi-partisan support and is the most sensible with it's good track record.  People are sent to a country with UNCHR signatory with  detention run by Australians.

But no, it seems she would rather risk our border security than take the most sensible option. Surely the country can come before pride?


----------



## Knobby22 (14 October 2011)

sails said:


> But no, it seems she would rather risk our border security than take the most sensible option. Surely the country can come before pride?




And what do you rate the chances of Abbott getting his way once he is in power?
In my view this will be our new policy for the next decade.


----------



## Calliope (14 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> And what do you rate the chances of Abbott getting his way once he is in power?
> In my view this will be our new policy for the next decade.




Yes, his chances of getting his boat policies up or of rescinding the Carbon Tax are diddly squat. Winners are grinners.


----------



## drsmith (14 October 2011)

The issue here is not about Tony Abbott or the opposition. It's about Labor and it's ability to govern.

Labor could have reached a compromise with its green or independent power sharing partners. If it could not, then it can't govern.

Instead, Labor has capitulated to the Greens.


----------



## drsmith (14 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Yes, his chances of getting his boat policies up or of rescinding the Carbon Tax are diddly squat. Winners are grinners.



Again, that's Labor's choice. 

The're the ones who alligned themselves with the Greens and then counted themselves as being in government.


----------



## sails (14 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Again, that's Labor's choice.
> 
> The're the ones who alligned themselves with the Greens and then counted themselves as being in government.




Not according to Gillard.  It's all Abbott's fault... 

And yet she could have bipartisan support provided she agrees one ONE amendment which agrees that any country receiving asylum seekers must be a signatory to the UNCHR.  That sounds like a pretty sensible condition, imo.

And yet Gillard doesn't mention that - neither does she mention that the greens were not going to pass it anyway in the senate. 

This from Tony Abbott:


----------



## Julia (14 October 2011)

I still think the Libs should have co-operated with the legislation, even without the clause insisting any third country needed to be a signatory to the UNHCR.

As I understand it, the legislation doesn't specify any country, certainly doesn't specify Malaysia, leaving it up to the government of the day to make their own choice.

If it were to pass and the government sent people to Malaysia, then it all went bad over there, it would be totally the fault of Labor, no responsibility of the Libs at all, who have made clear the humanitarian risks.

Their insistence on signing on to the UNHCR is just cant.  They have demonstrated no such concern when sending people to Nauru when it was not a signatory.

They are purely playing a political game here and in the process utterly destroying any chance of Labor ever supporting their legislation when they do take government.

It would seem, therefore, that Tony Abbott is counting on:

1. winning the next election

2.  putting up the use of Nauru and probably Manus Island for processing

3.  when this inevitably fails, calling a double dissolution election 

4.  assuming the double dissolution will change the composition of the Senate enough to get the legislation through.

Hell of a gamble!


----------



## sails (14 October 2011)

Julia, I understand that the Nauru detention centre was run by Australians who would have been working within the guidelines of our signatory agreement whereas I don't think Australia would have any say in how refugees were treated in Malaysia.  I see a big difference.

And, even if the coalition had agreed without the amendment, it would have still been blocked by the greens in the senate, so I guess there is no harm done that the coalition have taken a stand for humane treatment.  I don't like the non-refugee queue jumpers, however, humans still deserve to be treated humanely.

I would think the coalition will get such a massive majority at the next election, they will have no problem making any necessary changes to the law.  If there is enough anger against labor/greens, the half senate election could easily replace labor and greens with coalition and would give the necessary majority in both houses to sort out many of these messes created by this government.


----------



## sails (14 October 2011)

For a laugh, read this from Rowan Dean at the Drum:



> Having spent the past five years hiring and firing people, I know how difficult it is trying to get to the bottom of things when there's a stuff-up. Especially when it's a monumental one.
> 
> "Come in, Julia. Do sit down. Now tell me. What happened exactly?"...




Read more: So, Julia, why don't you tell me exactly what happened?


----------



## Knobby22 (14 October 2011)

sails said:


> And, even if the coalition had agreed without the amendment, it would have still been blocked by the greens in the senate, so I guess there is no harm done that the coalition have taken a stand for humane treatment.  I don't like the non-refugee queue jumpers, however, humans still deserve to be treated humanely.
> 
> .




Labour and Lib/Nat could have acted in the Senate to pass it without the Greens vote. Its happened plenty of times before where the two major parties have acted in concert to pass laws while the minor parties object.


----------



## sails (14 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Labour and Lib/Nat could have acted in the Senate to pass it without the Greens vote. Its happened plenty of times before where the two major parties have acted in concert to pass laws while the minor parties object.




That's true, Knobby, my mistake.

However, do we really agree with sending asylum seekers (genuine refugee or welfare rorters) to a country that is not a signatory to the UN?

Was it such an unreasonable amendment from the coalition?

Gillard caved in to all sorts of demands to get the Malaysian deal with Australia having the rough end of the pineapple, but then she won't budge on one sensible amendment?  Isn't that rather pathetic?

It looks like she was caving into greens and some of her own party who wanted on shore processing and it is more convenient not to agree to the humanitarian amendment and then try to blame Abbott.

But I think the public are tiring or her constant tirades against Abbott.  They are clearly not working as her polls keep falling while his are steady.

At the end of the day, Gillard is PM and, as such,  will be fully responsible for all future boat arrivals and any deaths at sea.


----------



## noco (14 October 2011)

Firstly, Gillard is a hypocrite in the first degree by originally saying she did not agree to Nauru purely on the grounds that Nauru was not a signatory to the UN convention and yet she agrees to the Malayasian deal who are not a signatory and their human rights are a disgrace. Nauru has since agreed to abide.

Secondly, if Abbott had agreed to Gillard's legislation to pursue her Malayasian deal and it had gone belly up as with most things she does, then she would turn around and say "Abbott agreed to it so don't blamne me". Abbott is a bit too smart for that crap.


----------



## IFocus (14 October 2011)

Abbott continues to play the Republican game that is don't act in the countries interest seek power at any cost.

Fact is Malaysia was the 1st genuine step towards a regional response.

That is we deal or help deal with issues in our own back yard and not deal with the problems from 1/2 round the other side of the world. 


Hope the 4000 Chins still get to resettle here at least they are genuine refugees.


----------



## Calliope (14 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Labour and Lib/Nat could have acted in the Senate to pass it without the Greens vote. Its happened plenty of times before where the two major parties have acted in concert to pass laws while the minor parties object.




Gillard and Abbott are two of a kind, blockheads! They must both share the blame for their failure to send a powerful message to the Greens that they are irrelevant on the big issues that are in Australia's interests.


----------



## sails (14 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott continues to play the Republican game that is don't act in the countries interest seek power at any cost.
> 
> Fact is Malaysia was the 1st genuine step towards a regional response.
> 
> ...




IFocus,  your first sentence describes Gillard far more...

And, I thought lefties thought the Pacific Solution was inhumane even though it was run by Australians?  And yet you support the potentially inhumane "solution" where Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN and Australia has no control?

Oh, and I do agree with your last sentence.  I would be much happier knowing we are taking in genuine refugees rather than whoever has the money for the boat ride and toss their IDs overboard.


----------



## Ferret (14 October 2011)

We have ended up with a terrible outcome on this because the leaders of our two major parties put their politicing above the interests of the country.



sails said:


> At the end of the day, Gillard is PM and, as such,  will be fully responsible for all future boat arrivals and any deaths at sea.




I think this is relevant, Sails, and as PM she should have been allowed to decide to use Malaysia if that was her choice.  Abbott would have had the same freedom to use Nauru as his choice when he becomes PM.  Gillard's could have agreed to Abbott's amendment, but that would have been letting him call all the shots before he is PM.


----------



## sails (14 October 2011)

Ferret said:


> We have ended up with a terrible outcome on this because the leaders of our two major parties put their politicing above the interests of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is relevant, Sails, and as PM she should have been allowed to decide to use Malaysia if that was her choice.  Abbott would have had the same freedom to use Nauru as his choice when he becomes PM.  Gillard's could have agreed to Abbott's amendment, but that would have been letting him call all the shots before he is PM.




Ferret, are you saying you are OK with sending boat arrivals off to Malaysia who are not a signatory to the UN and also have been known to not treat refugees humanely?


----------



## Julia (14 October 2011)

sails said:


> Julia, I understand that the Nauru detention centre was run by Australians who would have been working within the guidelines of our signatory agreement whereas I don't think Australia would have any say in how refugees were treated in Malaysia.  I see a big difference.



OK, accepted.  However, I still believe Tony Abbott's refusal to co-operate with the government is more on political grounds than humanitarian.  For all his religiosity, he is not known for being particularly concerned with damaging people.  viz his brutal campaign against Pauline Hanson for one which saw her jailed.



> And, even if the coalition had agreed without the amendment, it would have still been blocked by the greens in the senate, so I guess there is no harm done that the coalition have taken a stand for humane treatment.



Knobby has responded to this.  Lots of harm done imo if one just looks down the track a few years.



> Gillard caved in to all sorts of demands to get the Malaysian deal with Australia having the rough end of the pineapple, but then she won't budge on one sensible amendment?  Isn't that rather pathetic?



Yes, of course it is.  But that just isn't the point.  The point which I seem to be singularly unsuccessful in getting across is that Mr Abbott seems to be choosing a short term political victory which may well backfire against him a hundredfold when he actually finds himself in government.

This is all I'm thinking about, plus of course the utterly loathsome victory to The Greens who can't believe their luck!
What a week The Greens have had:  the stupid carbon tax is through, and - beyond their wildest dreams - whacko, they have onshore processing where the numbers will be so great, detention time will be hardly worth considering.  No wonder they're grinning madly.

All because our two main political parties are acting like 3 year olds.  They both want offshore processing, but they are both prepared to go along with what must philosophically be anathema to both of them, just because they are so overcome by hubris and the pathetic need for short term political satisfaction.



> At the end of the day, Gillard is PM and, as such,  will be fully responsible for all future boat arrivals and any deaths at sea.



Well, let's spare ourselves the crocodile tears about deaths at sea.  Any notion that either party is actually worried about this is delusional.  It just, they hope, allows them to sound all warm and fuzzy when quite the opposite is the case.



noco said:


> Firstly, Gillard is a hypocrite in the first degree by originally saying she did not agree to Nauru purely on the grounds that Nauru was not a signatory to the UN convention and yet she agrees to the Malayasian deal who are not a signatory and their human rights are a disgrace. Nauru has since agreed to abide.



True enough, but I just fail to see the point of getting on one's high horse about this sort of principle if it's going to jeopardise your own future.




> Secondly, if Abbott had agreed to Gillard's legislation to pursue her Malayasian deal and it had gone belly up as with most things she does, then she would turn around and say "Abbott agreed to it so don't blamne me". Abbott is a bit too smart for that crap.



She could try that, but the Australian public are not such fools as to accept that at face value.  Surely Mr Abbott can dredge up enough political skill, if he were to sign off on the legislation, to have it clearly on the record that he was signing with the specific proviso that he totally disapproved of Malaysia or any other non-UNHCR aligned country.



IFocus said:


> Abbott continues to play the Republican game that is don't act in the countries interest seek power at any cost.
> 
> Fact is Malaysia was the 1st genuine step towards a regional response.
> 
> That is we deal or help deal with issues in our own back yard and not deal with the problems from 1/2 round the other side of the world.



I pretty much agree with you here, IF.




> Hope the 4000 Chins still get to resettle here at least they are genuine refugees.



Who are "Chins"?  Presumably you're referring to the Burmese?
If so, I agree also.  Burmese are a quite different category to the arrogant boat people who arrive with such a sense of entitlement.


----------



## Calliope (14 October 2011)

sails said:


> Ferret, are you saying you are OK with sending boat arrivals off to Malaysia who are not a signatory to the UN and also have been known to not treat refugees humanely?




Our biggest mistake was signing this UN Refugee Convention in the first place and allowing a bunch of foreigners to dictate to us how we should handle illegal immigrants. The do-gooders here have used this convention to tie our hands and give preferential treatment to people who flout our laws, and for our Federal Court to overturn our procedures.

The Malaysians are smarter than us and make their own rules. All this talk about treating boat people humanely is a load of cobblers. The Malaysian solution makes sense. *If the illegals don't want to go to Malaysia they don't get on the boats.*

I never thought I would say this, but I side with Gillard on this issue.


----------



## medicowallet (14 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Our biggest mistake was signing this UN Refugee Convention in the first place and allowing a bunch of foreigners to dictate to us how we should handle illegal immigrants. The do-gooders here have used this convention to tie our hands and give preferential treatment to people who flout our laws, and for our Federal Court to overturn our procedures.
> 
> The Malaysians are smarter than us and make their own rules. All this talk about treating boat people humanely is a load of cobblers. The Malaysian solution makes sense. *If the illegals don't want to go to Malaysia they don't get on the boats.*
> 
> I never thought I would say this, but I side with Gillard on this issue.




And once the 800 is used up?

The gillard "solution", I cannot believe ANYONE bought it as anything other than utter rubbish.


----------



## Ferret (15 October 2011)

sails said:


> Ferret, are you saying you are OK with sending boat arrivals off to Malaysia who are not a signatory to the UN and also have been known to not treat refugees humanely?




Sails,

Whilst that wasn't what I said, I am ok with it.

Nobody is forced to get on the boats.  Those who do are fortunate enough to have the money and think it is ok to use it to jump the queue.  

I'm opposed to this and if the risk of a dangerous voyage was not enough to deter them, maybe knowing they would be sent back to Malaysia would have been.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 October 2011)

Ferret said:


> Sails,
> 
> Whilst that wasn't what I said, I am ok with it.
> 
> ...




You know most of them have relatives in Australia paying for there tickets?


----------



## Ferret (15 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> You know most of them have relatives in Australia paying for there tickets?




What does it matter where the money comes from? They don't have to get on the boats and I'm not happy with the queue jumping.


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2011)

medicowallet said:


> And once the 800 is used up?
> 
> The gillard "solution", I cannot believe ANYONE bought it as anything other than utter rubbish.




Exactly. And that is all the more reason why Abbott should have agreed to it. When the scheme fell in a heap down the track, he would have had the upper hand. All he had to say to Gillard would have been "Okay we'll try your plan on the condition that if it fails you will resort to my plan B."


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2011)

I find it hard to believe it has come to this.

*Labor wants off-shore processing,
The Coalition wants off-shore processing,
The Greens and the refugee industry want mainland processing.*

Gillard and Abbott have the numbers to get what they want, but they are both too politically hidebound to negotiate. Brown's strategy is to divide and conquer and it is working.


----------



## sails (15 October 2011)

Looks like Chris Bowen was pushing for Nauru:



> THE Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, and other key ministers from Labor's Right faction pushed for the government to send asylum seekers to Nauru but were rolled by cabinet colleagues.
> 
> As the government and opposition blamed each other yesterday for the decision to abandon offshore processing, it emerged that Kevin Rudd had adopted the same position as Julia Gillard in opposing Nauru.




http://www.smh.com.au/national/on-a-hiding-to-nothing-20111014-1lpao.html#ixzz1anKTiN13


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

sails said:


> Looks like Chris Bowen was pushing for Nauru:



One day after their carbon tax celibrations, that photograph of Julia Gillard and Chris Bowen is telling.

Also extrordinary is the detail of discussioms from their cabinet meeting(s). There are clearly some very unhappy campers within Labor.

Their obsession with Tony Abbott in their deliberations shows how much they have lost their way. The seem to have forgotten that they are in govermnent and that between them and their alliance partners, they have a majority in both houses. Tony Abbott has them seriously rattled.

We are witnessing the implosion of a political party that is fighting battles on two fronts. In this respect, it draws parallels to the final months of WW2 against Nazi Germany. On one battlefront, there's Tony Abbott and the Coalition exercising superior political firepower. The Malaysia Solution was in this this sense Labor's gamble that draws parallels the Battle of the Bulge. In diverting political resources for this battle and lost, Labor has denuded it's resources to effectively defend the other front, the relentless advance of the Greens on its left voter base.


----------



## medicowallet (15 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> I find it hard to believe it has come to this.
> 
> *Labor wants off-shore processing,
> The Coalition wants off-shore processing,
> ...




I'm sure Abbott will help Gillard out of the mess.

Only once she admits her role in the stupidity that followed when her own advice was taken by the Rudd Govt.

Since that is never going to happen, AND since the solution is pathetic and stupid,

I am quite prepared to accept his judgement not to support this, until there is something reasonable to support.


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I am quite prepared to accept his judgement not to support this, until there is something reasonable to support.



His judgement was sound and has turned out to be a political masterstroke.

Labor's first responsibility was to get its alliance partners to support it and, that failing, accept Tony Abbott's compromise. Beyond that, they can't legitiimately blame anyone else. 

The simple bottom line is that they are ultimately responsible for the outcomes of this government. They, after all, chose their minority partners and the compromises they were prepared to accept to form government.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> His judgement was sound and has turned out to be a political masterstroke.
> 
> Labor's first responsibility was to get its alliance partners to support it and, that failing, accept Tony Abbott's compromise. Beyond that, they can't legitiimately blame anyone else.
> 
> The simple bottom line is that they are ultimately responsible for the outcomes of this government. They, after all, chose their minority partners and the compromises they were prepared to accept to form government.



So, given that the impasse results in anyone who decides to get on a boat and come here being housed at taxpayer expense in the community, given full access to social security, medical and educational opportunities, do you feel this is an acceptable outcome for us as Australians?


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

Julia said:


> So, given that the impasse results in anyone who decides to get on a boat and come here being housed at taxpayer expense in the community, given full access to social security, medical and educational opportunities, do you feel this is an acceptable outcome for us as Australians?



As I said above, that does not legitimately shift the blame.


----------



## sails (15 October 2011)

Julia said:


> So, given that the impasse results in anyone who decides to get on a boat and come here being housed at taxpayer expense in the community, given full access to social security, medical and educational opportunities, do you feel this is an acceptable outcome for us as Australians?




Absolutely not acceptable, and neither is carbon tax.  

But does Gillard give a hoot what the majority of Australians want?  Democracy doesn't seem to be a word in this government's dictionary.

Even if Abbott had agreed with her so called "solution", we have almost reached the first 800.  Does she have a plan B?  

I hope the coalition have done the right thing, but I also have doubts that giving bipartisan support without the amendment would have solved the problems for long. There would have been horrific youtubes of people being caned and then Abbott would be blamed anyway for allowing that to happen.

I suspect she supports on shore processing and thinks she can get away with this by blaming Abbott.  Here is Gillard when they were in opposition:


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

> Combet made the point that there was 10 years' worth of TV footage of Gillard denouncing Nauru. If she now embraced it, the Liberals would have a field day, piling this inconsistency on top of her inconsistency on carbon tax. Abbott had "framed" Gillard in the public mind on the questions of integrity and consistency. To support the Bowen plan would be to simply reinforce Abbott's main case against Gillard.




Kinda shows their priorities and the Laberals are still having a field day.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/undone-by-their-own-tactics-20111014-1lp95.html


----------



## sails (15 October 2011)

Looks like some labor MPs were planning to abstain from voting with their disapproval for the Malaysian solution or possibly all offshore processing.



> When the Liberals’ Sophie Mirabella ignored warnings and was suspended from the service of the house for 24 hours by the deputy Speaker on Tuesday night, it looked as though Gillard’s tactical victory was in sight and her judgment was about to be vindicated…
> 
> Without Mirabella, at best the Coalition could muster only 74 votes in a house of 150 members. Any pairing arrangements cancel one another out. So there was no further need for the government to negotiate with West Australian National Tony Crook for his support. The bill could have passed on the casting vote of the Speaker, Labor’s Harry Jenkins. Why then was the bill not put to a vote on Wednesday?…
> 
> ...




Read more from the Australian by Christopher Pearson: 'Decision and delivery' week turns into a right mess


----------



## Julia (15 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> As I said above, that does not legitimately shift the blame.



Of course not.  But I asked you a quite separate question, entirely aside from who is to blame for what.
If you don't want to answer that, that's fine.  Maybe just say so.


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

> Read more from the Australian by Christopher Pearson: 'Decision and delivery' week turns into a *right mess *



Shouldn't that be a "left mess" ?


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Of course not.



Thank you Julia.


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> As I said above, that does not legitimately shift the blame.




So you think that the side that can shower the other side with the most blame has more legitimacy. 

The best interests of the country will not solved by the blame game. A little cooperation against the common enemy makes more sense to me.



> His judgement was sound and has turned out to be a political masterstroke.




A political masterstroke. A judgement which results in mainland processing is a stupidity.


----------



## DB008 (15 October 2011)

Saw the PM on TV yesterday. 
What a joke. 
How about this, (PM) saying, 'We made a mistake by dismantling the Pacific solution and are trying to rectify the problem'. 
Instead, it's turned into a Abbott has stuffed this up and it's his fault the boats are coming. 
What a ****** debarcle.


----------



## DB008 (15 October 2011)

Saw the PM on TV yesterday. 
What a joke. 
How about this, instead of the PM saying, 'We made a mistake by dismantling the Pacific solution and are trying to rectify the problem'. 
Instead, it's turned into a Abbott has stuffed this up and it's his fault the boats are coming. 
What a ****** debarcle.


----------



## dutchie (15 October 2011)

Its a double debarcle!


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> So you think that the side that can shower the other side with the most blame has more legitimacy.



Did I say that ?

No, but Labor is the party in government and they are ultimately responsible for the outcomes of their policies.



Calliope said:


> The best interests of the country will not solved by the blame game. A little cooperation against the common enemy makes more sense to me.



Who are you referring to as the common enemy ?

The Greens ?

Labor formed an alliance with the Greens in exchange for office.

Whom do they see as the common enemy ?



> A political masterstroke. A judgement which results in mainland processing is a stupidity.



It's Labor's choices that has resulted in mainland processing.

They chose their bed partners and they chose not to accept the Coalition's compromise.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Did I say that ?
> 
> No, but Labor is the party in government and they are ultimately responsible for the outcomes of their policies.
> 
> ...




Perspective is a funny thing...i though Labor formed an alliance with the greens as it was the only way they could take office.


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> i though Labor formed an alliance with the greens as it was the only way they could take office.



That's right.

Office at any price.

Labor's blank cheque to the Greens is ultimately costing the country and itself dearly.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> So you think that the side that can shower the other side with the most blame has more legitimacy.
> 
> The best interests of the country will not solved by the blame game. A little cooperation against the common enemy makes more sense to me.
> 
> ...



 Absolutely agree.
The blame game is perhaps scoring some short term political points in the minds of both sides, but they don't seem to realise the negativity they are wreaking amongst the electorate.

Both sides will be held responsible, and rightly so imo, for this and it will be reflected in the ballot box.  I still just can't quite credit that they can both be so utterly childish.


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> It's Labor's choices that has resulted in mainland processing.
> 
> They chose their bed partners and they chose not to accept the Coalition's compromise.




Compromise?:dunno: Abbott said Nauru or on-shore processing. Gillard said Malaysia or on-shore processing.


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Absolutely agree.
> The blame game is perhaps scoring some short term political points in the minds of both sides, but they don't seem to realise the negativity they are wreaking amongst the electorate.
> 
> Both sides will be held responsible, and rightly so imo, for this and it will be reflected in the ballot box.  I still just can't quite credit that they can both be so utterly childish.




Like some contributors to this thread Gillard and Abbott both have tunnel vision. The broader picture which is that *we should decide who comes to this country and how they come,* completely escapes them. The barriers are now down because two prima donnas could not negotiate for fear of losing face.


----------



## joea (16 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Perspective is a funny thing...i though Labor formed an alliance with the greens as it was the only way they could take office.




Hi.
This is my perception as well! But!! While the labor government is getting on with the job of running the country( but not a good job), the Greens are mischieveously making a fool out of Gillard, on evey piece of Legislation they choose to "tinker with".
Bob sees this as an achievement for the country and the Greens. 

Sarah - Hanson - Young sees it a achievement for the country and another step in the direction of taking over from Bob. (She has just made a big mistake tinkering with premediated questions).

So Gillard did a deal with the Greens, who are now just eating away any credibility she had left.
Personally I think the Greens will be seen in some peoples minds as a saviour for Australia.
Finally Gillards problem is she wants to break everything that works. While the Greens have been having a few wins over her when they fix some of her distruction. So I would think the peoples perception will be that the Greens are doing some good for the Federal Government.

With body language, Bob is showing, "well I have control of the Senate, and I have control of Gillard, but I must make an effort to keep Sarah-Hanson-Young on a shorter leash.

No doubt in Bob Brown's HQ, he has a slogan on the whiteboard and it says...
'While Julia Gillard runs the country, the "Greens" will always be looking good."

joea


----------



## joea (16 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Like some contributors to this thread Gillard and Abbott both have tunnel vision. The broader picture which is that *we should decide who comes to this country and how they come,* completely escapes them. The barriers are now down because two prima donnas could not negotiate for fear of losing face.




I may be on that list but,.
When the high court gives a ruling, and one side accepts it and the other does not, then my vision is saying one side does not want to negotiate.
I do not have the quote, but I am sure I watched the Howard government make a statement,:"we will be deciding who comes to our country, not other countries".

People who see this situation as a refusal to negotiate, do not understand the word "integrity". One side has it and believe it, and the other side doen't have in in her vocabulary.
joea


----------



## Calliope (16 October 2011)

joea said:


> People who see this situation as a refusal to negotiate, do not understand the word "integrity".




You are obviously referring to me. I am unimpressed with your version of integrity. These are obviously *your* perceptions. Admiration for Brown and integrity does not compute.



> Personally I think the Greens will be seen in some peoples minds as a saviour for Australia.






> So I would think the peoples perception will be that the Greens are doing some good for the Federal Government.




John Howard said *"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."
*
What part of this statement do you disagree with, apart from it being the it being the hated Howard who said it?


----------



## joea (16 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> You are obviously referring to me. I am unimpressed with your version of integrity. These are obviously *your* perceptions. Admiration for Brown and integrity does not compute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hi.
Obviously I have worded it wronly if you believe that I hate Howard.
I am saying that Abbott's policy and integrity is based on Howards statement and that it worked. So why are people say that Tony Abbott will not negotiate.
He wants to reapply a policy that has worked. So what is wrong with that?
The people with tunnel vision are accepting the media's version and not there own.

Tony Abbott does not have to negotiate, he supports Howards statement, he believes it worked in the past and says it will work again. His ammendants supports this as well.

It has also been explained by Hunt that it can be implemented in 15 minutes if parliment resits.

On perceptions. I am saying, if Bob Brown keeps cleaning up Gillards " political path of destruction" , the the Australian voters perception is that Bob Brown is working for Australian's best interest.

I would like to think that the majority of Australian voters know that Bob Brown is working for Bob Brown. Gillard is making it easier for Bob Brown to have a "better standing " in the eyes of the Australian people.

IN OTHER WORDS LESS HAVE AN ELECTION. The quicker the better. Because if we do not have an election for two years, we are in serious trouble.
This trouble that I indicate, is the Greens getting stronger by the day, as Gillard is feeding them seed with her gross incompetence.
joea


----------



## Calliope (16 October 2011)

joea said:


> On perceptions. I am saying, if Bob Brown keeps cleaning up Gillards " political path of destruction" , the the Australian voters perception is that Bob Brown is working for Australian's best interest.




Thanks joe, now i know where you are coming from. And it's all Green.


----------



## sails (16 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Compromise?:dunno: Abbott said Nauru or on-shore processing. Gillard said Malaysia or on-shore processing.




It seems that Gillard wanted onshore processing after all.  This from Samantha Maiden on the cabinet leaks(bold is mine):



> The leaks also revealed *Ms Gillard opted to back the Left wing of the party and support onshore processing* - a snub to the Right-wing powerbrokers who installed her in the top job.




Prime Minister Julia Gillard's civil war as leaks Cabinet crisis

and again from Samantha Maiden (bold is mine):



> "She's the Prime Minister, she made the call," said one cabinet minister.
> 
> "*She got what she wanted*. We backed her. Now she can make it work," said another Labor MP.
> 
> ...




'Gillard is looking for multiple rats' 

Seems pretty clear to me that Gillard herself favours on shore processing.  Ever since Rudd dismantled the Pacific solution, we have had on shore processing in detention centres.  Now Gillard wants on shore processing without detention - she has sided with green policy and labor right are horrified according to the article above.


----------



## drsmith (16 October 2011)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ky-boat-towed-to-the-left-20111015-1lq4h.html



> Where things will go from here, on the asylum issue and Gillard's future, is worrying for Labor. If the government were a house, you'd be inspecting the foundations.



Too late for that now.

The house of Labor is now utterly uninhabitable. It needs to be demolished and rebuilt.


----------



## IFocus (16 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Perspective is a funny thing...i though Labor formed an alliance with the greens as it was the only way they could take office.




This the alliance Abbott has 2nd time he has help the Greens to achieve their policy.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 October 2011)

I watched ABC tv this morning, the point was made that all the big legislative changes that have come about over the last 12 months are almost 100% due to the fact that the Greens control both houses.


Carbon Tax = Greens policy.
On shore processing = Greens policy
Resource tax = Greens policy/support

While the belligerence of 1 vote Tony and friends hasn't helped...its funny how that belligerence has played straight into the hands of the Greens...The Greens are getting pretty much all the policy out comes they want.


----------



## joea (16 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Thanks joe, now i know where you are coming from. And it's all Green.




Sorry Calliope I am not Green.
I cannot say what I think about the Greens on this forum, trust me I would be banned for life.
I have just had a "gutfull" of Abbott bashers, when all he has done is stand by the policy's that work.
OK, I accept that he might not be the statesman of some of the greats.
But Gee give him a go. I thought that was what Aussie was all about.
Rudd had no policy's, Gillard does not understand the word policy, so now it comes to Tony's turn.
joea p.s. Gillard doen not understand the word "team".
joea


----------



## sails (16 October 2011)

joea said:


> Sorry Calliope I am not Green.
> I cannot say what I think about the Greens on this forum, trust me I would be banned for life.
> I have just had a "gutfull" of Abbott bashers, when all he has done is stand by the policy's that work.
> OK, I accept that he might not be the statesman of some of the greats.
> ...




I never thought you were in anyway a green.  IFocus, So_Cynical maybe, but not Joea...


----------



## IFocus (16 October 2011)

joea said:


> But Gee give him a go.




With his track record never just like he gave everyone else.........


----------



## Julia (16 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> This the alliance Abbott has 2nd time he has help the Greens to achieve their policy.



IF, you have made some quite rational and objective comments about the current political situation recently, but you're reverting to type with this.  You have a hell of a cheek blaming Abbott for the Gillard government's abject failures.  Let's remember that it was Rudd Labor which dismantled the very successful Howard government border control policy.  It's the ultimate irony that Gillard et al are now attempting to lay this woeful annihilation of functional policy at the hands of the Libs.



So_Cynical said:


> I watched ABC tv this morning, the point was made that all the big legislative changes that have come about over the last 12 months are almost 100% due to the fact that the Greens control both houses.
> 
> 
> Carbon Tax = Greens policy.
> ...



Yes, they are, purely on the basis of the unbelievable weakness of the government.
It has nothing to do with Tony Abbott fergawdsake!!! (other than his unwillingness to co-operate with the border protection legislation, something that's pretty understandable given the government's dismantling of the successful Lib policy on this.

At least the sensible part of the electorate is awake to the machinations of the Greens, thanks to the Opposition's dogged determination in pointing this out.

What do you want, SC?  And IF for that matter?

Do you want to see all that is happening now in terms of the carbon tax, free admission to the country for anyone who decides they want to come here, become enshrined as permanent policy?  Do you really think it's fair that disadvantaged Australians, many of whom have paid taxes all their lives, are unable to access all the services about to be freely made available to so called asylum seekers? 

Or that those genuine refugees who have presented their documentation and applied to come through proper channels are being pushed back and back because the Australian government is instead processing these 'irregular arrivals'?

Let's have your actual views about this, rather than the tired and meaningless bagging of the opposition which has been hugely more effective than Labor ever was in opposition.


----------



## sails (16 October 2011)

Excellent post, Julia...


----------



## Calliope (17 October 2011)

joea said:


> Sorry Calliope I am not Green.
> I cannot say what I think about the Greens on this forum, trust me I would be banned for life.




Please accept my apologies joe. I now realise that to falsely accuse someone of being a Green is indeed a nasty insult. Any one who would support Bob Brown and his two nasties, Christine Milne and Sarah Hansen Young, should be ashamed of themselves, and must expect opprobrium to be heaped on them.

Once again I apologise.


----------



## Calliope (17 October 2011)

There is not much levity on this thread, but the suggestion made over the weekend that Gillard should consider making boat people available to Western Australian farming communities who can't compete with the mining industry for labour, is one of the silliest suggestion I have heard yet.

These bludgers don't come here to work. If they wanted work they could get it at home. They come here for the welfare.


----------



## Julia (17 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> There is not much levity on this thread, but the suggestion made over the weekend that Gillard should consider making boat people available to Western Australian farming communities who can't compete with the mining industry for labour, is one of the silliest suggestion I have heard yet.
> 
> These bludgers don't come here to work. If they wanted work they could get it at home. They come here for the welfare.



 Well, then, it would seem like an excellent idea to send them (once cleared of the most obvious risks) to do some work in the agricultural sector.
I scoffed when I heard the suggestion, but on reflection I'd rather see them doing something slightly useful than sitting around,


----------



## noco (17 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Well, then, it would seem like an excellent idea to send them (once cleared of the most obvious risks) to do some work in the agricultural sector.
> I scoffed when I heard the suggestion, but on reflection I'd rather see them doing something slightly useful than sitting around,




Sounds a good idea in principle but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only problem is they may have to rough it a bit in the outback in comparison to the 4 star treatment they have had since arriving in Australia.

Will only the single men be sent or will they have their families too?

How will they react to the hard work and possibly long hours expected by the farmers?

Will they be paid by the hour or on piece work?

Will they be paying tax and then require a tax file number? What about the ID's they threw overboard which they would require for a TFN?

I just hope Julia Gillard not only has a plan "A" BUT ALSO A PLAN "B". After all her stuff ups in the past, it would not surprise me if this scheme will be any different to all the others..

Like to see some details on how she will go about it.


----------



## IFocus (17 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I watched ABC tv this morning, the point was made that all the big legislative changes that have come about over the last 12 months are almost 100% due to the fact that the Greens control both houses.
> 
> 
> Carbon Tax = Greens policy.
> ...




Yep the Greens are the winners just look who are the grinner's.

I think at the moment Abbott and Gillard are close to being even in supporting these Green policy's when it suits their perceived short term gains.


----------



## drsmith (17 October 2011)

Tony Abbott's position is not based on supporting Greens policy.

He has infact forced Labor to an undignified retreat behind Green lines.


----------



## Julia (17 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott's position is not based on supporting Greens policy.
> 
> He has infact forced Labor to an undignified retreat behind Green lines.



Correct.
Your interpretation is wrong, IF

.Btw, I'd much appreciate an answer to the question I put to you and SC above, Post 347.


----------



## noco (18 October 2011)

Good news and glad tidings from dear Julia Gillard on terrorists. 

Yes Julia, the more boat people arrivals, the greater the chance of terrorist entering the counrty.

It will happen. Not if but when!!!!!!!!!!!



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...terrorist-attack/story-e6freooo-1226169578666


----------



## Calliope (23 October 2011)

So Gillard called in the Navy chief to tell us that turning around the boats could be dangerous for Australian sailors..Big deal. I remember that protecting Australian borders from the Japanese was dangerous for sailors. Protecting Australia from the Taliban in Afghanistan is dangerous.



> Senator Sterle asked whether there had been risks to defence personnel when towbacks were conducted. Admiral Griggs replied: "When people are lighting fires on boats, yes



."


----------



## sails (25 October 2011)

The cost of these boat arrivals is staggering.  And after watcing a report on Today Tonight, it seems to be common knowledge in Indonesia that the boats coming from there are mostly economic refugees.  If so, that is bad news for genuine refugees who are being made to wait while economic refugees jump the queue in front of them.



> The cost of managing the surge of asylum seekers to Australian shores has blown out the Immigration Department's budget by more than $1 billion as the Government struggles to manage the huge numbers of boat people in detention.
> 
> New figures show the department was budgeted to spend $1.2 billion during the 2010-11 financial year, but actually spent $2.3 billion.



Read more by NICK BUTTERLY CANBERRA, The West Australian: 

*Boat people backlog blows budget by $1b*


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

Tony Abbott has a lot to answer for. Not only was he responsible for the Qantas groundings, but Labor has also pinned on him the responsibility for the drowning of the immigrants on the smugglers' boat off the Java coast.



> *Labor links asylum-seeker boat tragedy to Coalition stand on offshore processing*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...boat-lost-at-sea/story-fn9hm1gu-1226183735698


----------



## sails (2 November 2011)

Adrian Joel, an immigration lawyer and migration agent who has conducted class actions, says Julia Gillard’s Malaysian “solution” would expose taxpayers to huge legal claims. 

Read more including an article "WHY THE MALAYSIAN SOLUTION IS A NEGLIGENCE TIME BOMB" by Adrian Joel: How the Malaysia people swap could cost us millions


----------



## Julia (2 November 2011)

The government has apparently not been completely dysfunctional on asylum seekers/people smugglers.
Legislation introduced has scotched the case of the Left's pro bono lawyers acting on behalf of people smugglers.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3354540.htm

Personally, I'd rather they turned their attention away from ignorant children from impoverished Indonesian villages who were maybe cooking the rice on a boat full of asylum seekers, to doing something that actually had an effect on the rising tide of boats which now appear to be coming pretty much daily.

Where on earth are they going to put all these people?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 November 2011)

Heard the head female green on Jon Faine of the ABC who was probably hoping for an easy ride.  She kept mounting platitudes about how we should respect refugees ect. and John kept saying this is not the UN, what would you do to stop this happening? She had no answers, I hope it made her think a bit.

Jon also made a good comment that this was a failure of all political parties to make a compromise for the good of the refugees and Australia. I agree, you may be able to lay more blame on one political party than another but they are all culpable as a group for this awful situation.


----------



## sails (3 November 2011)

Knobby - so you don't think labor should take some responsibility for wrecking the working Pacific Solution?  

It might not have been perfect, but the Pacific Solution did seem to remove the major pull factor and welcome mat put out by labor for economic refugees while giving genuine refugees a safe haven.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 November 2011)

sails said:


> Knobby - so you don't think labor should take some responsibility for wrecking the working Pacific Solution?
> 
> It might not have been perfect, but the Pacific Solution did seem to remove the major pull factor and welcome mat put out by labor for economic refugees while giving genuine refugees a safe haven.




Yes, they should take some responsibility. They should work out something.
Greens should take some responsibility and stop being so hard line.
Libs should take some responsibility and give Labour a compromise so they can save face and stop being so hard line. They've won the argument anyway.

As I said you can lay the blame differently but surely our parties can compramise and get some sort of solution instead of thinking about the next election all the time. 

How many boats will it take? If we got 5000 boats in a year's time with many 1000 deaths do you think then pressure might mount for a compromise?? Does it always have to be my way or the highway? We have done it before in our past, that is politicians voting for the greater good despite party allegiances. I think it reflects badly on the whole parliament.


----------



## Calliope (3 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> How many boats will it take? If we got 5000 boats in a year's time with many 1000 deaths do you think then pressure might mount for a compromise??




None of the political parties give a tinker's cuss about how many deaths there are at sea. They just use it for hypocritical points scoring. People are drowning all over the world. It's ridiculous to pretend the those who drown between Indionesia and Christmas Island are more precious to us.


----------



## noco (3 November 2011)

This Prime Minister of ours can't think past her long nose. No thought has been given to the $millions of legal cost for which Australia maybe confronted. 

Check out the link below.



Vhttp://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/how_the_malaysia_people_swap_could_cost_us_millions/


----------



## noco (3 November 2011)

This Prime Minister of ours can't think past her long nose. No thought has been given to the $millions of legal cost for which Australia maybe confronted. 

Check out the link below.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._malaysia_people_swap_could_cost_us_millions/


----------



## sails (3 November 2011)

I think kids in a school yard could work this one out OK.

Libs had a good system. 

Labor wrecked it and got into an awful mess.

Why is it now the Libs responsibility - they have offered bipartisan support for the proven system.  But, no, labor still think they know best.


----------



## drsmith (3 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, they should take some responsibility. They should work out something.
> Greens should take some responsibility and stop being so hard line.
> Libs should take some responsibility and give Labour a compromise so they can save face and stop being so hard line. They've won the argument anyway.



It's not up to the Coalition if the Greens won't come to the party. The Greens are, after all, in alliance with Labor.

It's well past time the dog wagged the tail with the Labor/Green alliance and Labor insisted the Greens accept its Malaysia solution if it thinks it will work. If not, then Labor should dissolve the alliance and call an election.

Labor won't because it will lose office. That's not a good moral foundation upon which to be blaming others.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 November 2011)

sails said:


> Why is it now the Libs responsibility - they have offered bipartisan support for the proven system.  But, no, labor still think they know best.




LOL bipartisan support for there own policy...brilliant.

You get funnier by the week sails.


----------



## Julia (3 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> It's not up to the Coalition if the Greens won't come to the party. The Greens are, after all, in alliance with Labor.
> 
> It's well past time the dog wagged the tail with the Labor/Green alliance and Labor insisted the Greens accept its Malaysia solution if it thinks it will work. If not, then Labor should dissolve the alliance and call an election.
> 
> Labor won't because it will lose office. That's not a good moral foundation upon which to be blaming others.



 +1.  Labor formed the alliance.  They have to accept the reality of the result.


----------



## sails (3 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL bipartisan support for there own policy...brilliant.
> 
> You get funnier by the week sails.




It would be funny if it weren't so real and people weren't drowning.

Bipartisan support for a *system that worked*.  Who cares who created the policy - *it worked*.


----------



## Julia (3 November 2011)

I've been trying to find a link to an item on ABC Radio news this evening describing a 1.5 million dollar settlement as compensation to an Iranian family for their being in detention.
Probably won't be up on the ABC website until tomorrow.
I can't believe this!   They come here outside of the formal immigration process, are detained while being checked etc., and we pay them this sort of compensation?????


----------



## sptrawler (4 November 2011)

I wonder when Bob will realise he looks silly saying be humane, process them onshore, but let them take the perilous journey to get here.
It won't be long before he realises he is a hypocrite and demands Julia sends ships over to give them safe passage.
Boy is this government gone wrong or what?


----------



## sptrawler (4 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I've been trying to find a link to an item on ABC Radio news this evening describing a 1.5 million dollar settlement as compensation to an Iranian family for their being in detention.
> Probably won't be up on the ABC website until tomorrow.
> I can't believe this!   They come here outside of the formal immigration process, are detained while being checked etc., and we pay them this sort of compensation?????




If it is true Julia, it is a sad indictment of our country. There are taxpayers out there that have lost limbs or worse that get very little compensation. The soldiers that lose their lives fighting for this country, I doubt their families would get that sort of compensation.IMO


----------



## joea (4 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I've been trying to find a link to an item on ABC Radio news this evening describing a 1.5 million dollar settlement as compensation to an Iranian family for their being in detention.
> Probably won't be up on the ABC website until tomorrow.
> I can't believe this!   They come here outside of the formal immigration process, are detained while being checked etc., and we pay them this sort of compensation?????




This is all in  the news this morning.
The question is , will it set a precedent?
If it does, then there will be a long line.
Then it will probable degenerate to a payout once a time period of detention has been set.
Never mind the taxpayer will cough up!
joea


----------



## Knobby22 (4 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I've been trying to find a link to an item on ABC Radio news this evening describing a 1.5 million dollar settlement as compensation to an Iranian family for their being in detention.
> Probably won't be up on the ABC website until tomorrow.
> I can't believe this!   They come here outside of the formal immigration process, are detained while being checked etc., and we pay them this sort of compensation?????




We treated the family abysmally and what is good about Australia is that we learn from our lessons. Don't forget they are now Australian citizens and were deemed to be genuine refugees.  Refer below, go to ABC site for story. We treat dogs better.

The Immigration Department has been found to have breached the human rights of an Iranian family who suffered severe mental health conditions during three years of detention.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-03/hrc-recommends-compo-for-detained-family/3625872

The Yousefi family came to Australia by boat in 2001, but were traumatised and psychologically damaged after being separated in detention at Woomera.

The Human Rights Commission (HRC) has recommended a formal apology, along with more than $1 million in compensation and sweeping changes to the immigration system.

The Yousefi family came to Australia by boat in 2001 seeking protection and it took three years to determine they were genuine refugees.

The family's father, Parvis Yousefi, was separated from his wife Mehrnoosh and his then 10-year-old child Manoochehr when the mother and child went into residential housing at Woomera.

What followed for the family, according to the Human Rights Commission, was trauma, psychotic episodes and stultifying depression that exists to this day. 

Mr Yousefi tried to kill himself four times, sewed his lips together and went into a catatonic state. Numerous psychologists and mental health workers demanded the family be removed from detention.

"The Yousefi family remained in immigration detention for an unnecessarily long time after the department received unambiguous medical and mental health advice, calling for the urgent removal of the family from the immigration detention centre setting," said HRC president Catherine Branson in the commission's report. 

The HRC says the 10-year-old Manoochehr suffered in particular; he tried to kill himself multiple times before he was 12.

The report says Manoochehr was "denied the right to be protected from all forms of physical or mental violence."

Overall, the HRC found 16 breaches of two international human rights covenants covering the rights of the child and civil and political rights, saying that the "continued detention of Mr Yousefi and Manoochehr Yousefi amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

The report was damning of the treatment the family received, saying were treated without "humanity and respect for their inherent dignity."

The HRC recommended a formal apology to the family and just over $1 million compensation to Manoochehr and $675,000 in compensation to Ms Yousefi. 

Mr Yousefi has already settled with the Immigration Department.

The HRC also has several recommendations to change the immigration system, including a call for legislation to set out minimum standards for the condition and treatment of people in immigration detention. 

The Immigration Department says the Yousefi case is complex and it cannot comment while a civil case relating to family is underway. 

A lawyer for Yousefi family has welcomed the commission's recommendations.


----------



## Julia (4 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> If it is true Julia, it is a sad indictment of our country. There are taxpayers out there that have lost limbs or worse that get very little compensation. The soldiers that lose their lives fighting for this country, I doubt their families would get that sort of compensation.IMO



I was wrong, actually.  It wasn't $1.5M.  It was $1.7M.

Knobby:  if they'd applied to come here via the proper channels, none of what you describe would have happened.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I was wrong, actually.  It wasn't $1.5M.  It was $1.7M.
> 
> Knobby:  if they'd applied to come here via the proper channels, none of what you describe would have happened.




Doesn't excuse our behaviour. Its going to be fixed now which is good.


----------



## sails (4 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Doesn't excuse our behaviour. Its going to be fixed now which is good.





Do you pay tax, Knobby?

Most tax payers object to such blatant waste of tax payers funds.  If this family were being honest about their refugee status, this might not have happened?  Is it possible that they came here knowing they might not be accepted?  That's hardly the fault of the Australian tax payer for goodness sake.

It seems that a high percentage of Iranians are not refugees and it is these non-refugees that end up being a long time in detention because Iran won't take them back and they don't meet refugee criteria for entrance to Australia.

From Samantha Maiden:



> More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians and, of the ones assessed, about two-thirds have had their application for refugee status rejected.
> 
> Because Iran will not allow Australia to send the Iranians home, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen faces the choice of locking them up indefinitely, releasing them into the community or attempting to reach agreement to transport them to a third country.
> 
> ...





http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ars-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361

Perhaps this is the reason Chris Bowen was wisely wanting a return of some sort to the Pacific Solution


----------



## Julia (4 November 2011)

sails said:


> Do you pay tax, Knobby?
> 
> Most tax payers object to such blatant waste of tax payers funds.  If this family were being honest about their refugee status, this might not have happened?  Is it possible that they came here knowing they might not be accepted?  That's hardly the fault of the Australian tax payer for goodness sake.
> 
> ...




+1.
Knobby, might be good to display the same level of concern for some taxpaying Australians who are living in immensely disadvantaged circumstances.  No Million Dollar Plus payouts for them.


----------



## Calliope (4 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Doesn't excuse our behaviour. Its going to be fixed now which is good.




Yes. It is our fault. This highly disfunctional family should have been spotted as unsuitable immigrants much faster and returned to Iran immediately, however if the country of origin won't take them back and they no good to us, what do you do? They are certainly not worth 1.7M to us.


----------



## IFocus (4 November 2011)

sails said:


> Do you pay tax, Knobby?
> 
> Most tax payers object to such blatant waste of tax payers funds.  If this family were being honest about their refugee status, this might not have happened?  Is it possible that they came here knowing they might not be accepted?  That's hardly the fault of the Australian tax payer for goodness sake.
> 
> ...





Isn't the above claim for money a result of the Pacific Scam?


----------



## So_Cynical (4 November 2011)

sails said:


> It would be funny if it weren't so real and people weren't drowning.
> 
> Bipartisan support for a *system that worked*.  Who cares who created the policy - *it worked*.




As would Malaysia...now Tony Abbott has blood on his hands as did Howard (children overboard) how repugnant.


----------



## Calliope (4 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> As would Malaysia...now Tony Abbott has blood on his hands as did Howard (children overboard) how repugnant.




I thing everyone knows who is repugnant.


----------



## Julia (4 November 2011)

Does anyone know where all these currently arriving boatloads are going?  Seems to be a boat a day since the government's impotence became widely known.

Where are they being housed?

Why has the media gone so quiet on this?


----------



## sails (4 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Isn't the above claim for money a result of the Pacific Scam?




If you read the article, you would find that:


> The Yousefi family came to Australia by boat in 2001, but were traumatised and psychologically damaged after being separated in detention at Woomera.




It sounds like they were before the Pacific Solution.  And wasn't it Keating who initiated the idea of detention while claims were being processed?

And the Pacific Solution was far more a solution than anything we have seen under labor since they abolished it.  You are entitled to your opinions, but I think it's a bit far fetched to call it a scam.  Carbon tax would fit that description, but not the Pacific Solution which dramatically slowed the boat arrivals.

Here is the article link again: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-03/hrc-recommends-compo-for-detained-family/3625872


----------



## So_Cynical (5 November 2011)

sails said:


> If you read the article, you would find that:
> 
> 
> It sounds like they were before the Pacific Solution.  And wasn't it Keating who initiated the idea of detention while claims were being processed?




Ill quote the wiki



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The Pacific Solution was the name given to the Australian government policy (*2001*–2007) ~ The policy was *developed by the Howard government* in response to the 2001 Tampa affair and was implemented by then Australian Immigration Minister *Philip Ruddock*.




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

How soon we forget the inconvenient hey.


----------



## IFocus (5 November 2011)

sails said:


> If you read the article, you would find that:
> 
> 
> It sounds like they were before the Pacific Solution.  And wasn't it Keating who initiated the idea of detention while claims were being processed?
> ...




Sails I call it a Scam because the so called Pacific Solution was never tested by push factors.

The numbers of people seeking asylum status world wide dropped during the Howard years that's a fact not the propaganda put out by the Coalition.

Its a fact that all the people sent to the Pacific ended up in Australia and some I believe with compensation as a result of their treatment. (detention centers are not that far away from concentration camps)

Once this became evident then its quite possible the boats would have started up again it was far from a solution but certaintly was a stop gap measure at the time.

The only long term solution can come from solving the issue in the originating countries (never going to happen) or work up a regional policy and cooperation from our neighbors of which tosser Abbott opposes.

The Malaysia idea may or may not work but clearly the Coalition believe it may as they oppose on political grounds.


----------



## Julia (5 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sails I call it a Scam because the so called Pacific Solution was never tested by push factors.



I don't see how you can make that claim.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were happening at the time, plus civil war or its equivalent in various parts of the world, e.g. the Tamils in Sri Lanka.



> The numbers of people seeking asylum status world wide dropped during the Howard years that's a fact not the propaganda put out by the Coalition.



Can you provide some stats on that?   
And you are ignoring the push/pull factor for Australia as soon as the word got around that the Labor government here had dismantled what was working so well for the Howard government.



> Its a fact that all the people sent to the Pacific ended up in Australia and some I believe with compensation as a result of their treatment. (detention centers are not that far away from concentration camps)



It absolutely is not a fact.  This totally wrong claim is peddled all the time, erroneously.
Here are the numbers:


> Under the Pacific solution, 30 percent were sent home, 43 per cent of asylum seekers resettled from Nauru and Manus Island ended up in Australia. The remaining were settled in other countries.





There is no reason to suggest the Pacific Solution would not have continued as successfully as it was to the time Rudd dismantled it.



> The only long term solution can come from solving the issue in the originating countries (never going to happen) or work up a regional policy and cooperation from our neighbors of which tosser Abbott opposes.
> 
> The Malaysia idea may or may not work but clearly the Coalition believe it may as they oppose on political grounds.



 Agree that the opposition's stand is on political grounds.  We have, however, argued the rights and wrongs of this many times.  I think both sides should show some common sense, get over themselves, and act in the best interests of the country.
Just for once.


----------



## sptrawler (5 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> The only long term solution can come from solving the issue in the originating countries (never going to happen) or work up a regional policy and cooperation from our neighbors of which tosser Abbott opposes.




A bit of journalistic license going on there Ifocus. Abbott doesn't oppose a regional policy, he just wants Nauru to be part of it. Gillard will get her policy through if she accepts the coalition amendments.
You can't say one is being a tosser anymore than the other, if anyone is proving to be stuborn beyond belief it is Gillard. That is probably the reason her collegues will roll her.
All the coalition has to do comming up to the next election is advertise a graph showing illegal immigrants since Labor came to power. It will be interesting a picture says a thousand words.


----------



## sails (5 November 2011)

Labor wrecked the system that was working.

Labor are now responsible to fix it or stand aside and let the coalition fix it.  

Simple...


----------



## So_Cynical (5 November 2011)

sails said:


> Labor wrecked the system that was working.
> 
> Labor are now responsible to fix it or stand aside and let the coalition fix it.
> 
> Simple...




Err aren't you forgetting something? 

The high court ruling.


----------



## sails (5 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Err aren't you forgetting something?
> 
> The high court ruling.




NO.  Labor's messes and attempted fixes on border security brought on the high court ruling.  In six years the Pacific solution was never challenged in court (to the best of my knowledge) while the Malaysian solution never got off the ground before it was challenged.

There were around the same number of arrivals prior to the Pacific solution being implemented and yet the solution was not challenged.

Big difference.

The high court ruling simply made labor's messing with border security a whole lot worse, imo.


----------



## Julia (5 November 2011)

sails said:


> The high court ruling simply made labor's messing with border security a whole lot worse, imo.



 Exactly.  None of this present inundation would be occurring if they'd not dismantled what was totally functional.  It's like everything else they've touched:  they've ****** up whatever was previously working well.

God help us when it comes to the actual implementation of the carbon tax.
And then there's the NBN................


----------



## IFocus (6 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sails I call it a Scam because the so called Pacific Solution was never tested by push factors.
> 
> The numbers of people seeking asylum status world wide dropped during the Howard years that's a fact not the propaganda put out by the Coalition.




UNHCR numbers


----------



## IFocus (6 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its a fact that all the people sent to the Pacific ended up in Australia and some I believe with compensation as a result of their treatment. (detention centers are not that far away from concentration camps)




Oops  got 1/2 that statement wrong so much for memory maybe It was the remaining detainees that all came to Oz but if we are going to quote Wiki note this



> During the Pacific Solution period and liberation of Afgahnistan and and Iraq, the Howard Government was able to begin closing detention centres due to the lower number of refugees fleeing persecution




Then there was this



> The number of genuine refugees who were put through the Pacific Solution process was much lower than those who are currently seeking asylum.




I note there is no citation for this statement but lets take it at face value and look at the 30% who were sent home.

Currently Afghanistan and Iran will not accept return persons

How will Abbott deal with those.



> Only around 40% of Pacific Solution refugees were granted Australian Visas, another 30% went to other countries such as New Zealand (who have the right to settle in Australia) and another 30% were sent home.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  None of this present inundation would be occurring if they'd not dismantled what was totally functional.  It's like everything else they've touched:  they've ****** up whatever was previously working well.






sails said:


> NO.  Labor's messes and attempted fixes on border security brought on the high court ruling.  In six years the Pacific solution was never challenged in court (to the best of my knowledge) while the Malaysian solution never got off the ground before it was challenged.
> 
> There were around the same number of arrivals prior to the Pacific solution being implemented and yet the solution was not challenged.
> 
> ...




Eeer no 



			
				SMH said:
			
		

> the High Court has ruled 6-1 against the Malaysia solution. It has also cast doubt over the legality of Nauru, the opposition’s preferred option, and even Manus Island, the government’s plan B.




http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politic...failed-to-do-its-homework-20110831-1jlg4.html

You guys do read the papers? watch the news?


----------



## sails (6 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> UNHCR numbers




IFocus,

Your lower chart shows that Australia's numbers dropped of far more quickly than the other countries in 2002 when the Pacific Solution was kicking in and now we are back with them again.  It's a good illustration that the Pacific Solution worked well.

Top chart, have a look at the other two countries to which Australia is being compared and notice how we are compared.

Europe:  *733 million *
US + Canada:  312 million + 34 million = *346 million* in total
Australia + NZ: 22 million + 4 million = *26 million*

Massive difference.

Unless your UNHCR top chart is adjusted for population, it is worthless, imo.  These refugees are supported by taxpayers, so population in the host country is cleary very important.

It almost seems that this chart has been designed to put the guilt trip on Australians and  to make it look like we are not doing our share.  And yet, clearly, we do NOT have anywhere near the working population to support large numbers of refugees as these other countries.


Source of Europe's population (not included in main list in Wiki) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Source of other countries:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population


----------



## sails (6 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Oops  got 1/2 that statement wrong so much for memory maybe It was the remaining detainees that all came to Oz but if we are going to quote Wiki note this
> 
> Then there was this
> 
> I note there is no citation for this statement but lets take it at face value and look at the 30% who were sent home.




This chart explains it in a nutshell and is found in this article which explains the untruths sprouted by some about the Pacific Solution: A slick and dodgy sleight of hand.  And this chart was created in June this year, so it does not reflect the thousands more arrivals since then.






Date/Time: 2011:06:06 21:24:59 Source: The Australian 




> Currently Afghanistan and Iran will not accept return persons
> 
> How will Abbott deal with those.




Like the coalition did before? *According to Chris Bowen*, around 40% of the boat arrivals this year are Iranians and 66% of those are not genuine refugees.  Bowen is between a rock and a hard place by the looks of things and maybe the reason he was pushing for Nauru and was rolled by Gillard (according to the cabinet leaks).

It seems that the Pacific Solution discouraged the non-refugees from even making the trip.  That would also explain why a reasonable percentage of those taken to Nauru and Mannus Is. ended up in Australia.


----------



## sails (6 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Eeer no
> 
> http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politic...failed-to-do-its-homework-20110831-1jlg4.html
> 
> You guys do read the papers? watch the news?





And do you take everything the SMH write as gospel?

From your SMH quote (my bold):



> the High Court has ruled 6-1 against the Malaysia solution. It has also *cast doubt *over the legality of Nauru, the opposition’s preferred option, and even Manus Island, the government’s plan B.




The high court did not rule it out.  Nauru is now a signatory to the UNHCR and I understand that was one of the big issues against Malaysia from the high court ruling.

I still say, Labor thought they knew better like little kids trying to fix Mum's knitting.  Labor wrecked it and it is now their responsibility to fix it.  If not, they should let the experts back in to fix it.

The coalition have offered bipartisan support (putting the country before votes as a return to the Pacific Solution would probably see opinion polls moving back to labor).  It is a strong election policy that Abbott has over Gillard and yet he is willing to let that go for the good of the country.  At least that's how I see it.


----------



## IFocus (6 November 2011)

sails said:


> IFocus,
> 
> Your lower chart shows that Australia's numbers dropped of far more quickly than the other countries in 2002 when the Pacific Solution was kicking in and now we are back with them again.  It's a good illustration that the Pacific Solution worked well.
> 
> ...




Sails the world wide trends are clear argue any way you wish.

Note Europe sees experiential more asylum applications due to their proximity nothing to do with the base population.


----------



## sails (6 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sails the world wide trends are clear argue any way you wish.
> 
> Note Europe sees experiential more asylum applications due to their proximity nothing to do with the base population.




IFocus - how do you think refugees are initially supported? The population base is clearly very important.  Hard working Aussies can only supply so much in aid and yet, somehow the labor/greens mentality seems to think money can be thrown out like confetti.

Eventually the massive debts being run up by this government will have to be repaid.  I wonder if anyone else will bail us out? 

Maybe the high refugee intake into Europe is also adding straing to their money problems.


----------



## IFocus (6 November 2011)

sails said:


> The coalition have offered bipartisan support (putting the country before votes as a return to the Pacific Solution would probably see opinion polls moving back to labor).  It is a strong election policy that Abbott has over Gillard and yet he is willing to let that go for the good of the country.  At least that's how I see it.





You are drawing a very long bow here Sails Abbott has never as opposition leader put Australia ahead of his rampant populous politics.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 November 2011)

sails said:


> The coalition have offered bipartisan support (putting the country before votes as a return to the Pacific Solution would probably see opinion polls moving back to labor).  It is a strong election policy that Abbott has over Gillard and yet he is willing to let that go for the good of the country.  At least that's how I see it.




Bipartisan support for there own policy does not translate to (putting the country first) if they genuinely did that we would be talking about a Malaysia solution and not playing the blame game...Abbott is playing a 100% political game and couldn't care less for drowned Afghani children. 

He had the chance to actually fix this and chose not to...At least that's how I see it, and cant imagine how anyone could realistically see it any other way.


----------



## drsmith (6 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> He had the chance to actually fix this and chose not to...At least that's how I see it, and cant imagine how anyone could realistically see it any other way.



If that's how you see it, Julia Gillard's foot is in the same boot while her other foot is in Bob Brown's boot.

That's how it is.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Bipartisan support for there own policy does not translate to (putting the country first) if they genuinely did that we would be talking about a Malaysia solution and not playing the blame game...Abbott is playing a 100% political game and couldn't care less for drowned Afghani children.
> 
> He had the chance to actually fix this and chose not to...At least that's how I see it, and cant imagine how anyone could realistically see it any other way.



Of course you see it that way.  And of course you can't imagine any objective way of viewing the situation.  You are indelibly rusted on to Labor and thus lack the basic capacity to recognise their limitations.

They are both playing entirely political games.  The onus is on the government.
They were the ones who took a perfectly satisfactory system and dismantled it.
How you can fail to see this is simply a testimony to your lack of objectivity.


----------



## IFocus (6 November 2011)

Julia said:


> They were the ones who took a perfectly satisfactory system and dismantled it.
> .




Do you have a link to verify that claim that the system was satisfactory?

Were you not the one complaining re the $1.7mil compensation as a result of said system.

Do you agree to the indefinite detention of individuals coming via boats to Australia...

Would you agree this is appropriated treatment of dole bloodsucking NZ nationals?


----------



## So_Cynical (6 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Of course you see it that way.  And of course you can't imagine any objective way of viewing the situation.  You are indelibly rusted on to Labor and thus lack the basic capacity to recognise their limitations.
> 
> They are both playing entirely political games.  The onus is on the government.
> They were the ones who took a perfectly satisfactory system and dismantled it.
> How you can fail to see this is simply a testimony to your lack of objectivity.




I fail to see how the pacific solution could objectively or realistically be called "a perfectly satisfactory system" boat arrivals fell dramatically and detention sentences grew dramatically, along with compensation payouts...i cant see how keeping people in detention in Nauru for 2 or 3 years then giving them refugee visas and settling them in western Sydney is "perfectly satisfactory" i think its nuts.

Of course i don't expect you to see it that way, and of course you can't imagine any objective way of viewing the situation....you are indelibly rusted on to the coalition and thus lack the basic capacity to recognise their limitations.

---


----------



## Julia (6 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Of course i don't expect you to see it that way, and of course you can't imagine any objective way of viewing the situation....you are indelibly rusted on to the coalition and thus lack the basic capacity to recognise their limitations.
> 
> ---



On the contrary, I've voted for both Labor and the Coalition both in State and Federal elections.  I'm a swinging voter, happy to vote for sensible policies by whatever side.
Can you say the same?


----------



## sails (6 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Do you have a link to verify that claim that the system was satisfactory?
> 
> Were you not the one complaining re the $1.7mil compensation as a result of said system.
> 
> ...





IFocus, how about keeping to the facts?

Firstly, I posted a graph earlier today that showed the success of the Pacific Solution and an article to go with it.  Why should Julia provide more evidence?

And, I understand that long detention is happening for those who are not genuine refugees and yet their countries do not allow them to return home.  It seems these non-refugees come here knowing full well they can't be sent back and then want to sue us because they are in detention.  Surely they really shouldn't be coming in the  first place and we should be under no obligation to be giving them massive payouts. I also posted an article today showing Chris Bowen stated 40% of arrivals are Iranians and 66% of those are not genuine refugees.  And then they sue us?  This is beyond a joke, surely.

I that that compensation of $1.7m was for a family kept in detention BEFORE the pacific solution.  They were detained in Woomera so nothing to do with the Pacific Solution - not unless your maps puts Woomera in the pacific...


----------



## noco (14 November 2011)

And the boats keep coming and coming and coming. 

And they are getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

And the cost of keeping them in Australia is also getting bigger.

Why doen't Julia Gillard hire an ocean liner to bring in 2000 + , anchor it off Tasmania and put Bob Brown in charge. He won't have time to think about the 100% renewable energy then. 



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/yet_another8/


----------



## Julia (14 November 2011)

Where are they all being housed?  The detention centres must be pretty full by now.
Hotels, perhaps?


----------



## noco (14 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Where are they all being housed?  The detention centres must be pretty full by now.
> Hotels, perhaps?




Julia, it does not really affect you and I except our hip pockets. 

Just increase the taxes, no worries.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2011)

noco said:


> Julia, it does not really affect you and I except our hip pockets.



 That's not the point.  And for that matter, my so called hip pocket is already going to be affected by the carbon tax and other rises in electricity.

I would genuinely like to know where all these people are being housed while Australians are living rough on the streets, the notion of being put up in hotels and motels just a joke to them.   

The media seem to have given this no attention.  It seems that with the political stalemate, no one actually cares any more about (1) the funds the government are spending on housing these ever increasing numbers, or (2) the Australians most of whom have paid taxes at some stage who are so sorely in need of being cared for.


----------



## sails (14 November 2011)

Julia said:


> That's not the point.  And for that matter, my so called hip pocket is already going to be affected by the carbon tax and other rises in electricity.
> 
> I would genuinely like to know where all these people are being housed while Australians are living rough on the streets, the notion of being put up in hotels and motels just a joke to them.
> 
> The media seem to have given this no attention.  It seems that with the political stalemate, no one actually cares any more about (1) the funds the government are spending on housing these ever increasing numbers, or (2) the Australians most of whom have paid taxes at some stage who are so sorely in need of being cared for.




Julia,

I think the media are running scared to publish or air anything that doesn't suit the government.  Trying to shut down one side of the political debate is not right, imo.  People need to have all the information possible to make informed decisions at the next election.

Journalists are good at finding out the answers to your type of questions, Julia, but no-one wants to lose their job.  I have noticed Bolt is very careful on his blog these days and rarely comments.


----------



## sptrawler (26 November 2011)

I think we sugested awhile back, this could be the end result Gillard and Brown were after. 
The posturing over the Malaysia solution could well have been a front, that they new would fail and now they do away with detention.
Well that will really put a cat among the pidgeons, how long before they just place the illegal immigrants straight into the community?
It will save a fortune on detention and also big savings in customs, border protection and federal police.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-softens-on-refugees-20111125-1nzc0.html


----------



## sptrawler (26 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Paul Sheehan can use "loathes, hates, chaos" and plenty of other colourful descriptions to fire up his readers. The fact remains the Howard Pacific solution HAD stopped the boats.
> This Government said it was inhumane and disbanded it.
> Now they are in Government they would rather put in something far worse, than adopt the former Governments postion.
> Then they are audacious enough to say it is the oppositions fault there is a problem.
> ...




Found it back in September. 
It was becoming obvious back then this was just another con to bring about Bob's policy. IMO


----------



## So_Cynical (26 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I think we sugested awhile back, this could be the end result Gillard and Brown were after. The posturing over the Malaysia solution could well have been a front, that they new would fail and now they do away with detention.




LOL yes its was all a front  and to think 1 vote Tony could of so easly thwarted their plans by calling the Labor/Green bluff and passing the offshore processing legislation.  and of course he still can, back flip and decide to "do the right thing" and support the high court work around needed for his own policy to actually have any realistic chance of legally working.

Of course that wont happen because this was all a cunning plan by Turnbull's supporters to undermine 1 vote Tony and make him look stupid...mission accomplished.
 :silly:


----------



## sptrawler (26 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL yes its was all a front  and to think 1 vote Tony could of so easly thwarted their plans by calling the Labor/Green bluff and passing the offshore processing legislation.  and of course he still can, back flip and decide to "do the right thing" and support the high court work around needed for his own policy to actually have any realistic chance of legally working.
> 
> Of course that wont happen because this was all a cunning plan by Turnbull's supporters to undermine 1 vote Tony and make him look stupid...mission accomplished.
> :silly:




I wouldn't get myself in a too much of a state if I was you So Cynical, if we can see through it anybody can. 
Just another case of labor treating everyone as an idiot. That was Rudd's undoing and it will be Gillards.
The world has moved on since these stupid union inspired ideas worked, the electorate is much more informed than it was. All the T.W.U pomp and fanfare and the government inqusition that followed the Qantas affair, just showed how far we have moved on from this labor bulls#!t.
Time will tell, but I don't think we will have long to wait for the next stuff up.


----------



## IFocus (27 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Just another case of labor treating everyone as an idiot.




Seen Abbott arithmetic lately on his spending promises............that's treating everyone as an idiot.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Seen Abbott arithmetic lately on his spending promises............that's treating everyone as an idiot.




Have to agree with that, but its off topic. LOL
But on that topic, Abbott needs to focus on the fact we wouldn't need all these new "taxes" if the goon show hadn't thrown so much money down the gurgler.
Much better to bring in taxes in a controled manner rather than ramming them down peoples throats, because you have a self made hole you need filling.


----------



## drsmith (27 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Much better to bring in taxes in a controled manner rather than ramming them down peoples throats, because you have a self made hole you need filling.



Our money that has been thrown down that hole will at least have a generous coating of Labor on top when this is all finished. 

I just hope the topsoil placed above is enough to bury Labor for a generation.

That's what they deserve.


----------



## sptrawler (1 December 2011)

Talk about losing the plot.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/more-refugees-the-lure-for-malaysia-plan-20111130-1o792.html

We are getting to the point Bob wants a bridge from Indonesia.


----------



## dutchie (18 December 2011)

160 missing, feared drowned,from illegal boat.

Rudd, Gillard, Labor - hang your head in shame.


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2011)

dutchie said:


> 160 missing, feared drowned,from illegal boat.
> 
> Rudd, Gillard, Labor - hang your head in shame.




Yes the pull factors of Labor's policies are attracting the illegals even in the storm season.



> *MORE than 80 asylum-seekers have been rescued but up to another 160 are missing after an overcrowded boat bound for Australia sank off Indonesia.*
> 
> The vessel, which survivors said was headed for Christmas Island, went down in bad weather and heavy seas about 40 nautical miles off the coast of Java early yesterday.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ks-off-indonesia/story-fn9hm1gu-1226225055935


----------



## So_Cynical (18 December 2011)

dutchie said:


> 160 missing, feared drowned,from illegal boat.
> 
> Rudd, Gillard, Labor - hang your head in shame.




HUh?

Abbott and the coalition play political games that result in more boats coming and somehow Abbott refusing to vote for his own policy is Labor's fault. 

1 vote Tony is the one with blood on his hands...and has done for a decade, still its not to late for the coalition to pick up the phone and call Julia and pledge to pass Labor's legislation....legislation that allows the Govt of the day to pretty much do what ever they want.


----------



## sptrawler (18 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> HUh?
> 
> Abbott and the coalition play political games that result in more boats coming and somehow Abbott refusing to vote for his own policy is Labor's fault.
> 
> 1 vote Tony is the one with blood on his hands...and has done for a decade, still its not to late for the coalition to pick up the phone and call Julia and pledge to pass Labor's legislation....legislation that allows the Govt of the day to pretty much do what ever they want.




Jeez I was going to have a nice break over christmas and then someone throws up this rubbish.
Julia didn't have trouble getting through her Carbon Tax, Julia didn't have trouble getting through her mining tax.
Now all of a sudden because Tony won't agree to Julias policy, unless it includes Narua.
It's his fault that the policy is crap.
So-Cynical lets get it straight, it is the governments responsibility to draft legislation and modify it if required, to get it enacted.
Trying to take cheap shots at the coalition because they asked for a reasonable amendment, is very poor form on the governments part.
 It shows a lack of maturity and is compounded by the fact, they are prepared to do back flips and disappear up their own nether regions to get legislation the greens want.
Just highlights how useless they are when they are trying to blame someone else for their lack of ability to enact policy that the greens don't want.
It's a very sad government. 
By the way the 800 to Malaysia is all booked up so we have another 4000 comming, what a bunch of dicks.


----------



## sptrawler (18 December 2011)

Actually I will even go one step further So_Cynical and say, this is the outcome Bob and Julia wanted onshore processing.
So, to turn around and blame the coalition when there is a rush of people to get here is just crazy. It lands fairly and squarley on Julias lap, what a piece of work. YUK


----------



## Julia (18 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> So-Cynical lets get it straight, it is the governments responsibility to draft legislation and modify it if required, to get it enacted.
> Trying to take cheap shots at the coalition because they asked for a reasonable amendment, is very poor form on the governments part.
> It shows a lack of maturity and is compounded by the fact, they are prepared to do back flips and disappear up their own nether regions to get legislation the greens want.



Correct.  SC, for you to say the Coalition failed to vote for "their own policy" is a massively disingenuous assertion.



sptrawler said:


> Actually I will even go one step further So_Cynical and say, this is the outcome Bob and Julia wanted onshore processing.



I often think this also.  i.e. that they designed the offshore legislation in such a way as to ensure Mr Abbott would not find it acceptable, thus ensuring the onshore processing which keeps the Greens and the Left faction of the Labor Party happy, whilst passing it off as the fault of the Libs, thus potentially appeasing the Labor Right.

God forbid they should actually put up legislation that is honest and in the interests of Australia!  No chance.  Much more important to them to continue to manipulate their own political chances.

What a disgrace.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Jeez I was going to have a nice break over christmas and then someone throws up this rubbish.
> Julia didn't have trouble getting through her Carbon Tax, Julia didn't have trouble getting through her mining tax.
> Now all of a sudden because Tony won't agree to Julias policy, unless it includes Narua.
> It's his fault that the policy is crap.
> ...




Now look...lets get this straight.

The Govt makes the policy, and the parliament and senate vote on it...pass/fail.

The coalition decided to not pass the legislation...legislation that fully supported the coalitions policy...allowed the coalition in Govt to do what ever it wanted.

Straight enough for ya? 

-------------------

LOL seriously LOL at the conspiracy crap!.


----------



## bellenuit (18 December 2011)

Julia said:


> I often think this also.  i.e. that they designed the offshore legislation in such a way as to ensure Mr Abbott would not find it acceptable, thus ensuring the onshore processing which keeps the Greens and the Left faction of the Labor Party happy, whilst passing it off as the fault of the Libs, thus potentially appeasing the Labor Right.




I concur. If they honestly wanted an offshore solution and thought Nauru unacceptable, and also knowing that Malaysia would be out if they accepted the oppositions amendments, then they would have continued looking for alternative countries that would comply with the oppositions amendments. But no, they have stopped looking and Malaysia is their only proposal, in spite of half her own part not wanting it and the Greens vehemently against it. 

She promised to solve the refugee crisis, but has apparently given up after encountering the first obstacle.

That said, I still think Abbott should have passed her legislation. Apart from the refugee aspect, it would have exploited the severe fractures currently within the Labor party, perhaps terminally.


----------



## sptrawler (18 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Now look...lets get this straight.
> 
> The Govt makes the policy, and the parliament and senate vote on it...pass/fail.
> 
> ...




No not straight enough, all the coalition asked for was Narua and temporary visas be included. The dick head government said no!!!!!!
They are complete dick heads.
The labor party playing politics with the live cattle exports is one thing, playing politics with live people is another thing altogether.

Also as for the government requiring the coalition to pass/fail legislation they haven't required it in the past. So does that mean Bob and the Independents are to blame the same as Tony.
Jeez have a think about what you post.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> I concur. If they honestly wanted an offshore solution and thought Nauru unacceptable, and also knowing that Malaysia would be out if they accepted the oppositions amendments, then they would have continued looking for alternative countries that would comply with the oppositions amendments. But no, they have stopped looking and Malaysia is their only proposal.




Ok so lets go thru the motions...looking at the below map the country's in Green are signatory's to the UN convention...so what country's are within a comfortable flight time of say 6 hours from Xmas Island, that a deal could be done with?

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

Country's that are politicly stable, democratic and advanced enough and wealthy enough to provide for the deportees, oh and willing to do a deal... suggestions?

Somalia? Kenya? Cambodia? South Korea?
 ~


----------



## sptrawler (18 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Ok so lets go thru the motions...looking at the below map the country's in Green are signatory's to the UN convention...so what country's are within a comfortable flight time of say 6 hours from Xmas Island, that a deal could be done with?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
> 
> ...




So_Cynical Malaysia still isn't a signatory, so any of those grey countries have the same merit as Malaysia. Actually Malaysia isn't a shining beacon of refugee rights. IMO
At least Narua is prepared to conform and we use our own people to run the centres.
I love your loyalty to the party mate, I wish someone would cover my back with the same fervour.
Actually you should probably put yourself forward for preselection. There will be plenty of empty seats and someone with such blind conviction would be warmly welcomed.


----------



## drsmith (19 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Country's that are politicly stable, democratic and advanced enough and wealthy enough to provide for the deportees, oh and willing to do a deal... suggestions?



If our political leaders want to deal, they should do it sitting at the table, not bent over its side. 

From a broader perspective, this sort of latte socialism is like the carbon tax. All pain for no net tangable gain.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> So_Cynical Malaysia still isn't a signatory, so any of those grey countries have the same merit as Malaysia. Actually Malaysia isn't a shining beacon of refugee rights. IMO




So suggestions? Indonesia? Myanmar? Vietnam? shall i go on? starting to have a clue?

Malaysia ticks all the boxes except the UN convention box....biggest tick being that they will/have done a deal...Malaysia is no shining light, but that's irrelevant isn't it cos were not looking for a shining light.

Lets tick the refugee swap boxes

Willing to deal.
Democratic.
Stable.
Doing ok financially.
Has refugees in numbers to actually swap.

mmm looks like its Malaysia...with shining lights and daylight a distant second.


----------



## drsmith (19 December 2011)

Under the current government which between its alliance partners has a majority in both houses, men, women and children are drowning at sea with daylight a distant second.


----------



## bellenuit (19 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> So suggestions? Indonesia? Myanmar? Vietnam? shall i go on? starting to have a clue?
> 
> Malaysia ticks all the boxes except the UN convention box....biggest tick being that they will/have done a deal...Malaysia is no shining light, but that's irrelevant isn't it cos were not looking for a shining light.
> 
> ...




Your 6 hours flying time is not a valid restriction.  Since the whole purpose of an offshore solution is to stop the boat people, then anywhere in the world is acceptable, as once the asylum seekers know what is going to happen, they will stop coming by boat. So the additional cost of 24 vs 6 hours flying is negli geable in the overall scheme of things.

As for Malaysia willing to do a deal, anyone would do a deal on those terms. It wasn't so much a deal as exploitation of the incompetence of the Labor government.


----------



## dutchie (19 December 2011)

Unfortunately there are 40 odd percent of Australians who still believe in this pathetic government.

The good news is that a certain percentage will see the light in 2013.

The bad news is that there will still be a minority that continue to keep their heads buried in the sand. Talking to these people logically is a waste of time.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Your 6 hours flying time is not a valid restriction.  Since the whole purpose of an offshore solution is to stop the boat people, then anywhere in the world is acceptable, as once the asylum seekers know what is going to happen, they will stop coming by boat. So the additional cost of 24 vs 6 hours flying is negli geable in the overall scheme of things.




Except that the passengers while not prisoners, are certainly being forced to be passengers, time on the aircraft = risk of self harm and risk to others, risk to the safety of all on board...then there are over fly permissions and other country (claim political asylum) refuelling risks.

In the overall scheme of things time on the aircraft/distance is not negligible at all....these people are being pretty much deported, a trip to the back of the que in Malaysia (171,500 refugees in Malaysia) means there never coming legally to Aust.

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

A trip to Nauru or PNG on the other hand means that all most certainly they will eventually come to Australia legally.


----------



## Macquack (19 December 2011)

drsmith said:


> Under the current government which between its alliance partners has a majority in both houses, *men, women and children are drowning at sea *with daylight a distant second.




As much as this government has completely ****ed up the illegal boat people issue, it really annoys me when people like drsmith try to lay blame for the drownings at sea on the Gillard government. 

These "refugees" which most people believe to be non-genuine are taking their own lives in their own hands when they board unseaworthy people smuggling boats.

If you want to lay blame anywhere, try the Indonesian government for allowing these illegal immigrants to pass through their country before boarding the rusty old vessells of "Indonesian people smugglers".


----------



## noco (19 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> HUh?
> 
> Abbott and the coalition play political games that result in more boats coming and somehow Abbott refusing to vote for his own policy is Labor's fault.
> 
> 1 vote Tony is the one with blood on his hands...and has done for a decade, still its not to late for the coalition to pick up the phone and call Julia and pledge to pass Labor's legislation....legislation that allows the Govt of the day to pretty much do what ever they want.




What a load of crap.

How about Gillard picking up the phone and talking to the President of Nauru. Guess she won't because it will put a dint her pride.

Chris Bowen ( the immigration minister ) wanted Gillard to try Nauru but he was over ridden by her pride. Gillard used the excuse that Nauru was not a signatory to the UNHCR convention but is quite happy to use Malayasia who are not a party to this organisation. Nauru is more than happy to become a signatory, so what is the problem?
It worked before and it can work again.

Why does she not convince her Green coalition mates to pass the legislation? She then won't need Abbott's support.

No,she would sooner blame Tony Abbott. So who is NOW saying NO,NO,NO? About time Gillard said yes to a colation inniative if she wants bi-partison support.


----------



## Julia (19 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> In the overall scheme of things time on the aircraft/distance is not negligible at all....these people are being pretty much deported, a trip to the back of the que in Malaysia (171,500 refugees in Malaysia) means there never coming legally to Aust.



Excellent.  That's exactly what should happen.  Why on earth should those people who lack the funds to pay people smugglers, and who have done the right thing by applying to come to Australia via UNHCR processes, be further pushed back in line because Australia is so swamped with processing people who try to just barge in via boat?
I'm so sick of refugee advocates telling us we must accept anyone and everyone who gets on a boat from anywhere, whilst absolutely refusing to address the question of such a process continuing to disadvantage those who have applied through official channels.



Macquack said:


> As much as this government has completely ****ed up the illegal boat people issue, it really annoys me when people like drsmith try to lay blame for the drownings at sea on the Gillard government.
> 
> These "refugees" which most people believe to be non-genuine are taking their own lives in their own hands when they board unseaworthy people smuggling boats.
> 
> If you want to lay blame anywhere, try the Indonesian government for allowing these illegal immigrants to pass through their country before boarding the rusty old vessells of "Indonesian people smugglers".



That sounds reasonable enough, Macquack.  But how do you actually expect Indonesia to stop people who of their own volition contract to pay a people smuggler to put them on a boat from anywhere in Indonesia?  Is this actually against Indonesian law?  What grounds would the Indonesian government have for stopping anyone leaving their shores, even assuming they could properly patrol their entire coastline and supervise what is going on with every crappy fishing boat?

The practicalities of your suggestion just don't add up unfortunately.

Further, why should Indonesia be bothered to do anything?   They don't want all these extra people in their country.  Despite their occasionally mouthing polite acquiescence to our government's requests that they participate in stopping the people smuggling, it's just window dressing.  They will be only too happy to see these people depart their shores for anywhere.  Nothing unreasonable about that.


----------



## drsmith (19 December 2011)

Macquack said:


> *As much as this government has completely ****ed up the illegal boat people issue*, it really annoys me when people like drsmith try to lay blame for the drownings at sea on the Gillard government.
> 
> These "refugees" which most people believe to be non-genuine are taking their own lives in their own hands when they board unseaworthy people smuggling boats.
> 
> If you want to lay blame anywhere, try the Indonesian government for allowing these illegal immigrants to pass through their country before boarding the rusty old vessells of "Indonesian people smugglers".



My bold of your post above says it all.

Our government is responsible to the extent that its policies encourage such arrivals.


----------



## sptrawler (20 December 2011)

noco said:


> What a load of crap.
> 
> How about Gillard picking up the phone and talking to the President of Nauru. Guess she won't because it will put a dint her pride.
> 
> ...




I'm with you 100%, how a government can sit back and say we are going to blame the opposition because we can't govern, is beyond belief.
If they can't get the outcome they desire, because they don't have the support of their minority partners, call an election and get a mandate for your position.
This government is just an absolute joke. LOL LOL cough LOL
There goes my teeth again todster.

No hang on it is more about the superannuation, they can't even get their own cabinet ministers to get their nose out of the trough. 
Oh well just have a bigger cabinet, actually why not put all the labor, greens and independents in the cabinet. Then they can really take the pizz. LOL


----------



## Julia (20 December 2011)

In the wake of the latest drownings off Indonesia, the government is exerting all effort to bring the opposition to the negotiating table, even releasing private letters requesting the opposition to engage in talks about offshore processing and having Chris Bowen make this plea via national television this evening in "7.30".

Isn't it time for Tony Abbott to realise that his continued recalcitrance is probably doing him more harm than good?  Apart from The Greens and Labor's Left, the people are very unhappy about all the people pouring into this country.

Does anyone think Mr Abbott should continue to refuse to engage in discussion with the government?


----------



## So_Cynical (20 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Does anyone think Mr Abbott should continue to refuse to engage in discussion with the government?




Handled correctly i reckon Tony can come out of a negotiated solution looking like a winner...now to do that he will have to basically let the Govt have its way, for the good of the country and the asylum seekers....let the Govt of the day have free range on border protection issues in exchange for...?

However i seriously doubt Tony has the team to stage manage anything of significance.


----------



## sptrawler (20 December 2011)

Julia said:


> In the wake of the latest drownings off Indonesia, the government is exerting all effort to bring the opposition to the negotiating table, even releasing private letters requesting the opposition to engage in talks about offshore processing and having Chris Bowen make this plea via national television this evening in "7.30".
> 
> Isn't it time for Tony Abbott to realise that his continued recalcitrance is probably doing him more harm than good?  Apart from The Greens and Labor's Left, the people are very unhappy about all the people pouring into this country.
> 
> Does anyone think Mr Abbott should continue to refuse to engage in discussion with the government?




From what I heard on the radio today, Abbott is saying, put forward a policy and we will talk. 
At the moment the only policy that Gillard has is Malaysia and that is unacceptable.
It has been tested in court and found wanting, it is also morally wrong. Why does Abbott have to agree to it?
The government failing to engage in meaningfull discussion is causing the problem.
Like Abbott says why should he agree to bad policy? 
This has all come about because Julia is too pig headed to agree that modification of their policy may be required. Hell they have enough examples of what happens when ill conceived policies are blindly pursued due to arrogance. Their short history is littered with their stupid policies. 
What happens if the 800 who get sent to Malaysia appeal their selection, what happens if they are sent and then claim compensation due to lost oppurtunity. Or worse appeal to the U.N that they have been placed in an unacceptable position. The ongoing ramifications would be stupid, the same as the government sugesting it.IMO
I think Abbott is handling it well, Gillard and Bowen are showing the stress signs.
When they came into power 2 illegal immigrants had arrived, it is on their watch that is has turned to manure, due again to their medling and arrogance.
They can't say the policy couldn't get through because of Abbott, because several unpopular policies have been passed without Abbott's agreement.
The problem is they think they are a whole lot smarter than they actually are, that it their misplaced arrogance. Most Australians are choking on it and have had a gutfull.IMO


----------



## noco (20 December 2011)

Julia said:


> In the wake of the latest drownings off Indonesia, the government is exerting all effort to bring the opposition to the negotiating table, even releasing private letters requesting the opposition to engage in talks about offshore processing and having Chris Bowen make this plea via national television this evening in "7.30".
> 
> Isn't it time for Tony Abbott to realise that his continued recalcitrance is probably doing him more harm than good?  Apart from The Greens and Labor's Left, the people are very unhappy about all the people pouring into this country.
> 
> Does anyone think Mr Abbott should continue to refuse to engage in discussion with the government?




I believe it is a matter of principle that Gillard, having rejected Nauru on the grounds of not being a signatory to the UNHCR, wants to use Malayasia who are not a signatory and has a poor human rights record.

Under the circumstances, I don't believe it is not unreasonable for Abbott to reject the Malayasian deal for off shore processing. Nauru on the other hand is willing to become a signatory and the detention centre will be administered by Australia.

Bowen wanted to use Nauru untill Gillard said 'NO'. If she was to swallow her pride and agree to Nauru and it failed as Labor says it will, then Abbott will have egg on his face.

On the other hand, why is she not trying to persuade her Green coalition partner to agree to the Malaysian deal instead of blaming Abbott.

After all, the Labor Party created the mess they in but continue to blame Abbott who has made the suggestion on a policy that worked in the past and it is Gillard who is being 'pig headed' in saying NO,NO,NO..


----------



## So_Cynical (21 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> From what I heard on the radio today, Abbott is saying, put forward a policy and we will talk.
> At the moment the only policy that Gillard has is Malaysia and that is unacceptable.
> It has been tested in court and found wanting,




It was tested in court and found to be illegal...com-on dude get it straight, Tony's Nauru solution was also by implication thought to be somewhat likely to also be ruled illegal.

So where's that leave us and the 1 asylum seeker that drowns (12 month average) every day?

There is little political incentive for Tony to do anything, morality and so called Christian values are something else entirely...just as well he gave up any delusions of entering the priest hood, he clearly isn't made of the right stuff.


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> It was tested in court and found to be illegal...com-on dude get it straight, Tony's Nauru solution was also by implication thought to be somewhat likely to also be ruled illegal.
> 
> So where's that leave us and the 1 asylum seeker that drowns (12 month average) every day?
> 
> There is little political incentive for Tony to do anything, morality and so called Christian values are something else entirely...just as well he gave up any delusions of entering the priest hood, he clearly isn't made of the right stuff.




Jeez So_Cnical, Malaysia was found to be illegal, Nauru wasn't a signatury to the U.N convention(now it is) Nauru is manned by Australians, Malaysia who knows if there is a camp?
So what is the "Tony's Nauru solution by implication of the unimplicated waffle blah blah blah about"
Where that leaves us is, Julia had better get her $#!t together and start to govern the country in a manner that works.
It's not all about her, just because she says it's right doesn't mean it is. 
Like I said the track record speaks for itself, trust me, doesn't cut it anymore, they are goons.


----------



## dutchie (21 December 2011)

Here I was thinking that Labor had come into power by forming a coalition with the Greens and two/three independents. This would enable them get bills passed in the parliament.

Yet there has not been one peep/attempt to get the greens and independents to help them in this matter. What gives? This is where their energies should be concentrated.

Any so called government that needs an opposition to get their policy through is not really governing. 

It is not the oppositions responsibility to fix problems that have been self inflicted by this incompetent government.

If you can't do the job, get out of the kitchen!


----------



## joea (21 December 2011)

Hi.
I will not attempt to mention the past as I think the solution to the above post is in the future. i.e. it's not what worked in the past that's the solution, but what will work in the future.

It should be simply called the New Asylum Policy.

The labor government has attempted to bully the opposition into accepting their policy.
Abbott now has the opportunity to prove to us on this forum, and the Australian voter that he has what it takes to run the Country.

This is a big one people, a HUGE one. I dare to say, "the majority of the votes of the uncommitted are on the table". a few swingers as well.

Let"s see how it plays out. I think the polls will indicate the winner, and if its Abbott,
it will bring on the challenge to Gillard. If it's not Abbott, then he is "dead in the water". I cannot see how it will be "a draw".

joea


----------



## Knobby22 (21 December 2011)

Dutchie

During the Howard years you will remember that they did deals with Labor to defeat the Greens or the Independents to get bills passed. Similarly the deal with the Democrats to get the GST passed.

There is no "rule" that says oppositions should oppose everything.

According to the Age today, there are many senior Liberals upset with what is happening. The don't like (the Green policy) of onshore processing and refugees dying and want Abbott to work out a deal with Gillard. 

Surely our two major parties can act for the good together.


----------



## dutchie (21 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Dutchie
> 
> During the Howard years you will remember that they did deals with Labor to defeat the Greens or the Independents to get bills passed. Similarly the deal with the Democrats to get the GST passed.
> 
> ...




Knobby22

I agree with all you have said.

It just seems to me though that a government which changed a good working policy to a bad one should have an attitude that the opposition should be denigrated for not supporting their bad policy!


----------



## IFocus (21 December 2011)

dutchie said:


> Knobby22
> 
> I agree with all you have said.
> 
> It just seems to me though that a government which changed a good working policy to a bad one should have an attitude that the opposition should be denigrated for not supporting their bad policy!





Howard back flipped regularly on bad policy work non choices been his gold star.


----------



## noco (21 December 2011)

dutchie said:


> Knobby22
> 
> I agree with all you have said.
> 
> It just seems to me though that a government which changed a good working policy to a bad one should have an attitude that the opposition should be denigrated for not supporting their bad policy!




If the situation  has now become dead locked and Gillard can't get her own way, let the people decide. Have an election and let the constitutents vote on the best policy to stop this influx of illegal boat people.

They call it democracy. Let the people decide. If Gillard maintains she is right, what has she got to fear?


----------



## noco (21 December 2011)

IFocus said:


> Howard back flipped regularly on bad policy work non choices been his gold star.




What in the hell has Howard got to do with this thread?

IFocus, please keep in step!!!!!!!!! It is all about Malaysia's New Asylum Policy. You know the one Gillard stuffed up big time.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 December 2011)

noco said:


> If the situation  has now become dead locked and Gillard can't get her own way, let the people decide. Have an election and let the constitutents vote on the best policy to stop this influx of illegal boat people.
> 
> They call it democracy. Let the people decide. If Gillard maintains she is right, what has she got to fear?




Dream on, politics is the art of compromise, let's see some.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> From what I heard on the radio today, Abbott is saying, put forward a policy and we will talk.
> At the moment the only policy that Gillard has is Malaysia and that is unacceptable.
> It has been tested in court and found wanting, it is also morally wrong. Why does Abbott have to agree to it?



sp, if you watched the interview with Chris Bowen on "7.30" last night, he made it as clear as he possibly could that all options are up for discussion.  I don't think his request that all the relevant parties get together and work out a mutually acceptable solution, something that would require give and take on both sides, is unreasonable, given the chaos of the boats arriving so frequently.



> Most Australians are choking on it and have had a gutfull.IMO



Agree that most Australians are more than disgusted.  I'd say, however, that they are most disgusted at the failure of the two major parties to behave rationally and reach a compromise.



noco said:


> I believe it is a matter of principle that Gillard, having rejected Nauru on the grounds of not being a signatory to the UNHCR, wants to use Malayasia who are not a signatory and has a poor human rights record.
> 
> Under the circumstances, I don't believe it is not unreasonable for Abbott to reject the Malayasian deal for off shore processing. Nauru on the other hand is willing to become a signatory and the detention centre will be administered by Australia.



Yes, we all agree that the principle of being a signatory to the UNHCR is a very fair point.  


> Bowen wanted to use Nauru untill Gillard said 'NO'. If she was to swallow her pride and agree to Nauru and it failed as Labor says it will, then Abbott will have egg on his face.



That's true.   I feel for Mr Bowen.   He is working at a huge disadvantage because of his boss.  Left to himself, I'm sure he and Scott Morrison could nut out a workable compromise.



> On the other hand, why is she not trying to persuade her Green coalition partner to agree to the Malaysian deal instead of blaming Abbott.



Perfectly obviously, because there's zero hope of any such thing, as we all know.



> QUOTE=Knobby22;677116]
> According to the Age today, there are many senior Liberals upset with what is happening. The don't like (the Green policy) of onshore processing and refugees dying and want Abbott to work out a deal with Gillard.
> 
> Surely our two major parties can act for the good together.



Agree entirely.



noco said:


> If the situation  has now become dead locked and Gillard can't get her own way, let the people decide. Have an election and let the constitutents vote on the best policy to stop this influx of illegal boat people.
> 
> They call it democracy. Let the people decide. If Gillard maintains she is right, what has she got to fear?



What has she got to fear?  For heaven's sake, noco, she would lose an election massively on many fronts.  Of course she's not going to call an election!


----------



## Macquack (21 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Handled correctly i reckon Tony can come out of a negotiated solution looking like a winner...now to do that he will have to basically let the Govt have its way, for the good of the country and the asylum seekers....let the Govt of the day have free range on border protection issues in exchange for...?
> 
> However i seriously doubt Tony has the team to *stage manage* anything of significance.




"One trick Tony" is only good for a cameo appearance.

If Abbott ever becomes Prime Minister it will be by default. 

His best performances are when he says nothing.


----------



## joea (21 December 2011)

Hold on folks.

While Bowen has been stalling out front, Gillard has been down to the newsagent to get a new biro to write the proposal.
They forgot about that before they got into Abbott.
Bowen forgot to to look at the 'to do list " on his white board.

By tomorrow or Friday they should have it.

I can give them a tip. Write it in pencil as biro will not rub out.
joea


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2011)

Actually Bowen should look to a career on the stage when he gives up politics.
He seems to be able to act out any role Julia gives him, with gusto and sincerity.
I remember when he was selling the Malaysian proposal, the finest lawyers in the land have worked on this.LOL fine performance.
Also when selling the agreement with East Timor, that was never an agreement at all, then Manus Island.LOL also memorable.
Then when the Malaysian solution was thrown out, he said Nauru was an option.LOL Immediately swallowed his tonque, gagged and said Julia hates the opposition they won't do as they are told.
This whole fiasco is Julias making, best she starts back filling the hole, the public isn't wearing Julias claim it is Tony's fault.
That, actually, is the crux of the problem, Julia spitting the dummy when she didn't get her own way. Then saying let it be on Tony's head, is dumb, arrogant and childish.
You can't govern a country with that attitude, well not a democratic one.IMO

Maybe it highlights the fact she hasn't had children, they soon teach you that just telling them to do something, doesn't cut it anymore.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it is just the world has moved on from people doing as they are told just because someone decrees it.
Julia doesn't seem to get it.


----------



## joea (21 December 2011)

Macquack said:


> If Abbott ever becomes Prime Minister it will be by default.




Well I thought Rudd got in by default(they did not want Howard), Gillard was in by default(they did not want Rudd).
If Abbott gets IN (three wrongs make a right).
Well there you go!  problem solved, glad you pointed that out. 
Gee I reckon I will sleep right through tonight!!!
joea


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2011)

What I really love is how the press, forget to mention the other part of Ruddocks statement.
Also that Malaysia isn't going to change anything for Australia, suprise suprise.


Mr Ruddock insisted any deal including Malaysia would also have to involve ''all of the essential measures'' such as offshore
processing at several destinations, including Nauru, and temporary protection visas.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/mala...ays-ruddock-20111220-1p421.html#ixzz1hFn7fka1

Funny how the media forgot to mention that part. Well Bob bring on the media 'witch hunt' I am sure you won't be happy with the findings.
If you read through the article it is hard to decypher the truth.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 December 2011)

I have to say im a little disgusted by some of the latest posting in this thread...not a word about dead children from the hard liners, no compassion, no need to fix things based on the carnage on our north western border.

Seems all we can expect from the hard liners is Political delusions and super conservative gibberish.


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2011)

The picture and the first paragraph wouldn't be biased, would they.
What crap reporting.
Thank god the public has moved on and can see past this garbage.


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I have to say im a little disgusted by some of the latest posting in this thread...not a word about dead children from the hard liners, no compassion, no need to fix things based on the carnage on our north western border.
> 
> Seems all we can expect from the hard liners is Political delusions and super conservative gibberish.




There wouldn't be any dead children if the government:
Firstly had not dismantled a working policy.
Secondly, had accepted reasonable ammendments to a flawed policy.

I am disgusted the government has not the humility to admit when they are wrong. It is a common thread through their whole term in government.
Respect is earned not bestowed.

You can't, all of a sudden claim the moral high ground when your stupid intervention caused all the chaos.
They need to give ground they are the root cause. WTF is going on.

Actually I will even go one step further and say Abbott would be as big a goose as Gillard if he goes along with the Malaysian idea.
IMO it will end in tears, it won't work and it will backfire.


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2011)

It's amazing how different it all sounds, when you get some objective or should I say, accurate reporting.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/nauru-could-be-on-agenda/story-e6freooo-1226227563126


----------



## joea (22 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> It's amazing how different it all sounds, when you get some objective or should I say, accurate reporting.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...says-chris-bowen/story-fn9hm1gu-1226228035423

sp 
I agree as would many others.
The site attached shows a light at the end of the tunnel.
Personally I do not see why anyone would agree to a 800 to 4000 swap.
Especially when they pick the 4000.

On the comment of compassion. Lets get this straight. Australians put life at higher level than the countries we are dealing with.(that's why they are coming.)

Has Labor shown any compassion in any form after dismantling the system that worked. If anybody wants to start pointing fingers, then ensure you do it in the correct direction with honesty and not political bias!!!!

The people who organized this last boat have put a price of $7000 as the price of a life. And after all this time they cannot even report accurately how many people were on a boat designed for 100 and with life jackets for 19.
joea


----------



## Knobby22 (22 December 2011)

Robert Manne attacked the "intellectual left" today including himself before being incorrect originally about asylum policy. (Refer today's Age and SMH)

He then goes on to attack the left still holding the original hard line quoting John Maynard Kaynes:  
 " When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do Sir?"

The Libs do have the moral high ground on this. They can use it to twist the governments agenda more to their desires and the Greens can only whinge about it because of their inflexibility and lack of cogent thought on this subject.

Abbott should not blow this advantage away despite his desires; and the Liberal party is ensuring that he won't.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Robert Manne attacked the "intellectual left" today including himself before being incorrect originally about asylum policy. (Refer today's Age and SMH)
> 
> He then goes on to attack the left still holding the original hard line quoting John Maynard Kaynes:
> " When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do Sir?"
> ...




+1 knobby, with a bit of luck common sense will prevail and a sensible outcome will result.

I certainly hope they think carefully when considering Malaysia. Our track record with them is not particularily friendly.
We may not get exactly what we bargain for. IMO


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Seems all we can expect from the hard liners is Political delusions and super conservative gibberish.




And from your lot...crocodile tears.


----------



## dutchie (22 December 2011)

This article sums it up:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...me-is-a-disgrace/story-e6frfhqf-1226227960780


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2011)

dutchie said:


> This article sums it up:
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...me-is-a-disgrace/story-e6frfhqf-1226227960780




From this link;



> OF all the despicable, dishonest acts any Australian government has committed, the attempt to offload blame for Julia Gillard's border protection disaster on to Tony Abbott takes the cake.
> 
> The Prime Minister has swanned off on holidays just as another boatload of asylum seekers died as a direct result of her Government's policies. As a direct and predicted result.




This is the real Julia. She couldn't give a stuff. Mr Rabbit did it.


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2011)

When is a compromise not a compromise? When it's b/s. Labor has offered to look at Nauru if Abbott agrees to the Malaysia policy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-offer-to-abbott/story-fn9hm1gu-1226228744319


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2011)

I don't think labor realise the damage they are doing to their credibility, or I should say what's left of it.


----------



## bellenuit (22 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> When is a compromise not a compromise? When it's b/s. Labor has offered to look at Nauru if Abbott agrees to the Malaysia policy.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-offer-to-abbott/story-fn9hm1gu-1226228744319




Although I have said several times that I think Abbott should have supported the Malaysian solution as proposed by Labor, I agree that this is not a genuine offer from Labor. If Labor does consider Nauru, they will do everything in their power to make that aspect fail, so that they can say "I told you so".

Gillard is far too conniving to seriously consider any solution that would show the opposition in a good light.


----------



## joea (22 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Although I have said several times that I think Abbott should have supported the Malaysian solution as proposed by Labor, I agree that this is not a genuine offer from Labor. If Labor does consider Nauru, they will do everything in their power to make that aspect fail, so that they can say "I told you so".
> 
> Gillard is far too conniving to seriously consider any solution that would show the opposition in a good light.




bellenuit.
You have just summed up the thoughts of millions of people. I hope they are enough!
I genuinely say well done!
We the voter,  watch in anticipation.
joea


----------



## noco (22 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> When is a compromise not a compromise? When it's b/s. Labor has offered to look at Nauru if Abbott agrees to the Malaysia policy.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-offer-to-abbott/story-fn9hm1gu-1226228744319




Abbott must hold his ground on Nauru, insist on TPV's and turn the boats back where possible without endangering more lives.

Knowing Labor they will attempt to make Nauru fail and every effort should be made by Abbott and Morrison  to monitor Labor's control.


----------



## noco (23 December 2011)

The silence of the independants on the boat people is deafening.

Why is Labor depending on the coaliton for assitance when they have Windsor,Oakshot, Wilkie and the one Green MP. Perhaps they have deserted Labor!!!!!!!!


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2011)

noco said:


> The silence of the independants on the boat people is deafening.
> 
> Why is Labor depending on the coaliton for assitance when they have Windsor,Oakshot, Wilkie and the one Green MP. Perhaps they have deserted Labor!!!!!!!!




As is the silence of the media, who seem to forget that Labor plus partners have a majority. 

This is not a genuine offer from Labor but a conniving plan to trick the opposition into supporting the Malaysian deal. When it fails, Labor will claim it had bipartisan support and share the blame. 

Abbott must stick to his guns and tell Labor that if they want the Malaysian solution as Labor have proposed, they must pressure their partners to accept the policy. Malaysia is not the opposition's policy and they will gladly cooperate with Labor to follow the Nauru path.

Abbott must keep drawing attention to the fact Labor has a working majority and instead of pressuring the opposition they should be pressuring the partners in government.


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> As is the silence of the media, who seem to forget that Labor plus partners have a majority.
> 
> This is not a genuine offer from Labor but a conniving plan to trick the opposition into supporting the Malaysian deal. When it fails, Labor will claim it had bipartisan support and share the blame.
> 
> ...




The fact is Labor don't have a working majority.
They only have a majority when it is something the greens or indepenents want.


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The fact is Labor don't have a working majority.
> They only have a majority when it is something the greens or indepenents want.




I think it was implicit in what I was saying that they have a working majority in conjunction with their partners - the Greens and Independents. It is the partners that need to be pressured, not the opposition who have their own policies.


----------



## Julia (23 December 2011)

Re the suggestions that if the Libs were to accept the current proposal, the government would make sure Nauru failed, (and I agree that that's what the government would be planning) how actually would they do this?  

Would the Immigration Department be instructed to approve everyone sent to Nauru for entry to Australia, no exceptions, thus "proving" the government's assertion that processing on Nauru equals automatic entry to Australia?

I feel especially strongly that the Libs need to hold out for TPVs to be brought back.
The racket of sending children on boats alone so that later they can haul in huge families is a disgrace.


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2011)

Labor have 14,000 reasons why they don't want temporary visa and Nauru back.
If it stops the boats how will they look, probably sillier than they already do.
Which is pretty hard to imagine.
Even the pro labor ABC jounalists are starting to lose their enthusiasm when talking about the government.LOL


----------



## joea (23 December 2011)

Hi.
Has anyone given any thought where these people got the money to pay $7000 dollars for a boat trip.?
A number of them had air tickets to get to where the boat left etc.
I am starting to smell a rat(many rats actually).
When these people are accepted in Australia, (and get a job) how much money is going back somewhere for the opportunity. ( not to their family's) I mean.

I think there is a racket, and it should be exposed. I think there is a small clan organizing a percentage of these seekers, sending them to Australia, and the seekers send a percentage of their new found fortune(when they get employment) back to the clan.
I will have to get NCIS onto this lead.
joea


----------



## So_Cynical (23 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Re the suggestions that if the Libs were to accept the current proposal, the government would make sure Nauru failed, (and I agree that that's what the government would be planning) how actually would they do this?.




I'm wondering Julia..considering the above quote.

Do you also believe that the coalition doesn't want to pass legislation for Labor's Malaysian solution because it will also work and thus make the coalition look stupid?

----------

Following on from that is the NBN about making the coalition look stupid? the Carbon tax? Maternity leave? the new super rules? 

----------------------



joea said:


> Hi.
> Has anyone given any thought where these people got the money to pay $7000 dollars for a boat trip.?




Mostly from their relatives in Aust...settled here after many months and years waiting in Nauru and PNG under the Howard Govt...seriously.

Now if i was a crazed left wing conspiracy nut, i could think that the Liberals set this up by allowing all these refugees into the country in the first place rather than do a swap deal with Malaysia a decade ago.

Strange cos any Gaza strip Palestinian could show up on a boat and get refugee status and yet they don't, Zimbabweans, Somalians..and many other could but don't...its just Iraqis and Afghans and a few Tamils....same as 10 and 12 years ago under Howard.

coincidence?


----------



## joea (23 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Now if i was a crazed left wing conspiracy nut, i could think that the Liberals set this up by allowing all these refugees into the country in the first place rather than do a swap deal with Malaysia a decade ago.




SC
 I assume you have a sense of humor but I have some doubts here.
The set up...... Labor in with Rudd, changes the system, innovation for a super-fund.
People overseas thinking this guy has to be a mug.!!!
Bleed a little out of every seeker you can organize to send to Australia.
joea


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> I think it was implicit in what I was saying that they have a working majority in conjunction with their partners - the Greens and Independents. It is the partners that need to be pressured, not the opposition who have their own policies.




Yes, sorry bellenuit, I guess I was just trying to be a bit more blunt about the fact that labor haven't got any of ' their' policy through.
The only policy they have put in place is the greens and independents policies.
Actually it must be very embarrasing for Gillard, that the very time she needs the greens support they give her the bird.
Lets be honest Bob doesn't have any respect for Julia or labor. 
He has already put on record that they are going to take over from labor as the second major party. The way he is playing them I think he may pull it off.


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yes, sorry bellenuit, I guess I was just trying to be a bit more blunt about the fact that labor haven't got any of ' their' policy through.
> The only policy they have put in place is the greens and independents policies.
> Actually it must be very embarrasing for Gillard, that the very time she needs the greens support they give her the bird.
> Lets be honest Bob doesn't have any respect for Julia or labor.
> He has already put on record that they are going to take over from labor as the second major party. The way he is playing them I think he may pull it off.




Too true.  You would think that after throwing her integrity (if she had any) to the wind by backtracking on the carbon tax to placate The Greens, she should be able to get them to be a bit more supportive of her policies.


----------



## Julia (23 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I'm wondering Julia..considering the above quote.
> 
> Do you also believe that the coalition doesn't want to pass legislation for Labor's Malaysian solution because it will also work and thus make the coalition look stupid?



Entirely possible, SC.  I certainly doubt that their professed objection to Malaysia being that it's not a signatory to UNHCR convention is anything other than an excuse in the aim of being obstructive.

I don't know how typical I am of the average Australian but I'm with the government in believing the so called Malaysia Solution would work as a deterrent (if the 800 can be repeated if necessary), but at the same time I'd have concerns about how people are treated in the Malaysian detention environment.

Anyway, it seems that by leaving the Gillard and Abbott out of the negotiations today, some genuine goodwill and progress has occurred.   I expect a compromise will be found, absolutely no thanks to the stubbornness of both leaders.

I hope so.  The best aspect of any such solution imo will be the total sidelining of the Greens on this issue.  I can't think of anything better.


----------



## sptrawler (24 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Entirely possible, SC.  I certainly doubt that their professed objection to Malaysia being that it's not a signatory to UNHCR convention is anything other than an excuse in the aim of being obstructive.
> 
> I don't know how typical I am of the average Australian but I'm with the government in believing the so called Malaysia Solution would work as a deterrent (if the 800 can be repeated if necessary), but at the same time I'd have concerns about how people are treated in the Malaysian detention environment.
> 
> ...




I would love to know how you pick the 800 to go. Is it the first 800 after the initial announcement or the first 800 after the parties come to agreement. 
I know the lawyers will be asking, why pick that 800.


----------



## sptrawler (24 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Too true.  You would think that after throwing her integrity (if she had any) to the wind by backtracking on the carbon tax to placate The Greens, she should be able to get them to be a bit more supportive of her policies.




No bellenuit, Julia is the only one who hasn't any principles, Bob's standing by his beliefs and Tony is standing by his.
Seems like the only one who will ----------themselves is labor.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> No bellenuit, Julia is the only one who hasn't any principles, Bob's standing by his beliefs and Tony is standing by his.
> Seems like the only one who will ----------themselves is labor.




Bob's standing by his beliefs = Children drowning
Tony is standing by his = Children drowning


"Julia is the only one who hasn't any principles" and yet is the only one genuinely trying for a stop the boats solution involving compromise, both political and personal....and yet in some warped part of your neo conservative mind this means she has no principles.


----------



## noco (24 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Bob's standing by his beliefs = Children drowning
> Tony is standing by his = Children drowning
> 
> 
> "Julia is the only one who hasn't any principles" and yet is the only one genuinely trying for a stop the boats solution involving compromise, both political and personal....and yet in some warped part of your neo conservative mind this means she has no principles.




It is a pity she and Rudd let them start coming in 2008. The Liberal system worked and Labor stuffed it up. What a mess they find themselves in.
Abbott has got her by the short and curlies and she does not like it because she can not get her own way.Stiff bickies.
What has happened to her Green/Independant supporters. Perhaps she may have to bribe them in them with more money which is the only way they know. No she can't do that, she has run out of spondoolie.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2011)

So Cynical, a question for you:

Suppose the parties did an about face and suddenly you find that the Libs are promoting the carbon tax and  the so called Malaysia solution, just as two examples, and Labor are against both of these, for whom would you vote?

Would your vote still be for Labor or would you switch to the Coalition?

And please don't decline to answer on the basis that it won't happen.  I'd just really like to know what drives your apparently total devotion to the government.


----------



## sptrawler (24 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> "Julia is the only one who hasn't any principles" and yet is the only one genuinely trying for a stop the boats solution involving compromise, both political and personal....and yet in some warped part of your neo conservative mind this means she has no principles.




So_Cynical, if she was honestly trying to stop the boats she should just reinstall the policies that were working under Howard.
No that would be admitting labor were wrong, much easier just to talk up a storm, slag off at everyone and have no workable policy.
What an absolute shambolic joke.
There will be a mini series made of this governments time in office, it's a fiasco. Absolute incompetence with a huge dose of misplaced arrogance topped of with lashings of ignorance.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> So_Cynical, if she was honestly trying to stop the boats she should just reinstall the policies that were working under Howard.




Except that those policy's didn't actually stop the boats, slowed em, didn't stop em.



sptrawler said:


> There will be a mini series made of this governments time in office, it's a fiasco. Absolute incompetence with a huge dose of misplaced arrogance topped of with lashings of ignorance.




And yet we have low unemployment, low interest rates, house prices holding up, low inflation, GHG action, Tax reform, super reform, forestry reform, a mining infrastructure boom...international treasurer of the year....yep sounds like a fiasco all right. 

-------------------------------------



Julia said:


> So Cynical, a question for you:
> 
> Suppose the parties did an about face and suddenly you find that the Libs are promoting the carbon tax and  the so called Malaysia solution, just as two examples, and Labor are against both of these, for whom would you vote?
> 
> ...




Then we wouldn't have an opposition 

I could never vote for Tony he's a dill, Turnbull i could vote for.


----------



## sptrawler (25 December 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> And yet we have low unemployment, low interest rates, house prices holding up, low inflation, GHG action, Tax reform, super reform, forestry reform, a mining infrastructure boom...international treasurer of the year....yep sounds like a fiasco all right.
> .




Yes So_Cynical all that despite this government, not because of them.
Love to have seen how they would have gone if they hadn't inherited the economy in such good shape.
It is always the same, Labor stuff the economy, Libs get put back in to fix it. Then the Libs bring down taxes the voters get all comortable and complacent, what next they vote the dick heads back in and history repeats.
Must admit though there isn't many own up to supporting them though, so congratulations. 
Have a great day S_C


----------



## Calliope (31 December 2011)

> *Harsh penalties for boat crew 'target wrong people'*
> 
> NINE Australian judges have now criticised laws imposing mandatory five-year jail terms on the crew of asylum-seeker boats, with the latest saying the harsh penalties target the wrong people, condemn their children to "extreme poverty" and have no deterrent effect.
> 
> ...



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...get-wrong-people/story-fn9hm1gu-1226233592962


We certainly are targeting the wrong people. The real criminals are the people smugglers and their clients...the illegal immigrants. Since we can't get the smugglers, the best way to stop the trafficking would be to impose a mandatory sentence of five years on the illegal immigrants. 

Please let us drop the bull**** that these people are asylum seekers. People who pay criminals for services are worse than the criminals.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...get-wrong-people/story-fn9hm1gu-1226233592962
> 
> 
> We certainly are targeting the wrong people. The real criminals are the people smugglers and their clients...the illegal immigrants. Since we can't get the smugglers, the best way to stop the trafficking would be to impose a mandatory sentence of five years on the illegal immigrants.
> ...




Good point Calliope, targeting the peasant fisherman will do little good. Targetting the people paying the trafficers will stop it pretty quick however we have to prove that they did pay! This could keep the lawyers in money for years.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

Well it looks as though there has been a line drawn in the sand. It will be interesting to see labors response, especially now Indonesia has made it easier for refugees to use it as a staging post.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...says-tony-abbott/story-e6freuy9-1226249986992

Makes the Malaysia solution look a bit limp.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

On the asylum seeker subject. I drove back to Perth from Kalgoorlie last weekend, well you should see the eyesore detention centre being built.
Right on the side of the main highway to Perth, at the Northam bypass, they have denuded the side of the hill and are doing earth works.
What an absolute disgrace, unbelievable that tourists first sight when closing in on Perth is a massive wire compound on the side of a hill.
I wonder how Melbourne would like it if it was on the side of the Tullamarine highway, or Sydney if it was on the Hume 80k's out of Sydney.
Like I have said before, Julia and Bob have caused the problem, put the detenion centres in their back yards.
I should have stopped and taken a photo, will do next time.


----------



## Julia (21 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well it looks as though there has been a line drawn in the sand. It will be interesting to see labors response, especially now Indonesia has made it easier for refugees to use it as a staging post.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...says-tony-abbott/story-e6freuy9-1226249986992
> 
> Makes the Malaysia solution look a bit limp.



I was a bit startled to read this in The Australian this morning.  Is it even workable?
Not sure how the Navy will feel about such a role.  

Obviously something needs to be done, but this will be a very polarising policy.
What do others think?


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

Julia said:


> I was a bit startled to read this in The Australian this morning.  Is it even workable?
> Not sure how the Navy will feel about such a role.
> 
> Obviously something needs to be done, but this will be a very polarising policy.
> What do others think?




I think it is an absolute winner, no one would be in any doubt as to the outcome of an illegal entry attempt.
Unlike the current procrastinations and the resultant glimmer of hope encouraging people to risk their lives. 
The half ar$e ideas like the Malaysian solution only encourage people to risk it, because they maybe wouldn't be picked in the 800.
Increasing the migrant intake through the proper channels should be incorperated.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well it looks as though there has been a line drawn in the sand. It will be interesting to see labors response, especially now Indonesia has made it easier for refugees to use it as a staging post.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...says-tony-abbott/story-e6freuy9-1226249986992
> 
> Makes the Malaysia solution look a bit limp.






			
				www.dailytelegraph.com.au said:
			
		

> Mr Abbott said this would involve an increase in the number of naval vessels to force the boats back,* including the capacity to remove asylum-seekers from deliberately sabotaged boats before repairing those vessels to enable the boatpeople to be returned to Indonesia*.




Anyone care to comment on how that (bolded) will work.  removing 100 people from a boat then repairing the motor (maybe giving them an outboard :dunno: ) and tek screwing a few sheets of ply on the hull then reloading the 100 people and wishing them a pleasant trip. 

lol just lol

Its policy for pure political consumption...without a scintilla of credibility.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Its policy for pure political consumption...without a scintilla of credibility.




What a bit like labors carbon tax to stop global warming.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What a bit like labors carbon tax to stop global warming.




The carbon tax is to stop global warming? care to link to a Govt announcement or press release stating that, or did you just make it up...like the Liberals make up policy.


----------



## noco (21 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I think it is an absolute winner, no one would be in any doubt as to the outcome of an illegal entry attempt.
> Unlike the current procrastinations and the resultant glimmer of hope encouraging people to risk their lives.
> The half ar$e ideas like the Malaysian solution only encourage people to risk it, because they maybe wouldn't be picked in the 800.
> Increasing the migrant intake through the proper channels should be incorperated.




Not only would turning back the boats be a deterrent to people smuggling, it will also save lives in the future with the boats being stopped.

More boats, more sinkings and more lives lost. This is more humane than allowing those idiot people smugglers to entice people to risk their lives in those leaking boats and risking bad weather on the way.

I cannot understand the Greens endorsement of allowing this illegal entry to take place.


----------



## bellenuit (21 January 2012)

Julia said:


> I was a bit startled to read this in The Australian this morning.  Is it even workable?
> Not sure how the Navy will feel about such a role.
> 
> Obviously something needs to be done, but this will be a very polarising policy.
> What do others think?




I think it would require us to withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees to be able to put them back on boats once they are already on an Australian boat. If they are not in Australian waters, then it would be possible (IMO) to force them from entering Australian waters. But once on an Australian navy ship, I would assume they are now the Australia government's responsibility and they are then entitled to claim refugee status. I am drawing on some of the comments made in relation to the guys who boarded the Japanese whaling ship last week as to responsibility. This is all just supposition on my behalf.

I think the most workable part, though risky diplomatically, is to hold Indonesia to account. We pay them enough each year that we should be able to demand they stop boats from leaving their shores for Australia. It is obvious that they are playing us for fools, because we fear getting on the wrong side of them. They, as well as the people smugglers, are benefiting from that trade. Any support from Australia should be contingent on they playing their part.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> The carbon tax is to stop global warming? care to link to a Govt announcement or press release stating that, or did you just make it up...like the Liberals make up policy.




In the same way turning back boats is to discouraging illegal asylum seeking.


----------



## bellenuit (21 January 2012)

Julia said:


> I was a bit startled to read this in The Australian this morning.




One thing though, he did pick a dumb day to announce it. It will take the focus off Gillard's backflip on her support for the poker machine pre-committment legislation. I think it was Nick Xenophon who summed up the issue as "Gillard has stabbed in the back the man who helped her gain power".


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

bellenuit said:


> One thing though, he did pick a dumb day to announce it. It will take the focus off Gillard's backflip on her support for the poker machine pre-committment legislation. I think it was Nick Xenophon who summed up the issue as "Gillard has stabbed in the back the man who helped her gain power".




One thing that has become obvious is, Julia doesn't give a rats who she stabs in the back. She wouldn't think twice about wiping her feet on anyones back.
The interesting thing will be how comfortable Bob and the boys feel dealing with her. They must realise that at the first opportunity she would like nothing more than to rub Bob's nose in it.
It will also be interesting to see how Bob deals with Julia's 'new' stance on asylum seekers when the next opinion poll comes in. It will be entertaining IMO.
Again I think Abbotts timing is perfect, why harp on the backflip when Wilkie is doing it for you.LOL
I can feel the kitchen heating up again.


----------



## Julia (21 January 2012)

bellenuit said:


> One thing though, he did pick a dumb day to announce it. It will take the focus off Gillard's backflip on her support for the poker machine pre-committment legislation.



So far, at least on ABC Radio, that doesn't seem to have happened, bellenuit.
The pokie decision by  Gillard and Wilkie's subsequent keeping of his word has been reported in detail.  No mention of the Abbott boat policy.
Might be quite different on commercial media.



> I think it was Nick Xenophon who summed up the issue as "Gillard has stabbed in the back the man who helped her gain power".



And she's a total fool if she imagines the electorate will be forgiving over her breaking her word yet again.   Imo it will particularly play with the other Independents who must surely realise they will also be discarded if Gillard decides they are no longer useful to her.
She is surely turning out to one of the most ruthless, self serving politicians ever.

She's now back to a knife edge in terms of her majority.  Where will she be if Craig Thompson has to resign?


----------



## So_Cynical (21 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> One thing that has become obvious is, Julia doesn't give a rats who she stabs in the back. She wouldn't think twice about wiping her feet on anyones back.




Similar to Tony and drowning Afghan kiddies.


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Similar to Tony and drowning Afghan kiddies.




That's getting out there So_Cynical. I'm starting to understand your 'blind faith' hope it doesn't get out of control.


----------



## Julia (22 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Similar to Tony and drowning Afghan kiddies.




Don't you think that, even for you, that's pretty offensive?   What Afghan children has Mr Abbott been responsible for drowning?


----------



## So_Cynical (22 January 2012)

Julia said:


> Don't you think that, even for you, that's pretty offensive?



  No and offensive to whom? keeping in mind that 1 Afghan/Iraqi/Tamil Kiddie is drowning every week (on average) over the last 15 months.



Julia said:


> What Afghan children has Mr Abbott been responsible for drowning?




*All of them*

Politicians are responsible for there actions, they rarely pay the true price but that doesn't diminish their responsibility.

Australia's boat people policy is PURE politics and has been since John Howard decided to make the Tampa incident a political issue... Tony's "turn the boats back" announcement this weekend is pure politics designed to appeal to his constituents, racists and the afraid.

Its has nothing to do with positive outcomes...Labor on the other hand has recently (with Malaysia) actually tried to come up with a valid COMPROMISE solution.


----------



## Julia (22 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> All of them... politicians are responsible for there actions, they rarely pay the true price but that doesn't diminish there responsibility.
> 
> Australia's boat people policy is PURE politics and has been since John Howard decided to make the Tampa incident a political issue...Tony "turn the boats back" announcement this weekend is pure politics designed to appeal to his constituents, racists and the afraid.
> 
> Its has nothing to do with positive outcomes.



How does the above answer my question to you about what children Mr Abbott has been responsible for drowning, given that you singled him out?


----------



## drsmith (22 January 2012)

No amount of emotive huff and puff changes the simple fact that Labor and its partners in government command a majority in both houses of parliament.


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2012)

Beautifully put Dr Smith.
Sometimes there is a post that sums it all up and you just hit it.


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2012)

And just to underline your qoute drsmith, here we have the Greens saying they want to introduce $1 pokey reforms, but Tony won't back it. WTF

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/greens-to-introduce-1-bet-law/story-e6freuy9-1226250555762

Has everyone lost the plot or what, why do they need Tony to support it when they and their partners have a majority, as you pointed out. Jeez the world has gone mad.


----------



## noco (23 January 2012)

drsmith said:


> No amount of emotive huff and puff changes the simple fact that Labor and its partners in government command a majority in both houses of parliament.




We never hear Gillard going off about the Greens saying NO to the Malayasia deal.

She would sooner blame Toy Abbott for spoiling her deal which would result in yet another dismal failure by this inept Green/Labor socialist left wing Government.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 January 2012)

drsmith said:


> No amount of emotive huff and puff changes the simple fact that Labor and its partners in government command a majority in both houses of parliament.




Also a simple fact that the libs could pass the Malaysia legislation on the basis of promoting there own policy.



sptrawler said:


> Beautifully put Dr Smith.
> Sometimes there is a post that sums it all up and you just hit it.




Not even close.


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Also a simple fact that the libs could pass the Malaysia legislation on the basis of promoting there own policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.




I understand your 'blind faith' and undying devotion to the labor cause.
But why do you keep asking the libs to supply the support your political partners are supposed to supply?
If you require the support of your opponents all the time, what are your partners there for?
I think it all backs up exactly what dr smith said, stop blaming everyone else for your lack of ability to govern. Or else let the electorate decide who they want to run the country. 
Bet that doesn't happen.
Even you must get sick of hearing 'the opposition won't support us', why don't we hear 'half of the elected government won't support us'  LOL,LOL,LOL

As  I said Dr Smith hit it right on the button.


----------



## Julia (23 January 2012)

+1.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I understand your 'blind faith' and undying devotion to the labor cause.
> But why do you keep asking the libs to supply the support your *political partners* are supposed to supply?




Blind faith no, just political reality...it is what it is.

Our political choices are simple...the Nothingness of the Coalition or a Govt that does things, i prefer Govt's that do things.

Notice your careful and deliberate use of the term "political partners" Labor is not in a coalition but leads a minority Govt and governs with the support of others, as you well know this means there are limits to what is and isn't possible.  

But why let that reality get in the way of your right wing political "one eyed" rhetoric.


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Blind faith no, just political reality...it is what it is.
> 
> Our political choices are simple...the Nothingness of the Coalition or a Govt that does things, i prefer Govt's that do things.
> 
> ...




One eyed I am not, I have voted for labor as many times as I have voted liberal (I tend not to vote for minor parties, don't see the point).
What I have found over my working career (as a wage earning tradie) is that labor, hand in hand with the unions tended to leave me worse off.
When the libs have been in, the union, rather than being in bed with the government tend to fight a whole lot harder and us wage earners did o.k.
As far as this lot go I don't see any redeeming features whatsoever. Taxes are going up, marginal tax rates are going up, the airey fairey carbon tax is going to cost us heaps and lose us jobs to do f.a for the climate, asylum policy has been thrown out the window. Shoot from the hip, batts, buildings, cattle exports. Freeing up overseas access to purchase our agricultural land. Pension age lifted to 67 years old. The amount you can salary sacrifice dropped to $25k. Yep they are doing brilliant, they're really doing things.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> One eyed I am not, I have voted for labor as many times as I have voted liberal




Nope...im not buying that for a minute.

You have voted Labor about as many times as GG and Julia has, and that's never.

Your posts on this forum speak volumes, you only post in the political threads (much like all the ASF right) and only ever post negitivly re: the Govt...and yet like to pretend that your even handed and fair...what a crock!


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Notice your careful and deliberate use of the term "political partners" Labor is not in a coalition but leads a minority Govt and governs with the support of others, as you well know this means there are limits to what is and isn't possible.




Addressing that quote, what a classic, they are always saying it is the oppositions fault, can't you see how silly that is.
You say it governs with the support of others, BUT THE OTHERS AREN'T SUPPORTING THEM. 
So why blame the opposition? After all it is an opposition as opposed to partners. Duh


----------



## sptrawler (23 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Nope...im not buying that for a minute.
> 
> You have voted Labor about as many times as GG and Julia has, and that's never.
> 
> Your posts on this forum speak volumes, you only post in the political threads (much like all the ASF right) and only ever post negitivly re: the Govt...and yet like to pretend that your even handed and fair...what a crock!




Believe what you like.
The only reason I post on the general thread is, untill this government is chucked out the sharemarket is going nowhere. Take that to the bank.

As you get older you get to see the smoke and mirrors. There is many an arguement I had in support of labor and the unions when I was a young bloke.LOL


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2012)

Indonesia is upset all the extra visa's they give out, may end up being an increase in refugees they are left with.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/jakarta-slams-abbott-boat-plan-20120123-1qe40.html


----------



## So_Cynical (24 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Addressing that quote, what a classic, they are always saying it is the oppositions fault, can't you see how silly that is.
> You say it governs with the support of others, BUT THE OTHERS AREN'T SUPPORTING THEM.
> So why blame the opposition? After all it is an opposition as opposed to partners. Duh




So by your logic the Coalition vowing to vote down the off shore processing legislation (its own policy) by actually  voting with the greens, would make the coalition and the greens "partners" because they voted together.

When a political party decides to vote against its own policy just to spoil and block a minority Govt...well it really says a lot about the political and moral credibility of that party.


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> So by your logic the Coalition vowing to vote down the off shore processing legislation (its own policy) by actually  voting with the greens, would make the coalition and the greens "partners" because they voted together.
> 
> When a political party decides to vote against its own policy just to spoil and block a minority Govt...well it really says a lot about the political and moral credibility of that party.




Yes and it actually shows what a sham the labor/green coalition government is.
They agree on nothing, unless it is what the greens want.

So why not go to an election and get a mandate?

Jeez this is hard work, if the people agree with you and labor, they will romp it in at an election. 
Put it to the vote.
Then they don't have to keep bending over for everybody.LOL


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2012)

Imagine it, Julia up there Wayne alongside.

'You know what we have delivered, you know what we have achieved, you know what we are capable of'

We are going to the Australian people standing on our record 'We deliver'

We are the government that delivered us through the worst crisis ever, we are the government that has the worlds best treasurer, we are the government that can steer us to a better future.

Tony's a dick, Tony's negative, the opposition has no policy.

Why don't they call an election. They are a shoe in, they can't lose.


----------



## Julia (24 January 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Nope...im not buying that for a minute.
> 
> You have voted Labor about as many times as GG and Julia has, and that's never.
> 
> Your posts on this forum speak volumes, you only post in the political threads (much like all the ASF right) and only ever post negitivly re: the Govt...and yet like to pretend that your even handed and fair...what a crock!



You don't believe that anyone has voted both Labor and Liberal because the very notion of anyone actually possessing political objectivity is something you don't understand.

I don't care either what you believe, but for the record I arrived to live in Australia in 1993 and federally voted for Keating, then Howard.

In State elections I have voted for Goss, Beattie, Bligh, never for a conservative option.  I'm embarrassed to admit that I fell for the Beattie and Bligh aura of confidence and bright smiles.  Plus the rider that the opposition has during all that time been woefully inadequate also.

But it's well and truly over now, Anna.  I was such a fool to give you a vote.


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2012)

If we are going to have a show and tell.
I voted Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke , Keating , Howard.

W.A state, Charlie Court, Brian Burke(lol), Dowding,Lawrence, Court.  2001- 2008 voted liberal and lost untill Barnett.
Got sick of State labor people being sent to goal or the spectre of people ending their lives over them.IMO


----------



## Glen48 (25 January 2012)

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT THE BOAT PEOPLE - FROM A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE (An Australian Federal Police Officer)


We all have had the discussion of the boat people at some time or another.
Most of us can't understand why the Australian government continues to
Pay for these foreigners whilst hard working Australians continue to suffer
The brunt of taxes, levies and tolls to help pay for the government's
Mis-spending.


Well the time has come for the truth, I am asking everyone of you to spread
This as far as you can and eventually it will end up with someone who might
Be able to do something about it.


According to an Australian Federal Police Officer, who obviously will never
Be named, this is some of the facts you all need to be aware of.


[1] Currently the Federal Police are not producing as many drug busts due to
The millions of dollars of their budget being put into intercepting illegal
Boat people


[2] When the boat sank last year off Christmas Island, the Australian
Authorities were throwing life jackets to the children and the adults were
Swimming to where the life jackets were, pushing the children under the
Water and taking the life jackets to save themselves


[3] When the boat people arrive here, they have already printed out from the
Net their rights and have a list of welfare benefits that they demand from
The Australian Government


[4] Whilst in detention they tell the guards that they are here to serve
Them and the Federal Police have already investigated a number of assaults
On detention staff resulting from them "not respecting" the detainees.
So in
Other words when a guard doesn't respect or serve these illegal boat people
To their satisfaction, they believe it's fine to backhand them to gain a
Little more respect


[5] After spending around 6-9 months in detention, the illegal boat people
Have approximately $10 000 saved in welfare payments from the Australian
Government. They then send the money home and arrange for the next family
Member to come out on a boat. So this means we are actually paying for the
Flood of illegal boat people through the welfare payments provided to them


[6] The boat people are all given mobile phones and allowed to phone where
Ever in the world they please. The reported cost of the combined telephone
Bills for the first quarter of this year was $5 000 000, Yes, you read
Correctly, 5 million dollars, all care of us - the tax payer


[7] Residents and the Federal Police on Christmas Island only have dial-up
Internet which we all know is impracticable in today's Internet age. Yet all
The detainees have broadband Internet care of the tax payer yet again


Any one know any different?????
 Have the facts been changed to protect the innocent.


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2012)

At last I am starting to understand where the government is comming from.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/homegrown-jihad-20120203-1qxl5.html

We are building up our skill set, we are going to become world leaders in the detection techniques.
There you go, another clean industry, N.B.N, technology lead jobs scheme. priceless.
We can find people using bogus names, buying obscure equipment, that collectively can make a bomb.
But we can't work out if Thomson misused a credit card. 
I bet they could work out pretty quick if you or I did. LOL


----------



## sptrawler (17 February 2012)

The government is losing grip of the situation. 
Bribing the detainees to move into the community, next they will be refusing to leave the detention centres unless they are given Australian Citizenship.
Love how Bowen is trying to blame Abbott for the governments incompetence, the more he says it, the less beliveable he sounds. LOL,LOL

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12935060/two-more-asylum-boats-intercepted/

The government isn't winning on many fronts, manufacturing jobs going down the toilet, consumer confidence already there. Asylum seekers picking up tourist visas from Indonesia en route to the cruise terminal.
Can't wait to see the fiasco in July when companies put their hand out for the carbon tax compensation package, say thanks and then shut their doors.LOL
We certainly have the government we deserve, that will teach you all for being so appathetic.
You've got the government full of people trying to lock in their retirement by pandering to a minority group and three independents. At the expense of mainstream australias living standard. IMO
Well what would labor say 'suck it up' it not our fault, we're just doing it to you.


----------



## AbrasiveCamel (18 February 2012)

Glen48 said:


> THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT THE BOAT PEOPLE - FROM A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE (An Australian Federal Police Officer)




So in other words: open brackets, a made up, hyperbolic chain email full of bull****, close brackets.




> [1] Currently the Federal Police are not producing as many drug busts due to
> The millions of dollars of their budget being put into intercepting illegal
> Boat people




Good - drug prohibition is fantasy BS.



> [2] When the boat sank last year off Christmas Island, the Australian
> Authorities were throwing life jackets to the children and the adults were
> Swimming to where the life jackets were, pushing the children under the
> Water and taking the life jackets to save themselves




Everyone in the world who isn't a white Australian is a disgusting sub-human.



> [3] When the boat people arrive here, they have already printed out from the
> Net their rights and have a list of welfare benefits that they demand from
> The Australian Government




All of them. All of them have done that! They are totally trying to rort the system and take over our country even though statistically 84% of them are actual refugees.



> [4] Whilst in detention they tell the guards that they are here to serve
> Them and the Federal Police have already investigated a number of assaults
> On detention staff resulting from them "not respecting" the detainees.
> So in
> ...




All the darkies are violent! No citation but that doesn't matter. ****ing N---ers.



> [5] After spending around 6-9 months in detention, the illegal boat people
> Have approximately $10 000 saved in welfare payments from the Australian
> Government. They then send the money home and arrange for the next family
> Member to come out on a boat. So this means we are actually paying for the
> Flood of illegal boat people through the welfare payments provided to them




Those sneaky ****ing g---ks!



> [6] The boat people are all given mobile phones and allowed to phone where
> Ever in the world they please. The reported cost of the combined telephone
> Bills for the first quarter of this year was $5 000 000, Yes, you read
> Correctly, 5 million dollars, all care of us - the tax payer




Seems like I would have heard about this from an actual critic of the asylum seeker situation. You know - someone that vehemntly opposses it but has a legitimate position in the argument because they provide evidence for their position.



> [7] Residents and the Federal Police on Christmas Island only have dial-up
> Internet which we all know is impracticable in today's Internet age. Yet all
> The detainees have broadband Internet care of the tax payer yet again




Shocking!


----------



## dutchie (4 March 2012)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/


See her article "Business as usual"
for two telling charts

and  
http://sievx.com/articles/psdp/20110705BoatArrivals1976-2010.pdf
http://sievx.com/articles/background/DrowningsTable.pdf


----------

