While he didn't meet make it on your prevention index from his time in immigration, I'm still at a loss at what in your mind does. You've had some time to think about that now.
In being on top of his brief, he's made a good start in social security.
What about cudos for stopping the boats or alternatively offer something else that's up to the measure on your prevention index.I'm willing to give Scott cudos for being straight up and honest. Upto now I observed him to be transparently slippery and uncooperative to the broader community (IMO).
What about cudos for stopping the boats or alternatively offer something else that's up to the measure on your prevention index.
You attack the current solution and the minister that was responsible for it so the question remains a simple one.See the thing is that you predicate the argument on your own most important determinant. There is no space in your argument for ambivalence or opposite preferred outcomes.
Why am I compelled to agree with stopping the boats based on some political party dogma? Why is it OK to set up nurseries of future antagonists to our society by putting dispossessed people in internment camps. By simple logic if a person is prepared to boat it into Australia with limited means, how long before another attempt once cashed up with better means and a shorter projected route, except this time scores need to be settled.... worse the offspring of those who have suffered incarceration and camp fever.
What's your alternative ?
Hope for a political party who will think of something that can be constitutionally implemented, reflects our professed civilised society and that isn't economically driven French Devil's island stuff. I have a feeling we will have to wait until the Brits do our thinking for us as usual.
I have a feeling we will have to wait until the Brits do our thinking for us as usual.
Which of the Brits? the Labor, the Conservative, the Lib Dems or UKIP?
Perhaps you should check out a shariah law controlled UK no-go zone before wishing for a Brit type 'solution'.
But bottom line is you clearly don't have an alternative to offer.
While Tisme waits for the Brits to “do our thinking for us” it's interesting that the UKIP party is heading to the UK’s May general election with an immigration policy based on ‘Australia having done their thinking for them’.
'We can't accommodate you' - Farage rolls out immigration policy
“Immigration policy in the UK should mimic the Australian-style points system, UKIP leader Nigel Farage told radio listeners on Monday, providing early insight into the party’s 2015 manifesto.”
So I guess the Brits Tisme is referring to would have to be from the other UK political parties who have allowed an open–door policy - the very policy which UKIP is campaigning against.
Howse the view up there on your high horse Bintang?
I don't know why you are upset, the LNP has been taking it's orders from the Brit Conserves forever.
To use the words of a fine minister of this government,Should I? Who decided I have to provide a solution?
The speech Abbott could have made about Triggs
Crabb: Triggs takes punches that should be hitting Labor
Fact check: Triggs correct on children in detention
The Drum: Brandis v Triggs
The Drum: How will history judge detention policies?
The Drum: HRC attacks unbefitting our government
Professor shocked by Christmas Island visit
Abbott loses confidence in Triggs
Attacks on Commission unbefitting our government
Opinion
By Ben Saul
Updated 16 Feb 2015, 1:24pm
The Federal Government should have owned up to the damage being wrought on innocent children in detention. Instead, it launched an extraordinary and grossly inappropriate attack on the messenger, writes Ben Saul.
......Finally, president Triggs should not resign. She has done her job. She is an international lawyer of global standing. She faithfully applied the law. Like most international lawyers, Triggs is not radical. International law is, after all, made by governments. She was Dean of this country's oldest sandstone law school - hardly a hotbed of revolution. She was once an oil and gas lawyer. I worked with her for five years and I can swear beyond doubt that she is not politically motivated to target the Coalition.
If anyone should be seriously questioning their judgment and position, it is the Attorney-General. By pressuring Triggs to resign, on grounds not recognised in the Commission's statute, Senator Brandis sought to improperly interfere with the tenure of an independent statutory officer holder. On the weekend, the Australian Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia took the rare step of issuing a joint statement to condemn the "unprecedented attack" on Triggs.
Representing all Australian lawyers and barristers, those two peak bodies - hardly anti-Coalition - declared that:
Personal criticism directed at her or at any judicial or quasi-judicial officer fulfilling the duties of public office as required by law is an attack upon the independence and integrity of the Commission and undermines confidence in our system of justice and human rights protection.
The President of the Human Rights Commission holds the next closest thing to a judicial office, being both tenured and exercising quasi-judicial powers. Brandis's actions should be viewed in this light - as if he were leaning on a judge to resign because he didn't like the court's decision. Such an attack on the rule of law is conduct grossly unbefitting of an Attorney-General and a barrister.
How should a mature, child-friendly government have responded to the report? By facing the music, owning up to the damage wrought on innocent children, and making it right. A government that trivialises child abuse, and is pathologically hostile towards a Commission that seeks to make children safe, is unfit to govern our country.
Thanks Dr Smith for highlighting the excellent series of articles on the ABC website that explain just why Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate.
The article by Ben Saul Barrister and Professor of International Law at Sydney University offers a detailed conservative legal analysis of why the Governments and Senator Brandis approach deserved to be censured.
In fact it was written before Senator Brandis attacked Gillian Triggs in the Senator estimate committee
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078
Thanks Dr Smith for highlighting the excellent series of articles on the ABC website that explain just why Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate.
The article by Ben Saul Barrister and Professor of International Law at Sydney University offers a detailed conservative legal analysis of why the Governments and Senator Brandis approach deserved to be censured.
In fact it was written before Senator Brandis attacked Gillian Triggs in the Senator estimate committee
What exactly is the next closest thing to a judicial office ?Thanks Dr Smith for highlighting the excellent series of articles on the ABC website that explain just why Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate.
The article by Ben Saul Barrister and Professor of International Law at Sydney University offers a detailed conservative legal analysis of why the Governments and Senator Brandis approach deserved to be censured.
In fact it was written before Senator Brandis attacked Gillian Triggs in the Senator estimate committee
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078
Detention centres are a prison, well, not quiet.
Armed guards at Xmas Island detention centre, again, well, not quiet.
Children in detention is the broader issue and not people smuggling itself with all the consequences that it brings.
Calling an enquiry into children in detention while the government that drew the boats to our shores is still in office is political.
The 10-year anniversary of a previous enquiry is more important to the HRC than people including children drowning at sea.
What exactly is the next closest thing to a judicial office ?
Is it a judicial office or not ?
I can add a few headlines to the ABC's collection,
You could try to answer the questions they raise.Thanks for that DR you wont find them over at the Liberal Daily
Now the ABC has even used its Fact Checking Unit to check one of the few points made by Triggs that no one challenges and that adds nothing to the debate.
“Correct” finds the ABC after examining Triggs’s statement that under the Coalition children, on average, have spent longer in detention.
It is an unavoidable calculation — when no more children are going into detention and 90 per cent have been removed, the average period will automatically rise.
Add to that the practical consideration that the children who remain will be the difficult cases and you are looking at a statement of the obvious.
The ABC could have decided to fact check the 90 per cent claim. But didn’t.
The ABC could have fact checked Triggs’ erroneous claim that armed guards patrol detention centres. But didn’t.
The ABC could have fact checked her likening of detention centres to prisons but, not to worry, she retracted that herself.
ABC viewers and audiences will still be unaware that, according to her own evidence, Triggs decided within weeks of taking over at AHRC in July 2012 that the issue of children in detention was urgent and an inquiry was warranted.
Neither will not know that despite those apparently heartfelt concerns Triggs did not call an inquiry in 2012 and continued to discuss an inquiry in 2013 but failed to call one.
You could try to answer the questions they raise.
From what you refer to as the Lib Daily,
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg.../on_2gb_tonight_sanity_restored/#commentsmore
....It makes me boil when I see how get things so distorted from the truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?