- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 851
Wasn't it one for eight?
one for five
we give them 800 they give us 4,000
The Greens offer more of their usual rubbish.From Phillip Coorey - SMH
When the inevitable tragedy strikes, the Greens and others have nothing to offer, other than some utopian vision of a regional solution, something Gillard tried to start - and was burnt.
(My bolds)
Following the deaths of up to 90 asylum-seekers last week, Greens leader Christine Milne today said her party wanted a “humanitarian solution” to the current border protection impasse.
She said increasing Australia's refugee intake from 14,000 to 25,000 a year would deter asylum-seekers from making the dangerous boat journey and prevent lives being lost at sea.
I too would like to say to hell with the Greens, but the electorate can't say that until the next election. Till then, they share the power of government with Labor and with that power comes responsibility.Well Doc, both parties will have to give and take if there is ever to be a solution. To hell with the Greens. They are not needed in this case.
OPENING Australia's doors to 11,000 more refugees a year will solve the nation's people-smuggling crisis, the Greens have declared.
Following the deaths of up to 90 asylum-seekers last week, Greens leader Christine Milne today said her party wanted a “humanitarian solution” to the current border protection impasse.
She said increasing Australia's refugee intake from 14,000 to 25,000 a year would deter asylum-seekers from making the dangerous boat journey and prevent lives being lost at sea.
“We want a humanitarian approach, consistent with international law that also prioritises the safety of life at sea,” Senator Milne told Sky News.
Senator Milne said the Greens would not support the reinstatement of offshore processing under any circumstances, despite Tony Abbott saying Labor should call on its partnership with the Greens to resolve the current impasse over asylum-seeker policy.
“There is no way the Greens will support Australia abandoning international law and offshore processing is outside Australia's obligation to international law,” she said.
“The problem with Nauru and Malaysia is they undermine Australia's capacity to get a real regional solution.”
Actually, can someone tell me anything this government has got right?
Easy - Rudds apology.
and then there's..........Rudds apology
and then there's..........................................
“I mean fair suck of the old savaloy sausage roll,” Rudd said. “Fairy dinkum, these drongbats don’t deserve to stand in the shade of Ella or Campo. I mean if you want to run with the big dogs you’ve got to piss in the long grass.”
Is that an apocryphal story or did he actually say that? Surely not!I mean fair suck of the old savaloy sausage roll,” Rudd said. “Fairy dinkum, these drongbats don’t deserve to stand in the shade of Ella or Campo. I mean if you want to run with the big dogs you’ve got to piss in the long grass.”
Is that an apocryphal story or did he actually say that? Surely not!
From Phillip Coorey - SMH
"There is little dispute that Rudd's abolition of Howard government policies has led to the situation now whereby the boats arrive regularly, filling detention centres to the point community detention is now required.
This system of onshore processing is the very situation for which the Greens and refugee groups have argued and the numbers arriving are even higher than the experts warned.
When the inevitable tragedy strikes, the Greens and others have nothing to offer, other than some utopian vision of a regional solution, something Gillard tried to start - and was burnt.
Last year, the High Court ruled Labor's Malaysia plan illegal and the government needs the opposition's help to legislate around that decision."
(My bolds)
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...wo-years-on-20120624-20wb0.html#ixzz1ykuNMxYm
Abbott wants people to believe that what worked last time will work again. Detention and processing on Nauru, temporary protection visas, and turning boats around when safe to do so.
Abbott received the same briefing from the then secretary of the Immigration Department Andrew Metcalfe, as did the media. Metcalfe told Abbott his policies - of which Metcalfe was a principal architect - would not work again. Nauru would be no more a deterrent than Christmas Island because people now knew that once processed they would most likely be sent to Australia.
Temporary protection visas were not considered a deterrent and as for turning the boats back, the Indonesians would not permit it. Last time it was tried, it proved the most effective measure of all until the people smugglers started scuttling the boats when intercepted, endangering everybody.
As for the proposed policy of refusing refugee status to those who destroy their identification, to just where would you return them?
Abbott has been told not just by Metcalfe, but the Liberals' godfather of border protection, Philip Ruddock, that he should provide the numbers to allow Labor to adopt the Malaysia solution. Metcalfe called it ''virtual tow back''. Return 800 people to Malaysia and it would be like towing the boats back
You missed a bit or two (my bolds)
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...wo-years-on-20120624-20wb0.html#ixzz1ynHdjIE1
The problem with this is that boat arrivals surged only after Labor took office.emporary protection visas were not considered a deterrent and as for turning the boats back, the Indonesians would not permit it. Last time it was tried, it proved the most effective measure of all until the people smugglers started scuttling the boats when intercepted, endangering everybody.
The problem with this is that boat arrivals surged only after Labor took office.
A solution of the Malaysia type has the potential to be a lasting deterrent, but it needs to be open ended and an even bargain for both countries involved (one for one).
This is a perfect storm brought on by Labor. The scale of the boat arrivals now suggests that the genie is out of the bottle.
Labor's fumbling over the last 5 years, the ill-fated Malaysia solution which brought on the High Court challenge, the political stalemate, leading to the Greens inspired agenda now reigning supreme.
But let's not forget Labor's culpability in the situation we now find ourselves in. In dismantling the Pacific Solution in 2008, they employed a 'scorched earth' policy so that there was no return to Nauru. It was Labor who publicly disseminated the statistics as to why Nauru, in their view, didn't work.
But we now all agree that it DID work. Compared to the current situation, it was a brilliant success.
This was a government big on rhetoric, but nothing else. So the Apology to the Stolen Generation, with the greatest of respect, was rhetoric. Signing the Kyoto Protocol also arguably was.
The problem was when you apply that soaring rhetoric to asylum-seekers, a real issue with practical implications, then you have the disaster you currently see.
On 2GB (Steve Price's show with Andrew Bolt), Scott Morrison has declared that the Coalition would support the Malaysian solution if it was a signatory to the refugee convention.
Bolt and Price really pushed him to get that response.Well that would put a whole new bent on the impasse. Also will test Gillard and Carr on their diplomacy skills.
Andrew stop badgering Scott Morrison. I understand what he was trying to say. How can you guarantee how any other sovereign country was going to treat the asylum we sent them? All it would take is for 4 corners to send a crew 1 year down the line to track down someone we sent back who has been beaten and locked up to say it was Abbott Abbott Abbott
CSC (Reply)
Mon 25 Jun 12 (08:23pm)
I got that. I prefaced the question by assuming all the necessary protections. I just wanted to know if any deal at all was possible. That’s all.
Andrew Bolt
Mon 25 Jun 12 (08:32pm)
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?