Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[Julia]

I agree that would be a good deal, but unfortunately the Libs have been too resolute that they could not now support any option that involves Malaysia.

Yes, being vehement about anything limits your ultimate options. Mr Abbott needs to remember that he will require the co-operation and compromise of others to get all his policies through when he is elected.
Absolute faith is being placed in a double dissolution election. This brings no guarantee of balance of power in the Senate. On the contrary, the Greens' standing in the polls is steady or increasing.
They will, in this present circumstance, be seen by many not rusted on to either of the two main parties as unquestioningly principled, as distinct from the clear political motives of Labor and the Opposition.

One of the positives I saw in the Malaysia deal was that we would be getting predominantly Buddhists instead of Muslims, even if the numbers are greater. I think Buddhists are more likely to blend into Australian society than Muslims, who seem to integrate less and demand more the bigger their percentage.

Agree absolutely. I'm sure that, if the current influx of people on boats were e.g. Buddhists rather than Muslims, the electorate overall would be much more sympathetic.

However, I also believe the Malaysian agreement had Malaysia deciding who would be sent to Australia, so we could also end up with the most troublesome of the refugees. I think we should also ensure that we decide who comes.

Good point. Malaysia would hold the whip hand in the deal were it to go ahead. They have no reason to act in the best interests of Australia.

As I said previously, the human rights of a bunch of pampered boat people, pales into insignificance compared to the non-existent human rights of the Burmese refugees. Whatever we can do to reduce their suffering may not amount to much, given the numbers involved, but we would be callous to let the opportunity pass. And these people, like the Chinese and Vietnamese would blend in well, unlike the Muslims. Most of them are Christians or Buddhists.

Agree. The Chinese in particular have a great work ethic and a clear willingness to adopt the Australian culture.

What surprises me, is that during all the gabfest yesterday this aspect was not brought up by Labor. To me it would seem to be the main selling point.

Ah, but it would be horribly politically incorrect to even suggest any anti Muslim notion.

 

[startrader]

Let's be honest - I don't think it hits people that hard at all that illegals are dying at sea. This crying is just crap (it's been said numerous times) and nobody really cares about the people - it's their political survival. This sounds harsh but when it all boils down - we don't know them/we don't know what's really happened/death surrounds us everyday - it's just another thing in the world. Why aren't we crying for children starving in Africa? Persecution of the Burmese? The list goes on. The fact that they scuttle their own boats doesn't garner a lot of sympathy at all.

They shoot themselves in the foot when they riot at detention centres as well - what spoilt, ungrateful leeches - destroying the very property and land they so desperately seek to live on. The added bonus of this is we get psychiatrist's who say "they are just portraying the violence shown to them in their native land". Cut me a break - they want to do things like that? Put them back on a boat and push it across the Indian ocean somewhere else.

These boats will continually flood through - bypassing all the other countries on the way to get to the big soft Australia. You have to know that Australia is that good when these Muslim countries are A LOT closer to the EU.

Not only will the public knock the Labor government out with the Carbon Tax - they'll put their feet on the throat of the inept PM for putting Australia in such a perilous position.

Well said!

 

[sails]

Nice to see thread participants happy for people to drown as long as its a Labor problem!

Its actually an Australian problem.............isn't it?

Its been spelt out in clear terms why Nauru and TPV wont work this is the Coalition current policy isn't it?

Why do people keep saying that the Coalition has a policy that works when clearly thats a crock of ........?


Again how did Howard get his original policy through the senate since he didn't have the numbers?

IF, Australia had a solution that I understand was introduced by the Libs with bipartisan agreement from Labor. Why on earth Labor decided they wanted to reneg on their bipartisan support for something that was so clearly working is beyond me.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Pacific Solution clearly worked. Here is a link to the official boat arrivals web site - although since 2008 they are not sure of the numbers - sounds a bit like a cop out to me...lol

But anyway, in 2001 there were over 5516 arrivals. The Pacific Solution was introduced and 1 person arrived in 2002. Says it all really.

In one breath, Bowen said this in 2008:

'The Pacific solution was a cynical, costly and ultimately unsuccessful exercise introduced on the eve of a Federal election by the Howard Government.'

and in the next he said this - note how cheaply the Pacific Solution ran in comparison to the billions being spent now with labor/green's policy failure (bold is mine):

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship expended $289 million between September 2001 and June 2007 to run the Nauru and Manus OPCs.

Read more from Bowen:
http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2008/ce08014.htm


Boat Arrival web page: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam.../pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#_Toc285178607

 

[sails]

FOUR more boats today apparently:

UPDATE 11.50am: Three asylum seeker vessels have either arrived at Christmas Island or been intercepted since politicians yesterday failed to strike a deal that could stop the flow of boats.

And there are unconfirmed reports from Christmas Island that a fourth boat may have arrived.

Read more: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/14080860/stalemate-in-bid-to-stop-boats/

Gillard knows what she has to work with between greens and the libs and she seems incapable of coming to a decision. She is the PM. Unbelievable.

 

[sptrawler]

I agree that would be a good deal, but unfortunately the Libs have been too resolute that they could not now support any option that involves Malaysia.

One of the positives I saw in the Malaysia deal was that we would be getting predominantly Buddhists instead of Muslims, even if the numbers are greater. I think Buddhists are more likely to blend into Australian society than Muslims, who seem to integrate less and demand more the bigger their percentage.

However, I also believe the Malaysian agreement had Malaysia deciding who would be sent to Australia, so we could also end up with the most troublesome of the refugees. I think we should also ensure that we decide who comes.

Good points bellenuit, ones I hadn't considered.
As to the last one, historicaly Malaysia and Australia haven't had a close relationship. One does wonder if they would have our best interest at heart.

 

[noco]

Why has Rudd been so silent on this recent debate on asylum seekers? The answer lies below.

The asylum seekers are keeping a close eye on events in Australia and are waiting for the door to be slamed shut.

Gillard can saction the opening of Nauru tomorrow instead of more enquires, panels and waiting 6 weeks for parliament to sit. She will never be a leader so long as she has breath in her body.

Call an election and let the people decide what is in the bets interest of this nation of ours.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...udd-broke-system/story-e6frg75f-1226412739529

 

[Calliope]

However, I also believe the Malaysian agreement had Malaysia deciding who would be sent to Australia, so we could also end up with the most troublesome of the refugees. I think we should also ensure that we decide who comes.

I think that one troublesome Iraqi, Iranian or Afghan Muslim could cause more trouble than a dozen legitimate refugees, who for a start would never try to change our laws to suit them, and they are fleeing terrorism, not instigating it. And also, people the Malaysian Government regard as troublesome varies significantly from what we regard as troublesome.

Remember; Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.

 

[drsmith]

Paul Kelly's take.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...people-still-die/story-e6frg74x-1226412709553

One thing Paul Kelly does not cover in the above is the shortcomings of the Malaysion solution. He's right though about the brutality of the politics on this, but that's the case from both sides. Let's not forget that Labor late last year moved closer to the Greens policy position on this therefore encouraging more boats.

Gillard ran with the Oakeshott bill this week and has a beachhead to continue her campaign for a new policy. Abbott's tactics are brutal yet effective. The only risk is that opinion might turn; he might be seen as unreasonable or the cause of the problem. Yet that assumes Gillard has powers of persuasion and political capital to burn. She doesn't. Gillard, in fact, faces a perfect storm of carbon pricing and more boats.

Given Labor's record on this under both Rudd and Gillard, that's the understatement of the year.

 

[StumpyPhantom]

I agree that would be a good deal, but unfortunately the Libs have been too resolute that they could not now support any option that involves Malaysia.

One of the positives I saw in the Malaysia deal was that we would be getting predominantly Buddhists instead of Muslims, even if the numbers are greater. I think Buddhists are more likely to blend into Australian society than Muslims, who seem to integrate less and demand more the bigger their percentage.

However, I also believe the Malaysian agreement had Malaysia deciding who would be sent to Australia, so we could also end up with the most troublesome of the refugees. I think we should also ensure that we decide who comes.

Hey Bellenuit, I've got some good news for you in terms of the positives you see in the Malaysia deal, we're already taking on some of the 4000 we signed a deal with (and handed over wads of cash to the Malaysians as per our deal).

The Malaysians were smart enough to require performance of the deal (from our side) once it was signed. They made it our problem if our own High Court kyboshed any need for them to perform their side and take our 800.

So, lets celebrate this good news. As for the Gillard government's negotiating skills, well that's gone the way of everything else that this government regards as skill and good governance so "Steady as she goes".

 

[StumpyPhantom]

The whole problem is Gillard just can't put her pride aside and accept Nauru and TPVs which she knows damn well will work.

I am also of the opinion she set Oakshot up with his private members bill, which was almost identical to hers, knowing full well it would not pass the senate so it relieves her of 'WELL IT WAS NOT MY IDEA'.

The other thing that concerns me is she has hand picked and appointed a panel of three dignitarys on the same day the bill was rejected in the senate, something I believe this cunning woman had planned well before the bill even went into the lower house. I do not know what colour these panelist are but one can only guess they will be close to the same colour as Gillard and she will no doubt be influencial on them favoring the Malayasia deal. Gillard is determined to win one way or another over Abbott. I do not trust her modus operandi.

However, if the panel does recommend Malayasia it still has to go through the lower house and the senate and will most likely be rejected again.

Spot on Noco! Very intuitive, mind reading stuff here.

Gillard ran with the Oakeshott bill which was identical to Labor's, which she didn't even present to the House of Representatives.

Why?

Because it is Westminster parliamentary convention that if the Government of the day loses a bill (rejection by the Reps) in the House which it controls to form Government, then that's a vote of no-confidence and Government has to be dissolved and an election called.

You won't find that anywhere written in the Australian Constitution, being an unwritten rule or 'convention'. It's only happened once, 80 years ago and it brought on an election. So Gillard was never going to risk that, was she. Especially if members of her own party (Rudd supporters, including possibly Rudd himself) crossed the floor to vote against Labor's bill. That is why the bill has never seen the light of day. Can you imagine the humiliation? Followed by the election which then dismembers Labor?

So there was 7 hours of debate and negotiation, possible rejection, and amendment in the lower house during the week would have spelt doom for Labor if it was their bill. But Oakeshott was expendable.

Any why THIS expert committee? And why Houston (other than being able to say "Houston, we have a problem")? Well, Houston was the Defence Force Chief, more than a decade ago who, before a Parliamentary Committee, debunked Peter Reith's claim about the "children overboard" saga, so Gillard has gone back to him. And she tends to like good-looking, tall athletic men. Barry Hall will regret the day he kissed the PM.

 

[Miss Hale]

And she tends to like good-looking, tall athletic men. Barry Hall will regret the day he kissed the PM.

LOL

 

[Julia]

Spot on Noco! Very intuitive, mind reading stuff here.

Gillard ran with the Oakeshott bill which was identical to Labor's, which she didn't even present to the House of Representatives.

Why?

Because it is Westminster parliamentary convention that if the Government of the day loses a bill (rejection by the Reps) in the House which it controls to form Government, then that's a vote of no-confidence and Government has to be dissolved and an election called.

How very interesting.

You won't find that anywhere written in the Australian Constitution, being an unwritten rule or 'convention'.

So if it's not actually written into our Constitution, can you say why it would actually induce an election in the circumstances outlined above?
There was another bill several weeks ago - cannot now remember what it was about - which similarly was not put up to the House. What you say would explain that also.
Seems odd that none of the political commentators, e.g. Paul Kelly, have never remarked on this.

Any why THIS expert committee? And why Houston (other than being able to say "Houston, we have a problem")? Well, Houston was the Defence Force Chief, more than a decade ago who, before a Parliamentary Committee, debunked Peter Reith's claim about the "children overboard" saga, so Gillard has gone back to him.

Exactly. And Paris Aristotle has widely criticised Nauru and offered qualified support for Malaysia. Don't know anything about the third bloke. Anyone know where he stands?

And she tends to like good-looking, tall athletic men. Barry Hall will regret the day he kissed the PM.

Um, apologies for my ignorance, but who is Barry Hall?

 

[dutchie]

Um, apologies for my ignorance, but who is Barry Hall?

Oh Julia - he plays soccer for Sydney United

 

[IFocus]

Why?

Because it is Westminster parliamentary convention that if the Government of the day loses a bill (rejection by the Reps) in the House which it controls to form Government, then that's a vote of no-confidence and Government has to be dissolved and an election called.

You won't find that anywhere written in the Australian Constitution, being an unwritten rule or 'convention'. It's only happened once, 80 years ago and it brought on an election. So Gillard was never going to risk that, was she. Especially if members of her own party (Rudd supporters, including possibly Rudd himself) crossed the floor to vote against Labor's bill. That is why the bill has never seen the light of day. Can you imagine the humiliation? Followed by the election which then dismembers Labor?

Errr happen in the WA parliament last week and there is no calls for an election by the opposition I have never heard of this before except when it comes to bills on supply.

 

[noco]

Gillard is up to no good with this panel of so called experts and she may well have a lot of influence to get an outcome to suit herself.

I don't think I have known such a cold, calculating, cunning, conniving, manipulating, lieing and cheating woman in my OBE life time. She is becoming quite open about it and futhermore has got away with it. Question time in parliament is a classic example.

She has manipulated the Thomson saga, the Slipper case, the carbon dioxide tax, the independants, KRudd, Harry Jenkins ( ex speaker), the tent embassy saga, the AWU rort involving Wilson and now the asylum seekers.

It is so frustrating to still see her as Prime Minister of Australia which is going down hill so fast.

 

[Ferret]

People should start to realize this a peaceful Muslim invasion and it is happening in all Western countries.

They are not fleeing from perscution at all. They are being paid to come here and when they get here we continue to pay them. It is a world wide plot dominate the world with Sharia law. It would not surprise me if the Greens are not in the act as well.

Go talk to people in France, Holland and Denmark.

Noco,
Could it be that Gillard is actually much cleverer than we thought? Perhaps she is on to this and is fighting this invasion by letting the boats come and sink on the way?

 

[JTLP]

Oh Julia - he plays soccer for Sydney United

I think you mean football (AFL) - where he finished with the Western Bulldogs - the PMs beloved team. He actually played Full Forward - where the PMs infamous "there's as much chance of me playing FF for the Bulldogs next week than challenging Kevin Rudd for PM" line seems to be nicely intertwined.

EL OH EL What a fantastic liar!

 

[dutchie]

EL OH EL What a fantastic liar!

 

[drsmith]

Noco,
Could it be that Gillard is actually much cleverer than we thought? Perhaps she is on to this and is fighting this invasion by letting the boats come and sink on the way?

If that's the case (double ?), it's not working.

The Greens aim I suspect is regional processing offshore in the region before they attempt any journey here and then flying them here.

The problem with that (apart from the sheer numbers) is that the queue jumpers will maintain a market for the people smugglers as they do now. The Greens can't (or choose not to) see this through the fog of their lofty ideals.

 

[sails]

Here we go - here's the green light. Pity that working Aussies have to foot the bill: