- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
I think this is called trolling.
I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.
Probably the reason no one considered expressing support for the Libs, as you put it, is because any support at all would inevitably have drawn the sort of remark you have just made.I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.
I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.
Knobby, if you want everything discussed here, so be it. I could supply many links that show the shenanigans of this current labor government that far outweigh any mistakes made by the opposition, but have been selective.
Then you throw up a taunt like this ...
I haven't heard that anyone hasn't felt compassion for the little boy. I certainly have felt compassion and so glad that things have worked out better for him. It wasn't his choice to be put on a flimsy boat in the first place and what a high price he has had to pay for his parent's decision.
I understand that the opposition initially weren't happy with the government flying everyone to Sydney for the funerals. I believe there has been an apology when the reasons were explained. I have not heard that they opposed the leniency shown to the little boy.
But what are labor going to do about preventing this? Christmas Island is at breaking point and still more boats keep coming. When will labor tighten border policy (or stop them in Indonesia as Mofra has suggested) as it's not right that people keep pouring in here. The UN stated that most are not genuine refugees. However, most of those rejected then used our legal system at our cost to appeal and were probably coached into giving a more believable story and proceeded to win their appeals.
That still doesn't mean that they are genuine refugees. It just means that any non genuine refugees have finally worked out how to con the legal system at our expense. I understand that many Aussies (with the exception of labor die hards) are not happy with our current border policies and with so many being forced onto the mainland.
A few years ago an elderly neighbour of mine (in Qld) received the news that her son, daughter-in-law and two children had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in W.A. A drunk driver had veered into their path and a head on collision occurred.Ok, some support.
Good story Julia.A few years ago an elderly neighbour of mine (in Qld) received the news that her son, daughter-in-law and two children had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in W.A. A drunk driver had veered into their path and a head on collision occurred.
The parents were both killed as was one child. The other child had to be cut out of the wreckage.
The family had gone to WA for work opportunities and had no family there.
The grandmother here could not afford to go to WA for a funeral which presumably would have had no attendees anyway, given the family had recently arrived there.
She felt as you would imagine about this, particularly given her grandchild was in intensive care there with no close family to support her.
She was told no assistance was available for her to go to WA either to attend the funeral or to see her grandchild.
The child was eventually put into foster care in W.A. despite her grandmother being her only relative and in Qld. She pleaded for the child to be fostered close to her but this was refused.
The grandmother was not able to personally take care of the child due to her own incapacity, but hell, wouldn't it have been so much better for that child to at least have her grandmother around as she grew up without her family?
Yet, we can pay for the bodies of the asylum seekers to be flown to Sydney so that they can be in a cemetery where their relatives (who presumably they haven't seen for god knows how long) can visit the grave, and further we can pay for the chartering of an aircraft to take the families to the funerals in Sydney.
Perhaps you can explain, Knobby, just how this is reasonable compared to the case of the orphaned child described above in W.A.?
A few years ago an elderly neighbour of mine (in Qld) received the news that her son, daughter-in-law and two children had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in W.A. A drunk driver had veered into their path and a head on collision occurred.
The parents were both killed as was one child. The other child had to be cut out of the wreckage.
The family had gone to WA for work opportunities and had no family there.
The grandmother here could not afford to go to WA for a funeral which presumably would have had no attendees anyway, given the family had recently arrived there.
She felt as you would imagine about this, particularly given her grandchild was in intensive care there with no close family to support her.
She was told no assistance was available for her to go to WA either to attend the funeral or to see her grandchild.
The child was eventually put into foster care in W.A. despite her grandmother being her only relative and in Qld. She pleaded for the child to be fostered close to her but this was refused.
The grandmother was not able to personally take care of the child due to her own incapacity, but hell, wouldn't it have been so much better for that child to at least have her grandmother around as she grew up without her family?
Yet, we can pay for the bodies of the asylum seekers to be flown to Sydney so that they can be in a cemetery where their relatives (who presumably they haven't seen for god knows how long) can visit the grave, and further we can pay for the chartering of an aircraft to take the families to the funerals in Sydney.
Perhaps you can explain, Knobby, just how this is reasonable compared to the case of the orphaned child described above in W.A.?
The funeral bit and foster care I understand the sentiment but are you not confusing the mix of federal and state laws and policy's here where as the asylum seeker funerals was solely in the hands of the Federal government or really in the hands of one minister.
The scenario you describe above would have been cover by up to dozen state and federal ministers and their departments then throw in the different policy's between WA and QLD.
Not criticism just offering an explanation of interstate realities.
I don't care what political or bureaucratic mechanisms caused this. The fact is that two Australians, one elderly and one very young and undoubtedly traumatised, were treated much less generously than those who have not been prepared to apply to come to Australia through established UNHCR means.The funeral bit and foster care I understand the sentiment but are you not confusing the mix of federal and state laws and policy's here where as the asylum seeker funerals was solely in the hands of the Federal government or really in the hands of one minister.
The scenario you describe above would have been cover by up to dozen state and federal ministers and their departments then throw in the different policy's between WA and QLD.
Not criticism just offering an explanation of interstate realities.
I am surprised to see how quiet this thread is on whether 9 year old orphans should go to their parents' funeral with tax payers money. His brother died as well.
I thought someone would support the Libs on this, after all we are not a rich enough country to have compassion for a child.
I remember Kerry Packer's funeral that we paid for by the way; and paid hundreds of politicians to attend.
Yes, crux of the matter Startrader. It was Labor who made this poor little tacker a political football. Under the former Coalition govt policies, neither the boy nor his family would even have been on Christmas Island.... it was another example of how Labor likes to throw our money around. The whole thing was just a Labor stunt so it could be splashed across the front page of the newspapers. They're not showing much compassion in my books when they are encouraging so many people to risk their lives...
I don't know what relevance Kerry Packer's funeral being paid for has to anything as one could probably say that he had contributed a great deal to the country during his lifetime.
Hence it makes the thread title a little ironic.Though what all this has to do with Abbott for pm , i'm not too sure apart from the usual thing about him opening his mouth before using his brain...he doesn't seem capable of thinking outside the square at all...
I think this is called trolling.
Paying tax wasn't one of his big contributions you payed for his share.........
Yes, crux of the matter Startrader. It was Labor who made this poor little tacker a political football. Under the former Coalition govt policies, neither the boy nor his family would even have been on Christmas Island....
“I pay the tax I am required to pay, not a penny more, not a penny less. If anybody in this country doesn’t minimize their tax, they want their heads read because, as a Government, I can tell you they’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.” Kerry "the Goanna" Packer at his finest.
Considering that he employed over 15,000 people globally I am sure they would have paid their tax at the relative rate required "under law". This is not counting the peripheral companies that were engaged to service the "Packer Empire".
But then again this is the Labor way of doing things:- Was the sale of former Prime Minister Keating's share in a piggery to his partner, Achilles Constantinidis, who then on-sold it to Indonesian interests at the same time as Prime Minister Keating was negotiating a treaty with Indonesian dictator and embezzler, President Suharto, a sham to avoid taxation?
Or was the former Federal Treasurer financially incompetent in selling his share at what he termed a "third rate price" to his partner who immediately made a handsome profit by on-selling it?
According to a senior Perth accountant, the Australian Tax Office says that if a vendor is aware of a further sale to take place after he disposes of an asset, then for tax purposes, he is deemed to be a party to that further sale.
http://www.australian-news.com.au/Keating090798.htm
PETER Reith, the Howard government enforcer on industrial relations and waterfront reform, has challenged Tony Abbott and the Coalition "not to be afraid" or "spooked" by a Labor scare campaign on Work Choices and produce labour market reforms in the national interest.
Mr Reith says that rallying calls for vital workplace reform have "fallen on deaf ears in Canberra" with the Coalition afraid to campaign on the issue and Julia Gillard a "captive of the unions".
The former industrial relations minister and one-time Liberal leadership aspirant believes labour market reform is Australia's No 1 priority but is going backwards under the Labor government. This means "Australia will have been going backwards for nearly a decade" by the next election.
"The reality today is that the industrial relations system we now have is not good enough. It will get worse. The shortcomings may have been disguised by the resources boom, and the public may not realise the problems ahead, but Australia still needs a better system," Mr Reith will say in a speech to be delivered today in Melbourne.
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?