This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new

Oh Stumpy you started this post half making sense then went all political.

Trustworthy, humane the Malaysian Govt...who said they were trustworthy and human? :dunno: Probably Half the illegal arrivals have transited Thru Malaysia and they have all lived (by choice and often at great expense) in the wonderfully humane and trustworthy nation of Indonesia....you know the place right? its where Tony will tell our Navy to "turn the boats around" to.



With your professional credentials im sure you will have no problem linking us to the below document?

The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.
 


"It's Abbotts Fault, It's Abbotts Fault"

Blocking the Malaysia solution was the right thing to do.
 

Stumpy, thanks for confirming my thoughts on the issue in your detailed response...

I am simply a Aussie citizen and grandparent who is concerned at the future of this country for the sake of my kids and grandkids. I am concerned that one day sharia law might be forced upon them through balance of power and the continual influx of potential non-refugees makes this possible more quickly, imo.

I am concerned that employers will no longer want to employ in this country due to the imposition of carbon tax pushing costs to unacceptable levels.

I would like to see a recall election option which would kick into action for minority governments so that the country is not held to ransom by PMs kowtoing to minority groups simply to hold on to power.
 
So_Cynical said:
...The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.
Click to expand...


It's been posted before, SC. Why don't you try to find it seeing you are so clever...
 

Oh dear...what was i saying about political credibility.

sails said:
It's been posted before, SC. Why don't you try to find it seeing you are so clever...
Click to expand...

I don't have the "professional credentials" that stumpy has...so im sure since Stumpy works in the field its a total non issue for Stumpy to link to the judgement...would take me hours to find it.
 

Happy to oblige:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html

I was sitting in the visitor's gallery of the High Court for the 2 days of argument. This point arose because the Government was arguing that the Court should let the Malaysian Solution through because no-one objected when the Nauru solution was developed. So what you see at [128] was a pointed answer to the Government that it was throwing its humanity protections out the door by leaving it to the Malaysian authorities in circumstances where they dictated terms to Nauru.

Your reference to 'turn the boats back to Indonesia' gives me an opportunity to address that. I know Gillard has been very shrill in using that point to throw it back at the Coalition when they cry humanity in opposing the Malaysia Solution.

That is why I carefully used the phrase "international legal responsibility" in my original answer to your post.

This people trafficking problem has no easy answer I acknowledge that. Every nation-state has a responsibility here, and a boat in Australian waters is Australian responsibility. But it goes without saying that any other boat is not, otherwise we would be accepting the tens of thousands that sail from north Africa to Europe every year.

Just think how close we came to engaging in the people trafficking trade ourselves in implementing the Malaysia Solution. Legal responsibility means something in this context, and going by the number of former detainees who are suing the government for their time in detention, those sent to Malaysia would have a very strong case for compensation for the 'pain and suffering' they encountered because of the Australian government.

Asylum-seekers may have encountered these conditions on their way here, but it's different when the Australian government inflicts this on them. Ask any court.
 
So_Cynical said:
I don't have the "professional credentials" that stumpy has...so im sure since Stumpy works in the field its a total non issue for Stumpy to link to the judgement...would take me hours to find it.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have never heard of Google. Try it - minutes, not hours, dumbo.
 
Simple really isn't it ?

You don't send children and unaccompanied children at that to Malaysia, a country we don't even trust with our cattle.
 
Are we back on the asylum issue again.

I'll refrain from repeating the obvious.
 
drsmith said:
Are we back on the asylum issue again.

I'll refrain from repeating the obvious.
Click to expand...

My sincere apologies, Dr Smith.

Much as I felt compelled to respond to SC (given there is so much myth and mis-information), I felt very strongly this was the wrong thread.

And with "Tony Abbott for PM" as the title, it couldn't help but get politicised.

A PM to me said as much, that I would do better elsewhere in a better titled thread, so off I go...
 
Ok, aside from the refugees issue this is the thing that annoys me about Abbott and makes me doubt that he will make a good PM.

Labor have already lost the next election, and by a long way. The Libs don’t have to make any special appeals to the electorate to win.

Abbott has a once in a generation opportunity to come up with some policies that may not have popular appeal but would give real long term benefits to the country. He would get a mandate for that just because Labor has been so useless. But instead of doing that he is trying to strengthen his position with popularist rubbish.

What a wasted opportunity!
 

OK - you can have that point Ferret. But the space I'm in at the moment is 'reform fatigue'. I just can't handle more policies.

I'd readily settle for slow, steady, small government with integrity. I think the workplace will change (it has to!) even if it's not called Work Choices, productivity has to significantly improve from here and I'd settle also for an honest and steady implementation of the Henry tax review.

These things are already on the table, having been debated ad nauseam for 5 or more years so that will do. Plus of course the unwinding of the NBN, the carbon tax and the mining tax AND the odd (good looking) nanny or two
 
StumpyPhantom said:
OK - you can have that point Ferret. But the space I'm in at the moment is 'reform fatigue'. I just can't handle more policies.

I'd readily settle for slow, steady, small government with integrity.
Click to expand...

Oh God yes please!

I think Australians are stuck in the belief that a potential gu'mint must have a big idea and massive reform.

In fact I'd vote for DE-reform. I want the gu'mint to BTFO of people's lives and businesses mostly. Justifying themselves with an ever increasing number of statutes doesn't make good government.

I'd like a government with very little to do.
 

If a coalition wins the next election, and if Abbott is PM, please do not expect a "Churchill or a Menzies".
I do not expect the coalition to thrash everything that has been achieved as there are many pieces of legislation they have supported.
Abbott will be in a position, where our country has been crippled with debt, and some bad wording in many policies.
I would be expecting a list of things to do in a order of priority, not unlike Newman's 100 days.
The FWA legislation will be reworded in some area's, initially.
There will be no time to complete tedious reforms. Under Abbott taxes will not be labelled reform.

The non- mining states currently have had the "breaks" on to help control the so- called "two speed economy". I would wish this phrase to be eliminated from print.

I would expect a easing of our $A.

I would also expect the "Henry Tax Review " would be the "foundation" document that our future economy to be built on.

We need not to be "Rhode Scholars" to realise that Gillard, Swan & Co., have wasted many opportunities because of "ego" ownership.
And finally I can hope that the Government be referred to as " We ", and not " I ".

(e.g. Watch any of Casey Stoner's podium statements."
“At the beginning of the race we didn’t get such a good start and it was really difficult to stay out of trouble and try to stay with the front,” Stoner said in an interview with Spanish television.

joea
 

Beware of any government that tries to institute "reform". "Reform" means they have found new ways to rip us off.

In the words of Ronald Reagan;

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
 

Agree Stumpy - I think we are all tiring of seeing taxpayers money disappear into the big black hole called "reforms" - and the worst part is that most of these "reforms" are not wanted by the majority anyway. What a waste!

It is ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind. We were doing pretty well under Costello's steady hand and it would be nice to have thing return to some sort of stability once again.
 

I think the 'economic reality' point with all these multiple reforms - which is the Rudd/Gillard mantra for being Whitlam-esque - is that they end up cancelling each other out.

But the regulatory and inefficiency cost remains a drag for a long time to come. That's what I don't think the Labor Party get.

We all know this so-called carbon tax is a ruse - it's a substitute for a wealth re-distribution 'reform', which is why Gillard can't even name the mythical 500 polluting companies at the top of this river of carbon.

I would have just settled for an honest 'call a spade a spade' reform of our tax and social security systems.

Or to spend $50bn on electricity-grid infrastructure we do need and which has an immediate impact on all of us (and then impose the carbon tax on an efficient system), than to spend that amount on an NBN that we don't need because we'll happily wait a couple more seconds for that download to get there.

Piling on these reforms is like mixing metaphors - but I'm not sure Julia "hyper-bowl" Gillard will get the fact that she's shot our baby in the foot, while throwing out the bath water containing our spiteful nose cut off from our face.
 
StumpyPhantom said:
I would have just settled for an honest 'call a spade a spade' reform of our tax and social security systems.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. The electorate will usually respect a truthful explanation of why money needs to be spent on e.g. upgrading the electricity infrastructure, and will be prepared to pay for that.

It's the utter dishonesty of landing us with a carbon tax which will do absolutely nothing useful and a great deal of economic and social harm that so angers the people, when it's utterly transparent that the only reason it's occurring is to secure Gillard's personal obligations to the Greens.

The only thing that still astonishes me is Gillard's lack of comprehension about why she is so on the nose!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...