Australian Federal Election 2010

[Damien Evans]

I was wrong - it is a broken promise. The biggest broken promise in the history of Australian politics. But the term 'broken promise' is far too soft considering the magnitude of the betrayal.

So for consistencies sake I will continue to call it a betrayal (or a lie).

If you don't like it, too bad - at least you will understand where I am coming from.

Now, maybe others can man up too?

There will never be a GST under a government I lead.


Whoops.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

There will never be a GST under a government I lead.

Whoops.

Actually he said "never ever"

What he did do - when he changed his mind - was take it back to the people; he obtained his mandate. Hers is the greatest betrayal in Australia's history. I challenge anyone to find worse.

 

[wombatwal]

I was wrong - it is a broken promise. The biggest broken promise in the history of Australian politics. But the term 'broken promise' is far too soft considering the magnitude of the betrayal.

So for consistencies sake I will continue to call it a betrayal (or a lie).

If you don't like it, too bad - at least you will understand where I am coming from.

Now, maybe others can man up too?

Thank you Alfie, it took a while, it was good to see you have manned up.
A betrayal, I can live with, a lie, no, unless you have the evidence.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Thank you Alfie, it took a while, it was good to see you have manned up.
A betrayal, I can live with, a lie, no, unless you have the evidence.

No probs.

What do you think we should do with non genuine refugees (assuming some onshore processing remains in place)? Others can't man up, perhaps you wouldn't mind leading the way.

 

[Wildy]

Whatever, I am pretty certain I am right here but will let you show me otherwise.

Let's take a look:

Very well, however I'm going to explain it for people who don't know or for some strange reason have decided to take a look in this thread. A temporary protection visa, or TPV, was given out to asylum seekers who were deemed to be refugees, in a nutshell it granted many rights such as access to Medicare, the right to work or access to English classes (but only for children). However this class of visa did not allow re-entry into Australia if they left or most importantly, family reunion rights.

The lack of family reunion rights was a pretty big driving factor in who used the people smugglers. As the submission of the Department Infrastructure Manager at Woomera stated, the lack of reunion rights meant that more women and children would ultimately turn to the people smugglers in order to be reunited with their husbands and fathers. By 2000-2001 1923 children were in immigration detention, up from 976 for the period 1999-2000. For a year by year breakdown 1563 children were on the asylum boats in 2001 compared to 517 in the previous year.

There are a few other trends to mention as well:

1999, the year the TPV's without reunion rights were introduced was also a year of increasing numbers of asylum seekers, up to 3721 people from 200 in the previous year. These numbers would increase to a maximum of 5516 in 2001 before decreasing in 2002. The other trend at that time was that the people smugglers were putting more people on fewer boats. In 2001 on average the number of asylum seekers/boat was about 128 people, a large increase from about 58 people the previous year (for comparison last year, which has had the largest number of asylum seekers to arrive by boat so far, the average was only about 51 people/boat). Even the select committee on 'A Certain Maritime Incident' noted that many of the people who were being released from immigration detention on TPV's were family members of people who were already in the country on TPV's.

That select committee would also discuss the event that I'm talking about.

On October 19 2001 the boat known as SIEV X sank killing 353 of the 397 people on board. Most of the people were women and children, people who were not the 'typical' asylum seeker as understood at the time. We know that some of these people had husbands and fathers in this country, and that their deaths were caused by the fact that the TPVs prevented them from being easily reunited with their family members already in this country.

All the stuff in the blue is establishing the pattern that TPVs caused more people to get on the boats, the red is the example to your demand for "evidence" of a specific claim. But none of this mattered because my evidence is apparently not as strong as your speculation that "[p]erhaps the people smugglers had already sold their passages, and these were the backlog so to speak."

Apply in Indonesia for other parts of the world? Sure, why not?

And I wonder what rights they would have in Indonesia? I'm pretty sure that they won't have access to the rights granted by the Refugee Convention because Indonesia isn't a signatory.

And why can't they apply for asylum in Australia?

Your own link says we take 2.2%. How many do you think is fair?

No idea, but I'm not the one claiming that Australia is taking in their fair share.

At the expense of who?

From a "rights" perspective, no one.

Could more people have been brought here had they not landed?

Probably. However it doesn't make the asylum claims of those who have already arrived in Australia any less relevant.

I didn't say emphatically that they were. But why are they less deserving just because somone is better placed in terms of of geography and money?

They aren't.

I reckon they could figure it out; they found the people smugglers easy enough didn't they?

So you don't know anything about the asylum process then. One thing that you might like to know is showing up in Australia and applying for asylum is a valid way of doing so.

From your arguments above, am I to understand that you think onshore processing is the way to go?

Possibly. I'm more inclined to support the concept of regional processing, but you need a lot of cooperation to get such a place set up and I also don't know how successful it would be.

Coupled with that I don't really see the point of offshore processing since under the PS 70% of the people were resettled elsewhere of which 61% came here anyway. I just don't see the point in sending them to Nauru only for most of them to end up here.

That people being lured by lax policies and children drowning at sea is a good or humane thing?

And when did I ever say that this was a good or humane thing?

I have tossed in one supporting argument about queues and you seem to be makiview?ng it my entire argument; it's not.

I don't believe I made it your entire argument.

My main concern and the thrust of my position is my concern for people dying unnecessarily.

Unless they go to a place that isn't Australia. Then you don't really care what happens to them.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Speaking of people swaps, what do you reckon we'd get for Alfie?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

What he did do - when he changed his mind -

Anyone that thinks Howard "changed his mind" doesn't understand Howard at all.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Let's take a look:

I'm not quite sure how that shows me that I didn't say a one off is correlation. Like I said,... whatever.

And I wonder what rights they would have in Indonesia? I'm pretty sure that they won't have access to the rights granted by the Refugee Convention because Indonesia isn't a signatory.

OK, so you think they should put their kids on boats. I get it.

And why can't they apply for asylum in Australia?

No reason at all. Did I say they couldn't?

From a "rights" perspective, no one.

Didn't you have a crack at me about weasel words before?

Probably. However it doesn't make the asylum claims of those who have already arrived in Australia any less relevant.

I never suggested they did.
But it sounds like you are agreeing that people miss out because of those that arrive by boat. Is that right?

They aren't.

I'm glad we agree, I thought you were implying something else.

So you don't know anything about the asylum process then. One thing that you might like to know is showing up in Australia and applying for asylum is a valid way of doing so.

Huh? How does that relate to the previous?

Possibly. I'm more inclined to support the concept of regional processing, but you need a lot of cooperation to get such a place set up and I also don't know how successful it would be.

Coupled with that I don't really see the point of offshore processing since under the PS 70% of the people were resettled elsewhere of which 61% came here anyway. I just don't see the point in sending them to Nauru only for most of them to end up here.

For me it isn't about whether they end up here or not - as far as I know they are all equally deserving. My arguments are that
1). Onshore processing risks lives because people board boats.
2). People smugglers have a market and we have reduced ability to screen for undesirables.
3). Others who are equally sdeserving miss out because of geography and money - that seems rather unfair to me.

And when did I ever say that this was a good or humane thing?

Why would you condone it then?

I don't believe I made it your entire argument.

You seemed to be making a big thing out of a minor point.

Unless they go to a place that isn't Australia. Then you don't really care what happens to them.

Are you trying to play the racist card with me here? If not, what do you mean?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Speaking of people swaps, what do you reckon we'd get for Alfie?

800 of me is worth 4000 of you.

Anyone that thinks Howard "changed his mind" doesn't understand Howard at all.

Either cryptic or nonsense; who can tell?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Either cryptic or nonsense; who can tell?

Neither. Howard never "changed his mind" about the GST. He was always in favour of it. Always. It was always going to feature as a part of the Liberal platform eventually (as long as he was leader). He simply (and imo intelligently) denied it would be a part of the Liberal platform after the abortion that was Fightback!

Anyone that thinks he "changed his mind" is just plain ignorant of Howard's goals and ideology.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Evidence or conjecture?
Because you obviously have proof that "he was always in favour of it", don't you?

And even if you did, it doesn't come close to the disgracefully arrogant betrayal that Gillard perpetrated on the Australian public.

Worst PM ever.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Evidence or conjecture?
Because you obviously have proof that "he was always in favour of it", don't you?

Federal Treasurer (1977–1983)

In December 1977, at the age of 38, Howard was appointed Treasurer. During his five years in the position, he became an adherent of free-market economics, which was challenging economic orthodoxies in place for most of the century. He came to favour tax reform including broad-based taxation (later the GST), a freer industrial system including the dismantling of the centralised wage-fixing system, the abolition of compulsory trade unionism, privatisation and deregulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard

I would've thought someone that worships Howard as much as you do would have a greater grounding in the man's ideology. Taxation reform and particularly IR reform were two of the biggest components that made Howard who he was politically.

Being a rather shrewd politician, Howard knew that to win the 96 election he would have to disown the GST, which was the only thing that kept Hewson from becoming PM in 93. Once he had won the election he was then able to institute policies for reforms that he had always wanted to achieve.

But you have evidence that he "changed his mind", right?

And even if you did, it doesn't come close to the disgracefully arrogant betrayal that Gillard perpetrated on the Australian public.

I'm not here to defend Gillard, or to compare her to Howard, I am merely correcting your errors on the topic we've just discussed.

 

[Wildy]

I'm not quite sure how that shows me that I didn't say a one off is correlation. Like I said,... whatever.

Then you either don't know what you've been saying or you express it poorly.

OK, so you think they should put their kids on boats. I get it.

And where did I say that? Or does the Refugee Convention only apply when you are trying to further your agenda?

No reason at all. Did I say they couldn't?

So why complain that these people are applying for asylum here instead of another country?

Didn't you have a crack at me about weasel words before?

This comment suggests that you know less about refugee rights than I though.

But it sounds like you are agreeing that people miss out because of those that arrive by boat. Is that right?

That depends on how you look at it.

Huh? How does that relate to the previous?

You don't understand the asylum process.

For me it isn't about whether they end up here or not - as far as I know they are all equally deserving. My arguments are that
1). Onshore processing risks lives because people board boats.

But how exactly does offshore processing stop people from boarding the boats?

2). People smugglers have a market and we have reduced ability to screen for undesirables.

Because the whole "processing" thing isn't to determine who the "undesirables".

3). Others who are equally sdeserving miss out because of geography and money - that seems rather unfair to me.

1. We have greater obligations towards people who come here and apply for asylum than we do to those in the refugee camps.
2. Life isn't fair.

Why would you condone it then?

Have you stopped beating your wife Alfie? (NB: If you don't know why I've given this response then you don't understand what's wrong with your initial question.)

Are you trying to play the racist card with me here? If not, what do you mean?

You only care about these people if they do something that affects Australia, if they don't then you don't give a damn about what happens to them.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-03/cameron-launches-attack-on-news-ltd/3616902

A senior ALP faction leader branded Rupert Murdoch's News Limited "a threat to democracy" today as the feud between the newspaper group and the Government intensified.

Left faction convenor Doug Cameron's extraordinary outburst was sparked by a story in News Limited's Daily Telegraph reporting that former PM Kevin Rudd is being urged by his backers to challenge Prime Minister Julia Gillard.



Nearly as funny but for different reasons

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said Senator Cameron needed "liver cleansing treatment" and said he should not blame newspapers for Labor's problems.

"It is no secret around this building that Kevin Rudd is trying to make a comeback and here we have Senator Cameron blaming the Murdoch press for it. I ask you, if that is what he actually believes he is hugely deluded," Senator Abetz told reporters.

Rumours are all the evidence you need, when they tell you what you want to hear.

The Murdoch press has missed out on one of the biggest stories of the year. Their own betrayal of the Australian people when they sent out newspapers with a story about an AFP raid against possible terrorists, before the raids even occurred. When they were begged not to print the story before the raids because people's lives could be at risk, the editor of the Australian asked "How many people". He is now the editor of the Daily Tele, and to cover his own act of treachery against the Australian people, he prints more unsourced stories about a rumours of leadership challenges to Gillard.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/03/simons-when-the-oz-muscles-the-afp-thats-a-story/

Why does it matter that an editor of a newspaper plays extreme hardball with police over requests to hold a story? It wouldn’t matter, or not so much, if Australia had multiple such editors, and diffused media power.
But it is impossible to separate the extraordinary behaviour of News Limited editor Paul Whittaker, revealed in the Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday without also considering the context of media power in Australia, and News Limited’s propensity to involve itself in the already devilishly murky world of police politics.
As Crikey reported from the Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday, former editor of The Australian Paul Whittaker bargained with the Australian Federal Police over how many lives would be lost if the newspaper published its scoop on the Operation Neath anti-terrorism operation before raids took place. The Commissioner of the AFP, Tony Negus, said that when he told Whittaker  —  now editor of the Daily Telegraph  —  that lives would be at risk if he published, Whittaker replied: “Well, how many lives are at risk?”
The AFP had previously sought to suppress details of Negus’s conversation with Whittaker, but these attempts were defeated after Crikey and The Age got a lawyer into court to argue against suppression. Magistrate Peter Mealy ordered that the documents be released and thus the world was let in on the very candid conversation between Negus and the-then editor of The Australian.
Negus said he responded that if the suspected terrorists were alerted to police attention, they “may actually go to the nearest shopping centre and decide to take action because they won’t have time to prepare properly”.
Negus said Whittaker replied: “Well, what are we talking about, one person being killed, or are we talking about a number of people being killed?” (See the full documents here.)

Not exactly a laughing matter.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Being a rather shrewd politician, Howard knew that to win the 96 election he would have to disown the GST, which was the only thing that kept Hewson from becoming PM in 93. Once he had won the election he was then able to institute policies for reforms that he had always wanted to achieve.

So I was right, no evidence, just conjecture.

But you have evidence that he "changed his mind", right?

Just his own words and actions.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Rumours are all the evidence you need, when they tell you what you want to hear.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/03...do with non genuine refugees. Man up mate. :)

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Then you either don't know what you've been saying or you express it poorly.

One of us is.

And where did I say that?

The why argue with me if the think onshore processing is a bad idea?

So why complain that these people are applying for asylum here instead of another country?

You are pushing the racist card again huh? Pathetic.

My objection is not that we have refugees, I love them; I work with them and help them everyday and I would be willing to bet I have far more to do with them than you. My objections and concerns have been outlined previously and not so very long ago.

This comment suggests that you know less about refugee rights than I though.

I don't recall saying I was an expert. I do recall saying I don't like dead babies washed up on our shores.

That depends on how you look at it.

I see it as queue jumping. How do you see it?

You don't understand the asylum process.

Maybe not. I do understand that there is no coming back from dead.

But how exactly does offshore processing stop people from boarding the boats?

Ask the Labor government - they have a policy on it. Ask the coalition - they have one too. Check the details of the Pacific Solution - it worked.

1. We have greater obligations towards people who come here and apply for asylum than we do to those in the refugee camps.

Precisely why (in part) offshore processing is a deterrent. You've answered your own question. Well done you.

2. Life isn't fair.

And death is permanent.
Is that seriously the best answer you have on that.

You only care about these people if they do something that affects Australia, if they don't then you don't give a damn about what happens to them.

Untrue. Attempting to play the race card again? Truly and deeply pathetic.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'll read it later, when you have told me what you would do with non genuine refugees. Man up mate.

Why would I care if you read it or not? It's not what you want to hear, and we have already had ample evidence of your inability to digest information that does not conform to your preconceptions, while being ready and willing to embrace whatever it is you want to believe.
I have told you already.
I have asked you before, stop calling me mate.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Maaaate. I promise to stop calling you mate if you answer my questions:

What do we do with the non geniune refugees?
Do you know the Greens policy on them?

Thanks mate - in anticipation.

 

[wombatwal]

No probs.

What do you think we should do with non genuine refugees (assuming some onshore processing remains in place)? Others can't man up, perhaps you wouldn't mind leading the way.

Well it is pretty bloody obvious, they have to go back to their country of origin, if that is possible.