Australian Federal Election 2010

[a_unique_person]

No, I don’t think Julia lied, I think she merely went back on her word due to the makeup of the parliament. That’s politics and not at all surprising.

It also means that Abbott didn't get to be PM, and Gillard did. In the biggest battle between the two to date, Gillard won hands down, and became PM.

 

[Wildy]

#2
Then why argue with me if you think onshore processing is a bad idea?

I don't believe that I said onshore processing is a bad idea.

Except they have escaped their own country already haven't they?

Not if they are still in their own country while one of their family members has left.

I thought we established that if the people that come here get a priority over those in camps elsewhere then they have effectively jumped the queue. Or was that a question you didn't respond to?

So is there a queue or not?

And since I'm asking you questions do you think that the people in the camps have a right to be resettled?

Show me?

Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialied Countries 2010, figure 1 has a nice graph showing the overall decrease in claims.

If you want hard numbers.

Annex Table 1 in the above report.
2003 report, table 1
2004 report, table 1
2006 report table 1.

Was the decrease proportional to effectively zero?

The decrease was proportional to the worldwide decrease in asylum claims.

In the meantime, the two major parties have offshore processing as their policy. Do you think they are wrong?

Yes.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I know, so there is no point responding to any of your 'questions'. You cannot or will not understand what I have said already on the matter, why waste my time on anything else. The only response that will satisfy you is what you want to hear. Go bother someone else.

What have you already said? Nothing is the answer to that and you well know it.

What would you (or the Greens) do with non genuine refugees?
What am I if not a conservative?

I don't believe that I said onshore processing is a bad idea.

That's kinda what I'm saying. Why argue with me if you think it is bad?

Not if they are still in their own country while one of their family members has left.

Makes no sense.
The people that get on boats have already escaped the old regime - they are safe from that threat. Getting on a boat doesn't help the person left behind.

So is there a queue or not?

You seemed to indicate there was by virtue of your earlier dodge: Australia takes x numbers per year, those that arrive by boat reduce those that can be taken from elsewhere. While there is technically no queue there is certainly something - perhaps a waiting list; what would you call it?

And since I'm asking you questions do you think that the people in the camps have a right to be resettled?

No reason why not as long as they pass the usual requirements.

If you want hard numbers.

Annex Table 1 in the above report.
2003 report, table 1
2004 report, table 1
2006 report table 1.

The decrease was proportional to the worldwide decrease in asylum claims.

Um. I' don't quite see in there what you seem to think is in there. Boat arrivals and applications for asylum are not the same.

Another reason why I don't see what you see: (table one - page 6)
Worldwide trends reduced by 5% over the period 2008, 09 and 10. Our intake went up 31%.

This seems to prove what I am saying based on your take on the report.

Yes.

Thank you.
So why do you think they are wrong?

 

[a_unique_person]

What am I if not a conservative?

Since you seem to be enthralled with Abbott at the moment, you would be a populist.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/04/tony-abbott-joe-hocket-on-euro-financial-crisi/

Trying to determine exactly what Hockey and Abbott were objecting to yesterday was something of a struggle. Hockey called Gillard’s statement about increasing Australia’s contribution to the IMF “extraordinary” but then said “the Coalition has no problem at all with putting additional resources into the IMF”. Then he said: “Australians will rightly be angry that on a day where the government is trying to ram through 11 new tax bills in the House of Representatives their prime minister is going and offering taxpayer money to the biggest economy in the world, the eurozone, to bail them out from their own manmade crisis.”
Gillard has offered no money to the European bailout fund.
This was no idle doorstop comment, but the core of the Coalition’s strategy yesterday: the Coalition led off question time with the issue, with Abbott asking about the government “propping up the eurozone” and “throwing good money after bad”, and Hockey quoting UK Chancellor George Osborne. Hockey then returned to the issue in the post-question time Matters of Public Importance debate.
As economist, financial market strategist and former Gillard adviser Stephen Koukoulas quickly pointed out on Twitter during question time, the opposition’s position was a remarkable contrast with the actions of Peter Costello, who as treasurer provided substantial additional funding to the IMF during the financial crises in the late 1990s, to aid countries like Brazil and Thailand.

Opportunistic, shallow, ignorant, short sighted, populist. Abbott in all his glory.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Since you seem to be enthralled with Abbott at the moment, you would be a populist.

Explain? It actually seems you are obsessed with Abbott - you are the one who keeps bringing him up.


What should we do with any non genuine refugees?
What is the official watermelon policy for them?

 

[a_unique_person]

Explain?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=populist

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You must have some real shame around your opinions; you refuse to explain or elaborate, let alone come straight out and say what you believe in.

It's a sad indictment on either one's opinions, honesty or integrity when they do not feel free to express them/selves.

What would you do with the non genuine refugees?
Why am I not a conservative?

 

[a_unique_person]

It actually seems you are obsessed with Abbott - you are the one who keeps bringing him up.

Apart from the fact he could be the next Prime Minister of Australia, and move in with a wrecking ball to finish the job he has already started as Opppostion Leader, I don't know why I would bother with him.

 

[Wildy]

That's kinda what I'm saying. Why argue with me if you think it is bad?

How about you try reading what I actually said instead of what you think that I said. Did I say onshore processing is bad?

Makes no sense.
The people that get on boats have already escaped the old regime - they are safe from that threat. Getting on a boat doesn't help the person left behind.

It would if the person left behind is their family. Normally people who have successful asylum applications are able to get their family into their country of asylum.

You seemed to indicate there was by virtue of your earlier dodge: Australia takes x numbers per year, those that arrive by boat reduce those that can be taken from elsewhere. While there is technically no queue there is certainly something - perhaps a waiting list; what would you call it?

I don't know what to call it because I don't know if they handle asylum claims separately from resettlement claims.

No reason why not as long as they pass the usual requirements.

So that's a yes?

Um. I' don't quite see in there what you seem to think is in there. Boat arrivals and applications for asylum are not the same.

So the people who arrive on boats don't make asylum applications?

Another reason why I don't see what you see: (table one - page 6)
Worldwide trends reduced by 5% over the period 2008, 09 and 10. Our intake went up 31%.

This seems to prove what I am saying based on your take on the report.

Sorry didn't you just say that boat arrivals aren't the same as asylum applications?

And how exactly does this prove what you've been saying?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

It also means that Abbott didn't get to be PM, and Gillard did. In the biggest battle between the two to date, Gillard won hands down, and became PM.

Haha very true. Though I still blame the ALP for allowing a party led by Abbott to be in that kind of position post-election anyway. After 2007, allowing someone like Phony Tony to prosper on the other side is unforgivable. Says a lot more about the ALP than it does about Tony imo.

Oh Turnbull, where for art thou? :/

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Haha very true. Though I still blame the ALP for allowing a party led by Abbott to be in that kind of position post-election anyway. After 2007, allowing someone like Phony Tony to prosper on the other side is unforgivable. Says a lot more about the ALP than it does about Tony imo.

Doesn't it though! For him to be able to get so close to bringing down a one term government says just how bad Labor really is under her. And it's got a lot worse since.

Worst PM ever.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Apart from the fact he could be the next Prime Minister of Australia, and move in with a wrecking ball to finish the job he has already started as Opppostion Leader, I don't know why I would bother with him.

Like I said, you're the one obsessed with him - you keep bringing him up not me.

Yet we have a government turning all it touches into dust in the meantime.

What would you do with the non genuine refugees?
What would the Greens do?
Why am I not a conservative?

Grow a pair and answer, mate.

It would if the person left behind is their family. Normally people who have successful asylum applications are able to get their family into their country of asylum.

Why didn't they leave too? If things are so dangerous why didn't they escape when they had the chance? Why would they risk the lives of their children to get here, surely one of them arriving would be enough to then seek asylum for the rest?

But again, you are really suggesting (through an appeal to emotion) is that those persons waiting elsewhere (in camps etc) are now less deserving than others, simply by virtue of $ and geography?

I don't know what to call it because I don't know if they handle asylum claims separately from resettlement claims.

So while technically incorrect, the word queue seems a fair word to use in the absense of something better? Fair enough?

That being the case, they are proverbially jumping the queue; being given the green light at the expense of someone else, yes?

So that's a yes?

With the usual provisions, yes. Are not resettlers and asylum seekers all part of our overall humanitarian intake and we take our fair share (however that is determined)?
Why do I feel a gotcha coming on based on scemantics.

So the people who arrive on boats don't make asylum applications?

Didn't you say something about reading and understanding before?

And how exactly does this prove what you've been saying?

On the fair share issue. We take what we should - we do our bit.

Interestingly, the trends decreased 5% but our intake increased 31%.

Moreover, worldwide trends fell by 5%, but the boat numbers increased by % thousands in the same period. The same period that matches when the PS was dismantled. How peculiar. You seem to be supporting my arguments now - cheers.

This too seems to disprove your claim that the boats decreased in line with world trends, it does no such thing.

What you have shown does not remotely support your claims.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-05/detention-centre-costs-blowout/3637278

If true, simply more deception and more cock ups.

The Federal Opposition says the cost of the new immigration detention centre at Wickham Point in Darwin has blown out by more than $100 million.

When Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced the plan for the 1,500-bed centre in March he said it would cost $9.2 million for capital costs.

It was later revealed the land lease would cost a further $74 million over three years.

"Well the massive blowout in cost here is for the Government to explain and they've refused to do so while trying to put one over on the Australian people that they were spending less than $10 million," he said.

"Now they're spending almost $200 million and with no explanation."

Worst PM ever.

 

[Wildy]

Why didn't they leave too? If things are so dangerous why didn't they escape when they had the chance?

I don't know. Maybe the family didn't have enough money to all get out of the country?

Why would they risk the lives of their children to get here, surely one of them arriving would be enough to then seek asylum for the rest?

Sorry, what?

But again, you are really suggesting (through an appeal to emotion) is that those persons waiting elsewhere (in camps etc) are now less deserving than others, simply by virtue of $ and geography?

Swing and a miss.

So while technically incorrect, the word queue seems a fair word to use in the absense of something better? Fair enough?

This assumes that resettlement and asylum claims are assessed together. It also assumes that we have the exact same obligations towards those seeking resettlement as opposed to those who are seeking asylum.

That being the case, they are proverbially jumping the queue; being given the green light at the expense of someone else, yes?

No.

With the usual provisions, yes.

Sorry, "usual provisions"?

Are not resettlers and asylum seekers all part of our overall humanitarian intake and we take our fair share (however that is determined)?

Yes, but the point that I've been making is that our international obligations towards the latter are greater than the obligations towards the former.

Didn't you say something about reading and understanding before?

Yes, which is why I'm asking for clarification rather than making a statement.

Interestingly, the trends decreased 5% but our intake increased 31%.

Moreover, worldwide trends fell by 5%, but the boat numbers increased by % thousands in the same period. The same period that matches when the PS was dismantled. How peculiar. You seem to be supporting my arguments now - cheers.

So I take it you've ignored the other reports that show a drop in asylum claims in the selected countries and also show a drop in the Australian claims?

This too seems to disprove your claim that the boats decreased in line with world trends, it does no such thing.

What you have shown does not remotely support your claims.

Well if you extrapolate from one data point then I guess you can draw that conclusion. Instead why don't you look at the other data that I presented and see if that fits with your conclusion that Australia bucks the trend on these matters.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I don't know. Maybe the family didn't have enough money to all get out of the country?

It's your theory, you might want to think it through and pad it out.

Sorry, what?

They stick the whole family on the boat, women, kids, all of them; and risk death.

Swing and a miss.

So you saying leaving a family member behind isn't an appeal to emotion? What is it then? It's not a fact because it is all your supposition.

This assumes that resettlement and asylum claims are assessed together. It also assumes that we have the exact same obligations towards those seeking resettlement as opposed to those who are seeking asylum.

So are they assessed separately or not? Are those seeking resettlement different to refugees that come by boat? I'd have thought not given so many of them are livinbg in refugee camps.

http://www.bar-kulan.com/2011/09/22/eu-officials-visit-somali-refugee-camp-in-uganda/

Moreover, are they not all taken into consideration under our humanitarian intakes?

No.

How would you define it then?. What word is better than queue given one person gets in at the expense of another?

Yes, but the point that I've been making is that our international obligations towards the latter are greater than the obligations towards the former.

Why? Because they have landed here? That would simply create a huge pull factor wouldn't it? A pull factor you said wasn't there?

So I take it you've ignored the other reports that show a drop in asylum claims in the selected countries and also show a drop in the Australian claims?

Show me the correlating link between the boats and the reduction in asylum seekers. That was your original claim was it not? I fail to see your point being validated.

Well if you extrapolate from one data point then I guess you can draw that conclusion.

Indeed.

Instead why don't you look at the other data that I presented and see if that fits with your conclusion that Australia bucks the trend on these matters.

Why don't you show me? Obviously I've looked at it, I fail to see your point being made.

 

[a_unique_person]

Like I said, you're the one obsessed with him - you keep bringing him up not me.

Just like Latham, Beasley, Hawke, Whitlam were a focus off attention too. Hardly an obsession, just wondering why all we see or hear of Abbott are his stunts. Latham had the blow torch to the belly.

Yet we have a government turning all it touches into dust in the meantime.

Not at all. The NBN is powering ahead, the Queensland levy is being used to rebuild a shattered infrastructure, the CO2 bills are through, Afghanistan is just as much a disaster now as it was during the time of Howard, the mining tax is up for debate, Labor is in power, the Liberal party isn't. The two party preferred polls are back to 54 to 46. For some reason you didn't mention that. Quite a winnable position once the tax cuts come in. Australians might also remember that in a time economic chaos, it was the Labor party who got them through, with the Liberals advocating policies that would have been a disaster.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Just like Latham, Beasley, Hawke, Whitlam were a focus off attention too. Hardly an obsession, just wondering why all we see or hear of Abbott are his stunts. Latham had the blow torch to the belly.

Mate. You said I was obsessed with him. It is you who seem obsessed.

It is also you who has such little conviction in her beliefs that you won't express them.

What would you do with non genuine refugees?
What is the watermelon policy on them?
Why am I not a conservative in your opinion?

 

[a_unique_person]

You're a big poll watcher, Alfie, how are they going?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Whose poll? Evidence please.

All the ones I saw last week had basically no change for the past month.

Meanwhile we wait..

Do you have such little conviction in your beliefs that you won't express them.

What would you do with non genuine refugees?
What is the watermelon policy on them?
Why am I not a conservative in your opinion?

As usual you follow the Green line which are big on talk, short on brains.

Why don't you just answer? Absolute and abject cowardice!
At least have the guts to say what you believe. Or is it that you know how stupid it is you have no option but to enjoy the ongoing swim in Egypt?

Man up mate. What can you be so afraid of?


Like my new avatar?

 

[Wildy]

It's your theory, you might want to think it through and pad it out.

Why do I need to know why they make that decision?

It's not a fact because it is all your supposition.

That people leave their families behind? Then you had better tell the UNHCR (page 559, or page 5 of the pdf).

So are they assessed separately or not?

I. Don't. Know.

Are those seeking resettlement different to refugees that come by boat? I'd have thought not given so many of them are livinbg in refugee camps.

Yes they are different. The people who have come by boat are asylum seekers, their status as refugees has not been determined yet and we are obliged to process their claims and help them under international law.

The people in the refugee camps, while refugees, don't have the right to resettlement. They have, as I understand it, made their asylum claim in whatever country they are in and have been found to be refugees.

Moreover, are they not all taken into consideration under our humanitarian intakes?

I would assume so.

Why? Because they have landed here?

No, because they're in New Zealand. /sarcasm

That would simply create a huge pull factor wouldn't it? A pull factor you said wasn't there?

You would think so, but New Zealand has the same obligations and they haven't had to resort to measures like the PS.

Worldwide most refugees don't try to come to Australia, they try to go to Europe, the US and South Africa (p.36). In fact the UN suggests that this is because of the large number of countries in the region that haven't signed the RC (p. 39) but that despite that only a minority of these people actually make the attempt to get to Australia. According to the UNHCR (2010 report, I know you know which one) Australia had 8250 asylum claims in 2009, Malaysia, a country that hasn't signed the RC, had 40360 in the same year.

Show me the correlating link between the boats and the reduction in asylum seekers. That was your original claim was it not? I fail to see your point being validated.

...

Why don't you show me? Obviously I've looked at it, I fail to see your point being made.

I've already provided the links, they're the ones below the link to the 2010 report. I've already mentioned which tables to look at and the fact that we're having this conversation through the medium of writing means that you are literate.