Australian Federal Election 2010

[Damien Evans]

What should we do with non genuine refugees?
What would the greens do with them?
Why am I not a conservative?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What definition of "asylum seeker" are you using?

The government one - provided previously.

But didn't you say that money also plays a part? Why couldn't they just buy a plane ticket in Jakarta to Auckland? Why would they need to take a boat?

Exactly. Why indeed?
Are you aware that the cost of a boat ride for every man woman and child is around $10k. That's a few plane trips. I heard on the radio that the cost of a berth on the vessel that sailed and sank with more people drowning last week was $7k each. A flight from Jakarta to NZ is about $1,500- and slightly less to (say) Darwin.

No, I want to know what you would consider an acceptable form of evidence since so far your standards of evidence seem to shift quite a bit.

Throw me your best effort. I repeat, it is your claim and you get to support it. Last time you asked me to name my evidence you thought it too hard.

Again, no, I asked if the people claiming that the PS worked have factored the worldwide drop in asylum applications when they claim that it worked.

Yes they did. But the correlation you want does not match, does it?

And then they factored in the continued drop in worldwide Asylum seeker claims when, at the exact time the PS was dismantled Australia's claims and boat arrivals skyrocketed.

Indeed. He could always just answer and stand by his claims.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Betrayal complete.

The greatest act of bastardisation in the history of Australian politics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-08/carbon-tax-passes-senate/3652438

 

[a_unique_person]

It's about science, global warming, and our kids future.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What should we do about any non genuine refugees that arrive?
Do you know what the Green's policy is on this?
Why am I something other than a conservative animal (politically speaking)?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

My favourite thing about the carbon tax is how much it annoys Alfie.

 

[a_unique_person]

If it was real, it would be good, but it's just a show.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What should we do about any non genuine refugees that arrive?
Do you know what the Green's policy is on this?
Why am I something other than a conservative animal (politically speaking)?

You've made the same basic post multiple times in this thread; the point has been made....

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[a_unique_person]

I do have to wonder. Will the Libs ditch Abbott before the next election. He will be a disaster, because he has no way of keeping the many promises he has made, and trying to keep them will cause severe impacts on the economy. The NBN is going in, businesses are crying out for it, ( I know the one I work for desperately needs it), it will work. Tearing it up will be extremely costly, for zero benefit. The Carbon Tax will be moving on to the Carbon Trading scheme, and investments worth many billions of dollars will need to be refunded by the government. The legislation makes it clear, these will be property rights, and the constitution says they have to be compensated if the government removes them. The Mining Super Profits Tax, which the big mining companies have actually agreed to pay, will mean that there will be tax breaks for personal and business tax. Remove that, at a time when the companies are making so much money they don't know what to do with it, and there will be a massive hole to be filled, a task that Abbott has delegated to Hockey. A real 'hospital handpass', if ever there was one. Abbott thinks he is being tough saying he will repeal the tax, he is lazy and weak, he is just going to delegate the impossible to someone else to do. He will have to wait for several years to do all this, because he won't have the numbers in the senate to change the legislation.

So for many years, when Australia needs to adapt and move forward in a very delicate international political and financial environment, nothing will be happening. Abbott will be completely obsessed and consumed with destroying, rather than creating. This is something else Australia cannot afford.

The libs at the same time have many saying that they must go back to Workchoices.

It is entirely possible that the Liberal Party will ditch Abbott just before the election, as Labor did with Hawke. Abbotts disapproval rating is just as bad as Gillards. Get the win set up, then hand to someone else who is much more palatable, and makes a win much more certain. This replacement will then not be bound by Abbotts impossible promises, and can implement the policies the Liberal conservatives want implemented.

It is also entirely possible Labor will do the same thing. Gillard is actually winding back the Liberal lead, but the considerable skills she has shown in making an extremely difficult minority Government work as well as one can. If it comes to election time and the numbers and polls are pointing the right way, Labor can then do a Hawke, and put a fresh new face in place to lead a majority government in a new parliament.

The lates poll is a surprise. Support for the Liberals has fallen considerably, support for Labor has risen, but not as much as the support for the Greens and Others. Could Australia be headed for another minority Government. Given Abbott's total failure in understanding how to work such a situation, you can guarantee he will not get it next time, either. In this situation, the Libs would have to ditch Abbott, and get someone with actual people skills in as leader, who can negotiate with people, such as Turnbull. There was no reason the Libs did not get to lead a minority government after the last election, other than Abbott's utter inability to be able to work with people who will not blindly follow him.

 

[Wildy]

Exactly. Why indeed?

You're the one saying that having to follow international obligations is a pull factor, you tell me.

Are you aware that the cost of a boat ride for every man woman and child is around $10k. That's a few plane trips. I heard on the radio that the cost of a berth on the vessel that sailed and sank with more people drowning last week was $7k each. A flight from Jakarta to NZ is about $1,500- and slightly less to (say) Darwin.

1. Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking why they weren't buying a plane ticket from Jakarta to Auckland.
2. The regional hubs and nearby cities that have direct flights to Australia have airline liaison officers who ensure that passengers have valid visas since you can't board a flight to Australia and haven't been able to since at least 1994.

Throw me your best effort. I repeat, it is your claim and you get to support it.

My claim was that we have international obligations to asylum seekers.

Now the right to claim asylum comes from Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which explicitly gives people the right to apply for asylum.

Thus we have to determine their status in order to see whether treaties such as the RC apply to those seeking asylum because not doing so and just sending back to where they came from as well as potentially violating, in this case, the RC but would also violate other treaties such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties¹. The Australian Lawyers for Human Rights listed in chapter 2 (specifically pp.7-9) the various rights people have under the conventions that Australia has ratified.

All the treaties mentioned in the ALHR paper all have sections that are designed to protect people from refoulment, the two that have appeared in our discussions have been the RC (article 33) and the Torture Convention (article 3). The principle of non-refoulment applies to all those in our custody, and in the case of the "boat people" has been put into law with Part 2 Division 8 section 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

As the UNHCR notes in the Resettlement Handbook, resettlement is not a human right. Australia is permitted to offer resettlement positions to people in refugee camps but they are not obliged to. In fact Australia has criteria that determines who receives the right to resettle in the country. According to this Department of Immigration and Citizenship sheet resettlement is for people "who are in the greatest need of humanitarian assistance". To use your concept of a queue this means that the person who would be next in line can be passed over in favour of someone further down the queue because they are in greater need of assistance.

What's the bet you're going to ignore this because of something stupid like I haven't linked to something containing a specific phrase?

ETA: I forgot you wanted me to say why this isn't a pull factor. Well since I never claimed that it was a pull factor it isn't up to me to show that it isn't. It's up to you to show that it is.

1. Just in case you decide to take the semantic line, a convention is a treaty according to DFAT.

Last time you asked me to name my evidence you thought it too hard.

Mainly because you told me to find a report that said to factor in "all the considerations" without telling me what the considerations were so you could give yourself the best "out" possible.

Yes they did. But the correlation you want does not match, does it?

That one of the factors influencing the drop in boat numbers is a drop in people seeking asylum? I never said that it was the only reason.

And then they factored in the continued drop in worldwide Asylum seeker claims when, at the exact time the PS was dismantled Australia's claims and boat arrivals skyrocketed.

1. You do notice that worldwide asylum claims increased between 2007-2008, following on from the increase in 2006-2007.
2. Are you claiming that the drop of 2009-2010 was the start of a new trend in a drop in asylum claims?


Since you like asking unanswered questions over and over again until you get an answer I'll offer you one of mine that you ignored.

Why don't you want Australia to fulfil its international obligations?

 

[a_unique_person]

More about The Australian publishing details of a terrorist raid before the raid actually happened.

Former Victoria Police media director Nicole McKechnie repeatedly warned the Australian Federal Police that its plan to distribute copies of The Australian exposing an anti-terror raid on the morning it occurred was flawed.
In an affidavit tendered to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and released this afternoon, McKechnie, a media veteran, states that she told AFP media coordinator David Sharpe that from her experience the broadsheet would hit the streets from midnight, despite The Australian’s assurances that it would “hold” it for the paper’s second edition.
She says she began to receive reports at 5am that the paper had been available from 1:30am in city 7-Eleven outlets and newsagencies.
AFP deputy commissioner Peter Drennan has previously stated that he believed The Australian’s journalist Cameron Stewart when he told him alleged terrorists would not have any forewarning.
Giving evidence last week, Drennan told the court that during a briefing given by the AFP, Stewart had promised the paper would not be available until 5am on the morning of August 4 “as it would not go to the printers until 11pm the previous night”.
Drennan said in his affidavit that when he became aware the paper had in fact been available much earlier, he contacted Stewart in the early hours of the morning. Stewart said he would make inquiries with The Australian’s editor in chief Chris Mitchell.
“I recall Stewart being apologetic during my telephone conversation with him,” Drennan said. At about 7am Drennan spoke to the then-Australian editor Paul Whittaker. “I recall him saying words to the effect ‘we went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that article was not released until the warrants were executed,” he said. “I don’t know how this happened.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/08/afp-warned-about-the-ozs-terror-scoop-timing/

It was Simon Overlands anger towards The Australian over this massive breach of security that made him a target of their hatred, and ultimately helped lead to him having to resign. So The Oz pulishes details of a raid, then shoots the messenger who tells us all how bad breach it is. No wonder we need an inquiry. The global News Ltd brand is corrupt and out of control.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You're the one saying that having to follow international obligations is a pull factor, you tell me.

What catching a plane has to do with international obligations is lost on me.

Perhaps you could simply explain why people would pay more to put their children on a leaky boat to Australia than jump on a plane to NZ. This was your point not mine.

1. Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking why they weren't buying a plane ticket from Jakarta to Auckland.

Exactly. Why aren't they? Perhaps they aren't all legitimate asylum seekers?

2. The regional hubs and nearby cities that have direct flights to Australia have airline liaison officers who ensure that passengers have valid visas since you can't board a flight to Australia and haven't been able to since at least 1994.

Well done!
Now why do you suppose they don't have a valid visa?

My claim was that we have international obligations to asylum seekers.

Now the right to claim asylum comes from Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which explicitly gives people the right to apply for asylum.

Thus we have to determine their status in order to see whether treaties such as the RC apply to those seeking asylum because not doing so and just sending back to where they came from as well as potentially violating, in this case, the RC but would also violate other treaties such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties¹. The Australian Lawyers for Human Rights listed in chapter 2 (specifically pp.7-9) the various rights people have under the conventions that Australia has ratified.

All the treaties mentioned in the ALHR paper all have sections that are designed to protect people from refoulment, the two that have appeared in our discussions have been the RC (article 33) and the Torture Convention (article 3). The principle of non-refoulment applies to all those in our custody, and in the case of the "boat people" has been put into law with Part 2 Division 8 section 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

As the UNHCR notes in the Resettlement Handbook, resettlement is not a human right. Australia is permitted to offer resettlement positions to people in refugee camps but they are not obliged to. In fact Australia has criteria that determines who receives the right to resettle in the country. According to this Department of Immigration and Citizenship sheet resettlement is for people "who are in the greatest need of humanitarian assistance". To use your concept of a queue this means that the person who would be next in line can be passed over in favour of someone further down the queue because they are in greater need of assistance.

Exactly. So by deeming people arriving here "in greater need" than others you create a huge pull factor.

Again, you seem to be arguing my case.

That one of the factors influencing the drop in boat numbers is a drop in people seeking asylum? I never said that it was the only reason.

I think I hear some furious backpedalling.

Why don't you want Australia to fulfil its international obligations?

I have never said any such thing, in fact I am supportive of the opposite. I would be happy for Australia to extend its obligations and take more.

Why do you want people dying on rocks and children drowning? Surely we should stop that first and foremost, and then do as much as possible for those that are in even more difficulty because they do not have massive cash reserves, resources and geography ($10k a boat trip remember - massive in relative terms)?

Kindly stop spamming the thread.

So am I to assume that you ascribe to idea that people can make outrageous accusations and make spurious claims and not be challenged on them?

Why not press AUP for an answer rather than ask me to stop asking him to support his lies?

 

[a_unique_person]

THE Tony Abbott-led Coalition's buckling before Labor's increase in the superannuation guarantee from 9 per cent to 12 per cent is a great victory for the Gillard government and signals the Coalition's admission that its political strategy is off the rails and needs correction. With the superannuation guarantee tied into Labor's mining tax package, the next question for the Coalition is obvious: will it recommend a replacement tax for the mining tax that Abbott is pledged to repeal?
Once Labor's mining tax is legislated, Abbott's repeal policy becomes unsustainable. How can he campaign to have no mining tax whatsoever when the big three miners accept the principle of such a tax anyway? At that point his policy becomes absurd.
Assuming the latest Newspoll is correct and not a rogue poll, Labor is trailing only 53-47 per cent in the two-party-preferred vote with Abbott's dissatisfaction rating at a record 57 per cent. Labor can win from here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ks-dam-for-dr-no/story-e6frg74x-1226189350537

Quite. Shallow, empty slogans will always bring you undone. Look at Labor and their 'Moving Forward' insanity. Thank god they dropped that. Nearly lost them the election.

Abbott is just lazy when it comes to details and policy. He is handy to have as a pitbull on a leash, but don't expect him to be able to provide leadership and long term vision and planning, which is what a country needs.

And further on

Labor's mining tax is strictly a third-best option. It is compromise piled upon compromise. The original tax destroyed Kevin Rudd's leadership and this tax originates in the fix Gillard negotiated with the big three miners to save her political neck.
This tax has a big hole. It does not replace state royalties (as Henry advocated) and Labor is pledged to credit any state royalty increases, with NSW and Western Australia having already announced such increases.
While Treasury estimates it will raise $11.1 billion over the forward estimates, it concedes these estimates are highly volatile and the opposition scoffs at this figure being raised. There is scepticism throughout industry about how much the big miners will pay.
Abbott is on firm ground on abolishing the tax. He is on weak ground, however, saying Australia doesn't need such a tax. The opposition should argue not against the mining tax but for a better mining tax.

Labor and the Liberals together could have created a tax that is less compromised, and does the job better, without the problem of the States. By just blindly opposing everything, and forcing Labor to compromise it's policies to get them through the hung parliament, Abbott is just penalising Australians to suit his own vanity and dreams of power. Australia could be getting better policies through, if the Liberals would be helping Australia, not torturing it. A principled and intelligent opposition would be in a better political position in the long run, and Australia would be better off. The short term tactical battles are tiring, pointless and self defeating.

 

[a_unique_person]

And more

TONY Abbott faces criticism from within his own party for not seeking frontbench approval for a new anti-dumping policy attacked by Labor as out of step with World Trade Organisation rules. And Labor has derided the Opposition Leader as an economic xenophobe in a strong attack designed to consolidate its campaign to portray him as a political opportunist stuck in a cycle of constant negativity.
The pressure came yesterday after the The Australian published a Newspoll showing public dissatisfaction with Mr Abbott's performance had reached a high of 57 per cent.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...icy-consultation/story-fn59niix-1226189467424


It was the lack of consultation that brought down Rudd, and is the reason that all the rumours of a return of Rudd were just hysteria whipped up by News Ltd. The Labor caucus doesn't want Rudd back, he did not consult. The Liberal Party is having exactly the same problem with Abbott. Politicians don't like to be treated like that. But this is hardly new news, it goes way back over many issues. Abbott does not consult with his own party. Now that his negativism is being shown to be only a short term strategy that may not win them power, but paint them into a dead end, Abbott will have to change his ways. Hopefully it will mean that Labor can put through legislation that is not so compromised, with the opposition acting in Australia's best interests, not Abbotts perceived best interests.

 

[Wildy]

What catching a plane has to do with international obligations is lost on me.

Probably because you don't understand how the asylum process works, or do you think that only people who arrive by boat are able to seek aslyum?

Perhaps you could simply explain why people would pay more to put their children on a leaky boat to Australia than jump on a plane to NZ.

Why don't you tell me instead? You're claiming that following our international obligations is a pull factor.

This was your point not mine.

Don't try and turn this around on me. I think you'll find that you were the one who claimed that following our international obligations is a pull factor and I was the one asking why this pull factor wasn't affecting NZ considering that it was easier to enter it during the time of the PS compared to Australia.

Exactly. Why aren't they?

Considering that I was asking you that question you tell me.

Perhaps they aren't all legitimate asylum seekers?

What is the difference between a legitimate asylum seeker and an illegitimate asylum seeker and how can you differentiate between them before processing their application?

Well done!
Now why do you suppose they don't have a valid visa?

As an example this is the application checklist to get a tourist visa. In order to get it you need certain personal documents such as a passport and birth certificate.

As the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights point out:

Refugees are often forced to leave their countries in such a hurry that they do not have time to organise the appropriate travel documents. Often, refugees are too scared to ask for these documents because it is the government or its agents that are persecuting them and they need to leave secretly. In other cases, where there has been a breakdown of the State, the relevant office or agency may have ceased to exist or be impossible to access.

Exactly. So by deeming people arriving here "in greater need" than others you create a huge pull factor.

Do you have any actual evidence that this is the case or do you only have to cry "pull factor" and it is so?

Again, you seem to be arguing my case.

But the only way that I'm apparently arguing your case is that you're taking my argument and then attaching "therefore pull factor" to it. Why don't you go and find some actual evidence that suggests that fulfilling our international obligations is a pull factor?

I think I hear some furious backpedalling.

Then I'm sure you can show everyone how I've backpedalled.

I have never said any such thing, in fact I am supportive of the opposite. I would be happy for Australia to extend its obligations and take more.

I never said that you did. I'm asking you a question which you hadn't answered. But then how can you be happy for Australia to extend its obligations if you believe that doing so is just a pull factor?

 

[kmortis]

Play nice or go away

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[a_unique_person]

The word is out for Abbott, grow up, do what is right for Australia. Time to end the mindless and self defeating (for Australia) populism.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-...w-changing-of-the-tide/3655146?WT.svl=theDrum

Tony Abbott and his team are being inundated with advice to change tactics; to move away from constant negativity and to start spelling out a road map for the future. The advice stems from a series of Abbott judgments in the past few weeks.
It started with his refusal to throw the Government a lifeline on asylum seekers, even though both major parties want legally protected offshore processing. Then came Abbott's siding with Qantas and Alan Joyce on the grounding of the airline. (And of course, that shone a light on the Coalition's lack of resolve on industrial relations generally.) Next was Abbott's extraordinary dismissal of Australian support for the IMF and its reserves; then the reversal of his opposition to an increase in superannuation; and now, given sharper focus this week, his unwillingness to further tax mining companies at a time of unprecedented wealth.
Tellingly, the advice in the media to rethink some of these strategies is not coming from people that Coalition supporters can easily dismiss as raving lefties. Let's go through them, keeping in mind all of them wrote their hard hitting analysis before Tuesday's opinion poll was published. They were neither emboldened nor influenced by that significant shift in sentiment.
On Saturday, Laurie Oakes was critical of Abbott's stand on the mining tax, suggesting his refusal to share the wealth around stems from a belief that the miners can't afford to pay more taxes.
"Those deprived of the benefits … will see that for the nonsense it is," he wrote.
Oakes said of Abbott that his style "is pure attack dog, as feral as you'd get. Everything, irrespective of merit, has to be opposed and torn to pieces."
Then in The Australian on Monday, well-respected economics writer David Uren in a comment piece (alongside a story headed: Robb ropeable for being excluded) got stuck into the Opposition Leader for his stand on IMF funding under a headline: Abbott's distortion of IMF role beggars belief.
On Tuesday (written Monday) in the Age, economist Michael Pascoe accused Abbott of being guilty of "a gross failure of economic credibility" (on the mineral resources tax). Pascoe wrote that "either there are no brains or the leadership is so pathetically shallow that they are prepared to damage the country to get the keys to the Lodge."
Finally, Wednesday, Paul Kelly in The Australian (after Newspoll, but consistent with a theme that he has been developing for some weeks) called on the Coalition to replace outright opposition with ideas of its own.
Kelly suggested the Coalition should come up with its own alternative mining tax.
He wrote: "How can he (Abbott) campaign to have no mining tax whatsoever when the big three miners accept the principle of such a tax anyway? At that point his policy becomes absurd."

This change in that attitude of the press is way overdue, but at least it's out there now. Abbott cannot be ignored, because what he has done is to damage Australia. With a minority government self serving negativism has to take a back seat to responsible opposition. Even if it's going to kill him, sometimes he just has to agree that the Labor party is right about something, or that they are mostly right, but, with some negotiation, can achieve something worthwhile, rather than just trying to tear it all down. He has now committed to an increase in super, in agreement with the Labor Party, which is good, because we still need more savings for the future.

 

[a_unique_person]

MTR is set to close. The attempt to bring Sydney shock jock style 'entertainment' parading as journalism has failed miserably.

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/mtr-set-to-close-20111110-1n8u0.html

 

[a_unique_person]

Tony Abbott realises he was wrong, again.

TONY Abbott has softened his hardline stance against Australian assistance for the struggling eurozone, saying Australia shouldn't shirk its international duties.

The Opposition Leader previously declared Europe should get its own house in order, suggesting Australians shouldn't contribute to an IMF-led bailout “so that Greeks can continue to retire at 50”.
But, after talks with British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in London overnight, Mr Abbott said Australia should meet its obligations as a good global citizen.
“I never said that Australia should fail in its duties of international citizenship,” he told the ABC.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-of-the-eurozone/story-fn59nsif-1226192349016

 

[Wildy]

<snip> I think that right now we should just let the thread die.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Personal call-out deleted.