Prev
Next

Campaign countdown: she will decide who comes here

David Penberthy

by David Penberthy

12 Jul 05:56am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Border Protection, Campaign Countdown, Election 2010, Julia Gillard, Refugees

104 comments

Julia Gillard has kept Labor in a winning position - but unsurprisingly, Labor has shed votes to the Greens after the new PM did a passable impersonation of a couple of notable recent conservatives on the border protection question. You can read Phil Coorey on the latest SMH-Nielsen poll here, an interesting take from Mal Farr in The Daily Telegraph on how Kevin Rudd might have handled the so-called Dili solution here,  and Peter Van Onselen on how both Labor and the Coalition have bungled the issue here. Below is my take on Gillard’s last week in which asylum seekers dominated.

Coast is clear: Julia Gillard and David Bradbury all at sea last week. Photo: AAP

There was something laughable about the ham-fisted symbolism of it all – our new Prime Minister Julia Gillard selecting western Sydney MP David Bradbury as her First Mate for a naval exercise off the coast of Darwin last week so they could be photographed scouring the Arafura Sea for pesky queue-jumpers.

According to Google Maps, Bradbury’s marginal seat of Lindsay is 3932km from Darwin. It contains two water features, the Nepean River and the Penrith Aquatic Centre, neither of which are navigable from the Top End.

Bradbury also holds no senior positions in government which warranted his presence in Darwin – he is not a minister or a parliamentary secretary, he plays a limited role on a few economic committees, none of which have anything to do with defence, national security, border protection or immigration.

Despite this, Bradbury affected his best har-har-me-hearties face as he stood in shirt sleeves on the poop deck, or whatever it’s called, nodding sagely as his new leader promised to run a tight ship on border protection.

If you wanted to be extremely cynical, you could say it was the second time in as many terms that the seat of Lindsay has been involved in a racially-flavoured photo opportunity – the first being the amateurish and stupid work of a pack of Liberal Party operatives who were photographed distributing stooged pamphlets falsely claiming Labor supported the construction of a mosque in the seat; the second being this slicker, more subliminal button-pushing exercise, aimed at reassuring voters in marginal suburban electorates across the nation that Labor is serious about stemming the flow of humanity to our north.

The analogy falls down because the conduct of those Lindsay Liberals was framed around a divisive and reprehensible lie which ended up being the subject of charges under the Electoral Act.
Labor would argue that Bradbury’s presence at Wednesday’s naval exercise was nothing more than a reflection that the Government had heard and heeded the concerns of voters in marginal seats about the need for an orderly immigration program.

Labor could try to argue that. But there has been much in the atmospherics of the past few days of refugee-dominated debate which should scotch the persisting view that Labor has some kind of moral superiority over the Liberals on the asylum seeker question.

Julia Gillard’s rhetoric on this issue isn’t a world away from John Howard’s 2001 assertion that “we will decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come”. It’s even been comparable to that of another equally famous political redhead, who used her maiden speech in 1996 to say that Australians should not be made to feel like rednecks or racists in saying they wanted tight controls over our borders.

That person, obviously enough, was Pauline Hanson. And in the same year that she made that infamous maiden speech, the then Prime Minister was attacked mercilessly by the Left for delivering a subsequent address where he claimed that “the pall of censorship” had been lifted from the political correctness of the Keating Labor era, leaving Mr Howard facing accusations that he was giving a green light to racists.

Most sensible Australians support an orderly immigration program and think that the Government of the day, be it Labor or Liberal, should put effective policies in place to make sure that people do not arrive haphazardly, and are properly checked and vetted when they do.

That said, the events of the past few days, and the language we have heard from the ALP, should finally prick the balloons of those who danced around like giddy undergraduates in November 2007 saying that the racist John Howard devil had finally been laid to rest.

On the asylum seeker question, the key difference between 2010 and 1996-2007 is not what is being said, but who is saying it. One of the happiest people about that will be David Bradbury, who now has the perfect photograph for his glossy election flier, flanked by the PM, to be published under the headline “Gillard and Bradbury: Tough on Border Protection”, coming soon to a letterbox near you.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

104 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:22am | 12/07/10

      Phrases like “subliminal button-pushing exercise” and “racially-flavoured photo opportunity” are a form of dog-whistling - a way in which soft-left ellitists tell each other that those unwashed Aussie proles are all racists, not nice people like us..

      Such coded words may reinforce one’s feelings of smug moral superiority, but they do nothing to convince the electorate. If anything, voters are becoming angry at the constant stream of accusations and put-downs from the self-appointed guardians of their virtue.

      Reply

    • eric2 says:

      09:51am | 12/07/10

      Smug moral superiority Eric?  Abbott used dodgey Christian spin to claim Jesus would turn the boats back. Unfortunately the poor ol’ Mad Monk while standing on the Bible (like Rudd) forgot to read Matthew Chapter 2, where the baby Jesus and his family threatened by death, fled the country to Egypt. If the Egyptians hadn’t had such a welcoming refugee policy - there would have been no Jesus story and no Tony Abbott (or Rudd).

      If Abbott is tough on “illegals’ he will also turn the planes back now won’t he? Practical policies work over angry (and hypocritical )moral smugness mate!

    • Phil says:

      09:53am | 12/07/10

      Isnt it funny how whilst I disagree with what they did, Jackie Kelly’s hubby and mates sending out the flyers were actually spot on.

      A vote for Labor was a vote for Muslim Asylum Seekers and the like.

      Penbo is spot on about Bradbury looking for the Photo Op.

      Labor are going with whatever it takes.

      I still think its game on and not the shoe in that many think for the election. Abbott however needs to get more policies out into the real world. The only problem is that Labor will copy his every move. They are none too smart, they copied Howard and changed a few things to appear progressive, then as per Midnight Oil front man Peter Garrett changed everything once they got in.

      They have already copied some of Abbott’s health initiatives, boat people ideas, even some of the climate ones.

      Maybe Labor instead of employing highly paid advisors could actually try and get some talent into the party.

    • James says:

      10:09am | 12/07/10

      Wow, the ‘nice people’ of Australia rise awfully early to switch on their computers and get the first comment on anything relating to asylum seekers these days…

    • tony2 says:

      10:24am | 12/07/10

      eric2, when did Abbott claim Jesus would turn the boats back?

      Please quote his exact words and provide a link.

    • acker says:

      10:46am | 12/07/10

      To many supporters and critics in this immigration debate have little empathy or knowledge of the circumstances of assylum seekers and the problems that occur at suburban level where multi-culturalism is not working as in text books

    • Jon says:

      01:30pm | 12/07/10

      The problem with the immigration policy is that the people who promote it, or support it, never have live with its negative outcomes. Most are soft inner city lefties, upper north shore liberals, NGO’s who make living from it and big business that want cheap Labor. The people in Western Suburbs in some of our largest cities are forced to live with it, and they are not happy. If they express any legitimate concerns about the consequences of unplanned population growth, out comes the racist or redneck card to shut down debate. Rudd is already looking the next posting in the malfunctioning UN bureaucracy courtesy of Obama. He will never have to live with any of his bad decisions, but we will.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:44pm | 12/07/10

      “eric2”, Tony Abbott was answering a direct question from someone pushing the usual religious line fo trying to get a “controversial” quote out of him, and as usual a question that they’d never ask of Rudd who had pretty much the same beliefs.  And as usual, Abbott plainly answered the question asked of him.

      And why would we need to turn planes back, are you aware that only a tiny minority of people try to claim asylum after coming here on a plane?  Are you talking about visa overstayers, of which nearly all go home within two weeks of their visas expiring and of which none are trying to claim asylum seeker status?

      Isn’t it nice that Gillard is trying to take on John Howard’s practical policy that worked once before, even though she still can’t admit she was plain wrong all along in the years she spent demonising the Liberal party in parliament and in public for exactly what she’s doing now.

    • MarK says:

      08:25pm | 12/07/10

      shabangabang you do realise that article proves he didn’t say what eric2 accuses him of right?

      Glasses indeed

    • eric2 says:

      03:12pm | 13/07/10

      Mark K perhaps you would like to use your special psychic powers and paraphrase Tony Abbotts statements so we can understand it. Assuming the Mad Monk knew what he was saying. Even he was tricked or whatever you and Ben are suggesting!

    • DD Ball says:

      07:46am | 12/07/10

      I like migrants and I want more of them. I don’t think it is helpful or compassionate to drown them or subject them to piracy and deprivation, but the former ALP policy didn’t care about what i thought. Since they weakened the border protection laws people have drowned, endured piracy and deprivation and been left in limbo, not knowing where they will live their lives. And then there are refugees. Gillard campaigned hard to have these terrible things happen to these desperate people.
      Now Gillard attempts to choose a policy in line with that which worked effectively before she weakened it. But it is very far from a passable imitation of the policy of before. The former policy worked. The former policy was announced after the detail had been worked out. Here we have evidence that the ALP cannot even implement policy that works. There is a reason why they opposed the good policy, but that is something we have not seen analyzed at any length in the mainstream press, and it is the reason why Rudd was jettisoned and why people did not know why Rudd was dismissed, or even that he was going to be.

      Reply

    • NeilM says:

      08:48am | 12/07/10

      The Howard policy was never tested by the same level of world wide movement of refugees. To hypothesise that it would have been anymore effective than Labors policy is just an hypothesis and of no value to reaching a position that works.

      The central feature of the Gillard policy is the Regional Processing Centre. My understanding is that all refugees for the region would be intended to go there. Put simply put all the refugees in one place, which leaves the people smugglers with the job of getting to the Centre and shipping people out (reducing boarder protection costs and making it far more difficult to smuggle refugees/ boat people).

      Labor once again has rushed a policy and not thought out the sell component first.

      By the way I find the concept of going to such lengths to stop boat people to be absolutely silly, as I found Howards policy and the disgusting position of the Liberal/Country Party in repeatedly exploiting these people to gain a vote over an issue of minimal importance.

    • DD Ball says:

      12:51pm | 12/07/10

      NeilM, the push pull argument is known to be false. The people who arrive do so partly out of desperation, but also because of access. It is a central tenet of Zero Tolerance philosophy that removing a market eliminates the drive. So Rudd may have felt that the result of the Pacific Solution would be to have ended the push factor. He may also have felt that President Bush had been vastly more successful at prosecuting foreign policy than Clinton, and so the world was safer. That a small number of illegals kept testing the waters was possibly the result of good counter intelligence results too? However, the pirates have deep pockets, probably as the result of established drug/terrorist networks, and so the runs were easy to re establish .. as the desperate people were still available. Also, the refugee camps around the world are still sizable. It is appalling you support the exploitation and tragic deaths of desperate people to make a faux point attacking conservatives and supporting the ALP as you do. Journalism is no place to hide. You can put out an idea and have it read years later. Those journalists who joined with Gillard to savage conservative policy made statements that are now shown to be wrong, just as her own arguments are shown to be meaningless vitriol. The world has not changed as greatly as you suggest with the elections of Rudd or Obama, they just made things worse.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:15am | 12/07/10

      Prime Minister Gillard is saddled with her amateurish handling of the Timor detention centre site issue. That she was recieving bad advice is certain but the real concern to voters - is she still being advised by the same people ?
      The site of a detention and processing centre under Labor is far from resolved . Timor’s prime Minister and Deputy have made clear they are lukewarm at best and a large number of Timorese M.P.‘s are downright angry over the arrogant assumption that Timor was expected to buckle under to Australian dominance.
      The early polls just released suggest primary support slipping away from Labor as the euphoria of a female P.M. fades , a correction which has probably got a little further to travel .
      Also up for likely correction is the 2pp vote , as polling assumes that it remains at the last election result. The likely reality is that the coming federal poll will be far closer than these polls suggest . Whoever wins , will do so with the barest of a majority.

      Reply

    • David says:

      08:33am | 12/07/10

      I’d rather live next door to an immigrant then a red neck.

      Reply

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      09:32am | 12/07/10

      How is an immigrant going to turn into a red-neck?  Or is the immigrant going to move out and have their place taken by a red-neck?  Your comment makes no sense.

    • Peasant #3167 says:

      09:42am | 12/07/10

      I’d rather live next door to an immigrant than a murderer. And I think a Chinese immigrant would rather live next door to a Chinese immigrant than an Australian family. But I still think we should cut down our immigration intake and stop people entering our country without ID.

    • casba says:

      09:57am | 12/07/10

      @David

      Then perhpas you should move house David.

    • George says:

      11:51am | 12/07/10

      So move to Lakemba, Villawood, Ryde or Cabramatta then and leave us Aussies in peace.

    • Gary says:

      11:57am | 12/07/10

      I understand your statement David, you’d rather an immigrant than ignorance.  No idea what Nigel was on about??

    • Alyssa KT says:

      12:28pm | 12/07/10

      David wrote “then” instead of “than”

    • Ed D says:

      07:49pm | 12/07/10

      I wonder if your next door neighbor would say the same thing?

    • Pat says:

      08:33am | 12/07/10

      Mr Penbethy have I missed something? I see no difference between Gillard and Howard yet the Canberra press gallery, the persons who head our moral barometer and tell us what is right and what is wrong are strangely silent.
      Perhaps you can ask why they have failed us and have asked no questions. Is there a reason? Should I be cynical when wondering, why? I read Gillard says one thing and the leaders of East Timor and Indonesia say they have never been asked. Could madame Gillard be lying? Surely not. Yet there is no questioning or comment.

      Reply

    • Nathan says:

      09:20am | 12/07/10

      Pat, agreed, but what I found even more astonishing was the lack of coverage and analysis of Chairman Rudd’s policy of refusing to process any Sri Lankan and Afghani asylam claims. All the while still bleating on about a so called “racist” policy of Howard. I always found that singleing out 2 nationalities like he did was more of a racist policy than a blanket policy of boarder protection under Howard. But not once did a political comentator that i saw mention anything of the sort. If it was a Howard / Abbott policy, it would have been front page news with Racist in the headlines.

    • Gregg says:

      01:50pm | 12/07/10

      Leaders aside, the huge difference bwtween Liberal and Labor policies is that Labor fail to admit they have got it wrong with the removal of TPVs as that one decision sent the signal to boat arriving asylum seekers that you get to Australia and you’re in permanently.

      Labor and various journos would have you believe it’s a push from source factor rather than a pull by policy and they rant on about the Sri Lankan civil war ending and more violence in Afghanistan.
      The Sri Lankan civil war and violence in Afghanistan have been running for three decades!
      Have a look at the actual figures you can find published - http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/sp/BoatArrivals.pdf , conclusions debatable but arrival numbers in a table right at back.
      UNHCR data will show that there are refugee centres in Iran, Pakistan and India for Sri Lankans and the question never gets answered as to why they have been bypassed.
      You have to wonder whether the question is ever pursued by Immigration investigators.
      If people have money and are prepared to take a risk, a better destination awaiting would seem to be rather attractive.
      So Labor will hope to deal with that by directing people to Timor and that’ll be dandy for will that mean Australia will then select more refugees from there because of refugees/political pressure?
      So what of those who did not have money and who are likely in more dire straits?
      We just forget them do we?
      Wouldn’t it be better to address what the drawcard is?
      And then asylum seekers could either decide to check in with the UN or if refused, they at least have some money to develop a life for themselves where they are and leave true refugees to be more looked out for.
      Is it not the Liberal party policy to address the drawcard pull?
      Howard used the Pacific Solution because we did not have Christmas Island developed, a big difference and for right reasons at the time for if the flow was not stemmed, there would have been more deaths at sea
      as well.
      Just like the other home insulation scheme this scheme of Labor is contributing to the deaths of people.

    • Must Read says:

      08:39am | 12/07/10

      I hope everyone who is interested in asylum seekers, refugees and immigration has read Christopher Caldwell’s “Reflection on the Revolution in Europe” .

      Reply

    • Alyssa KT says:

      12:41pm | 12/07/10

      Must Read, I have read some reviews on this book… I’m interested to know the reasons you’d like people to read it….
      Do you think we should be fearful of Muslims “taking over the world”? How quickly can we expect people to fit in after arriving into an unwelcoming country from a homeland they wish they hadn’t had to leave?

      “But the arguments Caldwell makes at times feel nuanced as he sees the greatest threat as coming from Muslim immigrants which he views as monolithic in their unwillingness to assimilate. That’s not to say Caldwell doesn’t make interesting observations or fails to ask hard questions as he certainly does. The problem is his lack of objectivity often undercuts the points he’s trying to make and at times he veers into illogic.
      “There is an impatience for recent immigrants to assimilate, but the process is slow and takes generations.”
      Todd Bartholomew - Amazon.com

    • AdamC says:

      12:56pm | 12/07/10

      Actually, Alyssa, the most interesting thing about the book thus far (I have yet to finish it) is the (mis)use of the 1951 refugee architecture as a means to facilitate settlement in the West. That is why the book is highly relevant to this discussion. Asylum is being used by Afghans and Tamils as a device to gain pemanent residency. It should be seen as a migration channel, not a vehicle for exercises in moral sanctimony.

      The author’s questioning of the economic benefits of mass migration are also highly compelling.

    • Dash says:

      08:52am | 12/07/10

      So if the latest poll is to be believed, the LNP has more of the primary vote but is due to lose the election on preferences. Labor has made such a balls up of just about everything they have touched, I find this extraordinary! I need to find someone who supports the government because I need this explained to me. After all the rorts and waste of taxpayer money and the clear fact that she’s rushing to an election whilst the honeymoon is on, people still support this??? ETS, insulation, School scheme rorts, increasing interest rates, budget defecit, record levels of foreign debt, backdown on the “non-negotiable” tax, non delivery of core election promises like grocery choice, fuelwatch, more affordable housing, childcare facilities!!! I just don’t understand. Who is it that’s supporting this rubbish?

      Reply

    • kp says:

      10:34am | 12/07/10

      Dash mate, I hear you but I for one cannot understand it either.  Everyone I speak to, even people who have voted Labor in the last election will NEVER vote them in again. I don’t know where the hell they are getting their polls from but it sure ain’t me.  I for one will be giving Tony and Joe and the Liberal Party my vote and will be proud to do so !!  I am still very perplexed by the Australian people.  They are suckers for punishment in my book !!  And I wish they would get rid of the Greens Party as it seems to me that anyone who doesn’t want to vote Labor are opting for the Greens which is going to get Labor back in.  I am just FED UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • T.Chong says:

      11:07am | 12/07/10

      Dash, KP relax, sounds like you two are all befuddled.
      Breathe slowly.
      Try getting out a bit more from whatever shoe box your in .
      Plenty of people will vote Labor, as many fear the LNP industrial relations policy, knowing that the Libs ideas of industrial flexability are code for a renamed workchoices.
      Dash - dont you recall the Howard Doctrine of Core and Non Core Promises. ? He (Howard ) wrote the book.
      kp - dont know what political system you are used to, but providing a party does not endorse violence, kiddie porn, etc (all the usaul no-nos ) than why should any party be banned ? ie Do you advocate the silencing of ideas you dont like? Rather Orwellian.

    • AdamC says:

      09:29am | 12/07/10

      Labor is certainly engaging in a lot of pyrotechnics on this issue. But while they continue to offer permanent residency to boat arrivals, their policy lacks credibility. Not that anyone in the meeja seems to be talking about it. I guess it is up to the good people of Penrith to make their own judgements on the subject, and on their local MP.

      Must Read, I started reading that on the weekend. Thus far, it is certainly a fascinating cautionary tale. Aspects of the asylum policy experience of Europe are gugely resonant for Australia.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      09:30am | 12/07/10

      Pat,

      I agree with you, I fail to see little if any difference between the government’s and opposition’s position on this matter!!!
      Yet the media would have us believe there is a massive difference or are they just s**t stirring?

      The amount of money being spent to keep out around 5,000 boat people, makes me think it would be cheaper to let them in.

      That people come here is not, in my view the prime concern. Rather, it is where they settle. Government should direct them as to where they must live for the first 5 years in this country.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      02:01pm | 12/07/10

      One huge differnce John is the Labor policy has encouraged asylum seekers to risk their lives on the open sea and in fact people are dying.
      Labor has blood on their hands.
      The money being spent at the moment is not keeping out the boat asylum seekers.
      And you have no concern for the millions of refugees that boat people with money are allowed to displace?
      Who looks the healthiest, the boat people you see on Tele or the starving people of refugee centres.
      Have you no humane feelings?
      Yes, you do not always get the true facts from a lot of the media and heart tugging emotional stories of ” miraculous ” survival and hardship of a sea voyage probably attract more attention than millions starving in the refugee centres.
      You could call it the Corby factor!
      But have a look at some real facts from Immigration and the UNHCR

    • John A Neve says:

      02:40pm | 12/07/10

      Gregg,
      I repeat, there is little if any difference in the government’s and coalition’s policies on the “boat people”.
      As to your comment that the government’s “policy has encouraged asylum seekers”, I doubt that they have even read it.
      Regarding dying at sea; people have always died at sea, so what is new? Are you suggesting people have only just started to die under our current government?

      The fact is the number of people who enter this country as “boat people” is dwarfed by the number who come by air and that is a fact.

    • Randal says:

      03:00pm | 12/07/10

      @ Jan says “…Government should direct them as to where they must live for the first 5 years in this country… “

      So how exactly do we do that Jan???

      Does the government also “Direct” them as to the company they must work for and the type of job that they hold??

      What happens if they don’t like the neighborhood and decide to move, or the quit the job because its not for them??

      Sounds awfully like a policy used a rather large country associated with a bear… perhaps the answer is the same and if they do not do what they are told we send them off to the Gulag.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:18pm | 12/07/10

      Randal,
      What I have suggested has been done in a way before. Not too many years ago and for all I know this could still be the case?  A certain class of migrant had to have a sponsore, these people/companies the migrant was tied to for a period of two years. My father was one such.

      There is no reason why a “boat” person or similar could not be given a class of visa which allowed conditional entry to this country. One of the conditions could be where they lived. Not too hard really.

    • Gregg says:

      09:17pm | 12/07/10

      You remain ignorant of the facts if you so desire John and just repeating a mantra will not change it.
      Have a look at the figures and you’ll see that boat asylum seeker numbers were occurring in the 90s and then there was a step jump about 1999 - 2000 - 2001, that being Tampa time and Pacific solution in the absence of Christmas Island and following that the numbers dropped until after Labor got in and the TPVs were removed.
      You can be smart all you like but if you think the message re change of government and removal of TPVs didn’t get out on the info line you’re naive as well.
      And yes, keep your head buried in the sand if you think that with more people that attempt arrival by boats that more will not does and actually have.
      Of course more people arrive by planes than do by sea and seeing as they will not have been allowed on an aircraft without a visa, they will have one and yes, people intent on claiming asylum will put in an application for that is not illegal.
      And do all those that apply for asylum get it granted?
      Not by a long shot but you may have known that.

      As for sponsored migration, there certainly is that by employers and by states for statewide or regional locations but you are talking of skilled visa categories there.
      The last thing we need is to be catering for a category of people who are forcing their way in ahead of true refugees.
      The TPV was a conditional visa John and the Labor govrnment revoked it.
      It is also not as simple as just giving anyone any type of conditional visa for first you have legislation for all categories of visas and eligibility requirements for visas.

    • john says:

      09:39am | 12/07/10

      There is a perfectly good detention centre already built and empty in Nauru, why can’t gillard use that, or would that then mean her policy is an exact replica of howard’s

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      10:32am | 12/07/10

      John,
      Have you ever thought the the government of Nauru might not let us use that site?

    • Nicole says:

      10:55am | 12/07/10

      John A Neve,
      Perhaps the unelected PM could make a phone call?

    • Daryl says:

      11:54am | 12/07/10

      Nicole, but isn’t Nauru in the Pacific? Nah she can’t do that since she said there would be no return to the Pacific solution. Then again Labor did say the profits tax was “not-negotiable” and that they were going to build 200+ childcare facilities, and that they were economic conservatives, and that climate change was the biggest moral challenge of our time, and that there would be a root and branch overhaul of the tax system, and that the 2020 summit would deliver something useful, and that they wouldn’t touch the private health tax rebate and no child shall live without a laptop. Hmm perhaps there’s a pattern developing here??

    • MarK says:

      12:06pm | 12/07/10

      John A Neve. An approach has been made. The government of Nauru was approached by the opposition and they have agreed that it could be reused. An official from their government - read that as someone who can actually speak on behalf of the government unlike a GG or ET president - has given the assurance.

      Her is a very recent link http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=54578

      You can find older ones confirming Abbott and his team approached them.

      Yes the details have to be worked out.

      Yes, obviously the coalition needs to be in power to negotiate it properly.

      And no. Labor hasn’t called them. You see that would be the ultimate humiliation.

      I guess their egos will only allow them to imitate the policy on grounds that if it is in a different place and “their” idea it must be good. Gratton seems to think along these lines to as does Burnside and the many hypocrites out there in msm land.

      You see it is far nore wasteful to rebuild an existing centre somewhere else than use a perfectly good functional one. We are talking Labor of course. They who spare no expense to cover up the cracks and pork barrel their way to an election win.

      Oh btw. Nauru can be up and going now. Was it Evans that said this idea might takes 3+ years. In other words it is the policy we have to attempt to treat the the people of Australia as idiots for 3 elections. 2007 worked a treat. 2010 looks a bit dodgy though. 2013/14 it would reek but by then the faction masters would have a new play thing anyway.

      So John facts straight please. The answer is yes Nauru has been asked and it is ready to go. We know Abbott sets the agenda from opposition anyway. Labor may as well appoint him as Chief Minister for fixing the stuffs up and be done with it.

    • Nicole says:

      12:13pm | 12/07/10

      Daryl, and don’t forget that Jooolia’s got as much chance of being PM as she’s got playing for the Western Bulldogs. I’m beginning to think Rudd was her apprentice.

    • TC says:

      04:41pm | 12/07/10

      Hi Nicole

      Is the only reason Julia Gillard isnt on the field with the Bulldogs that she wasn’t (s)elected?

    • dead to me says:

      06:12pm | 12/07/10

      John A Neve says
      Have you ever thought the the government of Nauru might be happy to let us use it as it provides a source of income.

    • thatmosis says:

      09:48am | 12/07/10

      Julia Gillrudd our esteemed Prime Spin-ister has just annouved the Pacific Solution Mk2 and the sheeple are gushing at how she has fixed the problem,NOT. The boats are still arriving and will continue as the opld policy still remains and the people running the boats know it. All she has done is placate the sheeple. The Greens wish her to become more Green which probably means they want her to close the power stations, take the cars off the road and make Australia a backwater in the 18th century and she will probably promise she will just to get the green preferences and then like her predecessor go back on the promises made. Different Tea Cosy same Tea Pot.

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      09:51am | 12/07/10

      A picture you don’t see put out by Labor, is Gillard and Co working the policy shredder overtime, this past 2 weeks,  like some failed company directors at audit. Pics of shredder shredding policies would make a great ad.

      Reply

    • Tails says:

      09:52am | 12/07/10

      This para sums up everything deliciously:

      According to Google Maps, Bradbury’s marginal seat of Lindsay is 3932km from Darwin. It contains two water features, the Nepean River and the Penrith Aquatic Centre, neither of which are navigable from the Top End.

      Gold, Sir. I doff my cap.

      Reply

    • Paddy says:

      09:59am | 12/07/10

      One thing that has remained constant throughout history is people who live in countries that have little wealth always gravitate to countries that have or are preceived to have wealth. It was obvious in Roman times as the hordes sought to conquer Rome, and finally did. It has continued ever since.
      It is still happening and now has a little help as Dictators and famine impact various nations.

      Reply

    • W.Adams says:

      10:26am | 12/07/10

      You must question the mentality and intelligence of voters that are supporting labor in
      belief that this`s a tuff policy, even if it get off the ground Home Affairs Minister has
      already admitted no guarantee the centre would be built in east Timore, or anywhere else
      within the NEXT 3 YEARS.
      So if voting for labor think that this policy will stop the illegals in the near future you`are
      being conned and the policy could still be a part of the election campaign in another 3
      years as the centre may still be on the wish list,,, dumb and dumber
      The policy of a processing centre in the region will make it more attractive to country shoppers, as we are the only country in the region that will accept them once they`re a granted asylum….. it will draw more country shoppers like a magnet

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      10:46am | 12/07/10

      There is no tough stand by Julia, just rhetoric to get votes before the election. the chances of this getting with East Tmir is very thin as many East Timorese parliamentarians have already said NO. Julia knows it won’t come together but its election time again. believe Julia at your peril. For those on the left, Julia will get those votes back anyway so very smart politics and spin.

      Reply

    • Vincent says:

      10:47am | 12/07/10

      If I were “extremely cynical”, considering your own notoriety in inflammatory rhetoric (“Illegals in luxury at Villawood"etc. a not inconsequential contribution to the current level of discussion), I’d say that you were still milking this issue. Would you maintain that you are contributing positively?

      Reply

    • biff says:

      10:53am | 12/07/10

      It is to be hoped that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s comments on illegal boat people have been approved by Paul Howes and the ALP camarilla.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      12:17pm | 12/07/10

      Don’t worry, Bill Shorton pulled on the string on her back before the Press Conference. All is well

    • Bob says:

      11:05am | 12/07/10

      Abbott has been consistent on this policy all the way through. And he has the backing of the LNP. Labour has been bagging the Libs ever since Howard introduced to now. All of a sudden, we have a 180 degree transformation. Can a dog change its spots. Gillard only had a phone call and nothing has really taken place yet. it’s all talk just like Rudd did before the last election. Labour is excellent just before elections in coming up with “me too” policies, then not acting on them or changing them after the election. Anyone who believes Gillard is kidding themselves.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:10am | 12/07/10

      Since both Liberal and Labor both support large scale immigation, any stance on boat people is largely irrelevant and hypocritical.

      Reply

    • George says:

      12:02pm | 12/07/10

      Exactly. We’re getting 400,000 in the front door and a pitiful 6000 in the back.

      Both Liberal and Labor are puppets for the corporations and the mega rich. I’ll be voting independant.

    • Macca says:

      12:23pm | 12/07/10

      @Shane & George, whilst your points are valid, the Boat People debate is as much about Safety as it is about immigration.

    • Gregg says:

      02:13pm | 12/07/10

      On one hand George you need to look at nett permanent immigration as wherever you got your 400t from you’ll find that it includes about 200t temporary residency visas.
      And as Macca indicates Shane, you would it seem care little for the deaths at sea that occur nor the millions in refugee centres who without much in way of financial support are likely to be in far more dire straits.
      Reading up on some facts does help to reduce ignorance of them and coming up with inhumane views.

    • Peter says:

      03:02pm | 13/07/10

      Regardless of what the pollies tell us, we are getting a big Australia whether we like it or not. Business will dictate to Government what its migration policies will be. Unfortunately, us mere voters won’t get much of a say…

    • Gary says:

      12:01pm | 12/07/10

      Has anybody seen the Simpons episode where Springfield spend millions of dollars on “Bear Patrol”? And then end up blaming immigrants for the city’s economic turmoil!

      Its like watching Labor deflect our economic woes onto the illegal immigrants! Matt Groening take a bow!

      Reply

    • Amber says:

      12:16pm | 12/07/10

      I always said that all Indonesia has to do is come here for a picnic one day and we would be overcome.
      If we don’t stop the boats coming and begin to look sympathetic to their arrivals , what will we do when they start arriving in flotillas, which they will surely do. You have to shut the gate BEFORE that horse bolts!

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      12:32pm | 12/07/10

      Ok, she may still be in a winning position but it would only take a uniform swing of about 2.5% against the ALP & they would be out on their ears. All thanks to St. Julia Gillard of the ALP. They will rely entirely on the Greens to get back in. One or two more polls like this and she will set a record for the Prime Minister who served the shortest, unelected, term in our history!

      Reply

    • Tony H says:

      12:35pm | 12/07/10

      People don’t seriously think Gillard is ever going to go through with this do they? It’s just stalling B.S. to tide them over until after the election, they won’t be changing any of the current arrangements.

      Reply

    • steve says:

      12:50pm | 12/07/10

      If it was almost laughable that the Member for Lindsay, David Bradbury, was on board the patrol boat with the Prime Minister, then surely it must be just as bemusing that his constituents in Western Sydney, of all places, are more concerned about asylum seekers than the rest of Australia. It appears that no one scorns new asylum seekers more than already accepted asylum seekers. If Bradbury’s presence on the naval boat helped allay their fears, then it was a fruitful and justified exercise. More important than his close-up view of what our border protection personnel face whenever an ‘illegal’ boat arrives, is Julia Gillard’s balanced approach to refugees. Firm but compassionate. In total contrast to Tony Abbott’s childish “turn the boats back” policy. So what if it takes a few years to get it right? It’s worth it because over the next 30 years we are looking at an additional 15 million new immigrants, whoever is in power.

      Reply

    • jamie says:

      01:04pm | 12/07/10

      I would suggest that the ALP will go into the election sounding all tough on the boats yet once elected will conveniently do nothing, change nothing, blame the Libs and hope that people simply forget

      Reply

    • Dognuts says:

      01:43pm | 12/07/10

      As a former resident of the Penrith LGA, I can vouch for the simmering fear of migrants that exists there. Bear in mind, the population ids overwhelmingly anglo, but that doesn’t stop them fretting at night over the vast hordes of invaders coming to despoil the great Penrith way of life (beer, bourbon, plasma Tv’s and V8’s if I recall correctly).  I have since moved to the Auburn LGA, which must be the most ethnically diverse LGA in the country. I love it, and I don’t at all see the ‘negatives’ of multiculturalism. My neighbours are Indian, Lebanese, Chnise, Vietnamese and Somali and we have a great old time swapping yarns over the fence. If the idiots decide our next government based on this issue, then we have plenty to worry about.

      Reply

    • Graham S says:

      02:00pm | 12/07/10

      All this talk about boat people. Why doesn’t the Government charter a rather large cruise ship,plonk it off the coast of Indonesia in international waters and sell bunks & cabins to the illegals @ say $3000 per person, kids under 10 free. Far less to pay than people smuggler fees and a whole lot safer. Do all the illegal immigrant processing out there. Those who qualify can be flown into Darwin less their $3K bond to cover the airfare and processing costs. Those who don’t are sent back to their native country, less the cost of their bond and they’re hardly going to jump overboard and escape which is probable on the mainland. While all this is happening, these lucky passengers are enjoying a relaxing holiday in the sun strolling the decks in peace, maybe Midnight Oil could entertain them. There’s swimming pools, deck games, Aussie themed films and souveniers, ships casino with protection visa prizes. All this at half the cost of detention centres, the ship pays for itself and less angst for the pro & anti illegal immigrant urgers. It’s a win win no brainer.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      02:18pm | 12/07/10

      So Graham, you would just rather encourage more and more because they had some finance to bypass the millions of refugees in refugee centres would you?
      Ever note the conditions and health of many UN refugee centres as against these supposed desperate people with money.

    • Graham S says:

      02:49pm | 12/07/10

      Gee Greg, sorry to upset your wah and putting aside your overwhelming concern for the “millions” we would process the existing illegal’s who have the means and capacity to already pay the smugglers and are using their existing wealth to do so. And they are already on their way because they are already in Indonesia & not stuck in some UN refugee camp because they have the money not to be in one.
      We offer a short boat ride to international waters. We have to be entrepreneurial and cut out the middle man. This is big business and by George we should be in it, do all our best to be part of the Solution and make a few bucks along the way if only to appease the Australian taxpayer. And I forgot to mention, on the negative side the cruise ship processing option can include speeches by Abbott, Gillard et al , film of the Cronulla riots and Google earth street views of that horrific wasteland known as western Sydney, Broadmeadows, rugby league fans and the entire state of South Australia. After those images and once word got back, it may then deter others joining the ship and the illegal’s would trickle to but a handful

    • Mick In The Hills says:

      06:12pm | 12/07/10

      Have you got a political party, Graham S ?

      I’ll vote for you!

    • Tails says:

      03:10pm | 12/07/10

      Nice to see Julia has come out today saying “Trust me”.
      What’s that old saying again…?
      Funny. I thought trust was something that had to be earned.

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      03:50pm | 12/07/10

      Is it “Beware a red head bearing gifts…”

    • Tails says:

      04:04pm | 12/07/10

      Close. Never trust anyone who says trust me.

    • Zac says:

      04:16pm | 12/07/10

      I happen to read the tweet of a young minister at a large Church.  Seems to me he has certainly taken up the advice of our - union elected - PM Julia - to be a non-pc. Here is his message——“I would rather have a leader that the people voted for” - and this - “note to Canberra: our borders need protecting not managing”

      Reply

    • Dramfire says:

      04:16pm | 12/07/10

      Billy Hughes was of Welsh heritage and a member of the Welsh Baptist Church. Billy migrated to Australia on assistance passage when he was young because the damp conditions of his childhood adversely affected his health. Yep, all true.

      Sound familiar? Billy Hughes, the little digger, went down as the biggest rat in ALP history.

      I don’t know if he had red hair ...

      Reply

    • poa says:

      04:23pm | 12/07/10

      So its Gunna Gillard who has helped stuff the nation but is “gunna do things like the Coalition next time”, or Abbot who has come up with the policies that Joolya has suddenly discovered.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      04:27pm | 12/07/10

      ...maybe when Jillard has successfully stopped a person smuggler from arriving on our shores, she can fly a bright red F/A 18 Super Hornet onto the deck of an air craft carrier emblazoned with the word ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?’ Only instead of shaking hands with her generals, she can shake hands with all those marginal seat holders who played such an intrinsic role in the protection of our borders from boat people.

      Reply

    • Gran Depine says:

      05:07pm | 12/07/10

      PM Gillard’s Neuro Linguistic Programming techniques are not working. The poor pet, her minders think that the majority of the electorate are stupid. ETS number 2 “A Clayton’s Pacific Solution” that is, a Pacific Solution when you are not having a Pacific Solution will be a failure in East Timor. ETS number 1 (a.k.a ETS mark two minus Malcom Turnball and Rudd) will also be another catastrophic failure because the Gillard team will once again do their best not to explain the feasibility of their poor policy and avoid answering simple questions like, can Australia afford an ETS? She will attempt to answer the question to the electorate with an emotional blackmail answer that includes a weather forecast in 2100 and the moral challenge of eating a BS sandwich with lots of bread on the novo ocean front shores of Dubbo. All questions pertaining either ETS number1 or ETS number 2 will be argued with the smallest violin player in the ACT. PM Gillard is not a leader and the ALP have no idea about Geo-politics and damn them if they only have emotional answers to questions that should be answered with rational, realistic logical scrutiny to our potential economic threats.

      Reply

    • hot tub political machine says:

      05:31pm | 12/07/10

      Spot on David,

      Ms. Gillard has indeed surrendered her moral superiority on the issue - and with all the subtlety of “one of those guitars that’s like - two guitars”.

      Didn’t they put her up cuz Rudd was “bleeding votes left and right?” methinks Ms. Gillard is showing the same characteristics.

      Reply

    • fred says:

      05:59pm | 12/07/10

      David I heartily agree that “most sensible Australians support an orderly immigration program ...with effective policies in place to make sure that people do not arrive haphazardly, and are properly checked and vetted when they do” . Yes that is exactly what we do have - a migration process with selection criteria, health and security checks up front. What we now need to get our heads around is the fact that asylum seekers fleeing persecution and arriving - legally-  at our borders, are not migrants. A migrant choses to apply to emigrate; an asylum seeker is forced to leave their country, often in haste, often without papers. They need a different policy and processing methodology consistent with out international obligations to protect and assess them against criteria in the UN Refugees Convention. What really confuses people is that the refugees we settle each year from Africa, Middle East and Asia - 6 000 pa - are part of a humanitarian action Australia generously choses to do - and does not have to do - , with different rules and regs to those for migrants.

      Asylum seekers who when processed after arrival turn out to be refugees and are granted permanent protection should be delinked - excised- from that voluntary refugee resettlement program, but they are not, and so severly undermine the orderly Humanitarian program resettlement of UNHCR refugees. Asylum seekers have always come in waves, reflecting crisis situations in their countries of origin. You can’t plan and manage them in an orderly program. Complex isn’t it!

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      03:59pm | 13/07/10

      You started off OK Freddie with most Australians supporting a structured program but what you need to get your head around is that the few thousand asylum seekers arriving by boat have just so conveniently bypassed refugee centres in their region, about three million refugees in countries adjacent to Afghanistan and even 80,000 Sri Lankans in India.
      If you have a read of the Immigration department regulations:
      http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/ you will see that yes, there is a 6000 allocation on refugees and the remainder under the special humanitarium program which can comprise asylum seekers from offshore and onshore, the offshore ones needing sponsors, so virtually a refugee by another name that some organisation or individual has sponsored.
      But they all can be drawn from the penniless desperate people of refugee centres in more dire straits than those who have had money and health to bypass the centres.
      The waves occur but control can also be exercised by having TPVs so the carrot is not there to bypass the refugee centres, risk their lives at sea and know they can get more or less for sure get permanent residency.
      Is it the Aussie fair go way to have those people getting preference just because they had money and it is difficult to check the validity of their story?
      So no, it’s not complex but just a situation that a government needs to have a firmer policy on.

    • fran sa says:

      07:19pm | 12/07/10

      Julia Gillard was probably an acceptable team member but she is not a leader.
      Getting familiar with the Immigration Law would be a good start.

      Reply

    • Debbie says:

      07:57pm | 12/07/10

      Why isn’t anyone mentioning the real solution ? - TPV

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      09:15pm | 12/07/10

      Have you any personal experience of what Temporary Visas did to “real” refugees, Debbie?
      It was hell on earth, good family men worried sick about wives and children whose whereabouts many did not know, to whom they could often not even send money they earned in the abbatoirs, strawberry farms,factories.It was unbelievably cruel and for many followed on wasted time in immigration prison - the hellholes of Port Hedland, Curtin, Woomer, Nauru, Baxter.
      Families were reunited after the men got permanent protection and a second class passport - travel document- and went to search for their loved ones in Syria ,Jordan, Iran, Pakistan. Their kids did not know them. Their wives had survived the enormous burden of being head of family in a male dominated cultureand were exhausted. Then another painful wait for women and children to be medically and security cleared before their new life could start in peace and freedom. They were refugees needing permanent protection from the moment they fled - and the Australian Government tortured them further with three and more years of lives in limbo. It was disgusting, and not worthy of a nation that values family.

    • Gregg says:

      04:08pm | 13/07/10

      Please Freddie, come on now
      You’ve heard of tough love haven’t you now?
      If you’ve got a tribe of kids and one steps out of line, do you then say better not punish him and just let the others do the same so no example is set.
      Or do you do something so people get the message that there’s a right way?
      The TPVs stopped the flow of asylum seekers.
      Labor revoked them and so the flow started again.
      And now Labor has blood on its hands for the deaths at sea and because these monied financial so called asylum seekers are healthier than the SHP choices that could have been made of people from refugee centres by sponsors, it’s likely more people will be harmed or die in the centres.
      If you vote for a party that allows this to continue, you’ll have blood on your hands too.

    • PaulW says:

      08:03pm | 12/07/10

      There was something laughable about the ham-fisted writing of a commentator unable to read a map or at least to have thought through the accuracy of the statement.

      Penberthy says, “According to Google Maps, Bradbury’s marginal seat of Lindsay is 3932km from Darwin. It contains two water features, the Nepean River and the Penrith Aquatic Centre, neither of which are navigable from the Top End.”

      I could not quite conceive why they would bother but, indeed it is possible for a ‘mostly waterborne intruder’ to find his/her way all the way from Darwin to Penrith, via our waterways and river system, despite what you and Google seem to believe.  Then a short walk from the river bank the intruder could avail him/her/self of either the Panther’s water facilities and or those used for the Olympic and subsequent purposes.

      Reply

    • SPIN Queen Julia SPIN says:

      08:22pm | 12/07/10

      Gillard’s asylum seeker policy has already been sunk given the East Timorese parliament has just rejected it. In keeping with true Gillard and labour tradition, she will keep right and not introduce a carbon tax/ETS till 2012. She will throw in a few bells and whistles to make it appear she is doing something. At the end of the day, those disaffected labour voters who go to the greens will have their 2nd preference go to labour anyway so Gillard is very smart. But will the electorate be naive enough to be sucked in by this?

      Reply

    • Joe Blow says:

      09:59pm | 12/07/10

      It’s ok SPIN, now Juliar will tell us all about the other potential locations .. umm, umm PNG? Tibet? North Korea?  This is really amateur hour - she is clearly out of her league.  The ALP goons clearly thought that they could steal the election with a shiny new leader before her incompetence became apparent ... but only two weeks in and she’s a debacle.

      I voted Labor for the first time ever last time, mainly on climate change, and the fact that Howard was past his used by date.  6 months ago could not have contempated voting for Abbott .... I would have possibly given Rudd another chance ... but not Juliar and the NSW Right.

    • P.M.G says:

      09:41pm | 12/07/10

      Please give Julia the chance to try to find a solution to remedy this difficult situation re: assylum seekers.

      Please don’t condemn her for trying to find an humane way of treating these people….better than sending boats back(who cares in what condition) ala Abbott.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      04:26pm | 13/07/10

      PMG, there had been a virtual halt made to people smuggling with only 18 boats in six years between 2002 - 2007 and then Labor revoked TPVs and that was like opening the flood gates.
      These humane so called asylum seekers are bypassing refugee centres because they have money and so more desperate people in genuine need are being left to rot longer in refugee centres.
      Hundreds of boat people have died enroute and will continue to do so unless they fly into somewhere like Timor which they could well do in even greater numbers and cause a massive problem there.
      Tony Abbott would re-instate the TPVs as a means of stemming the boats more so than physically attempt turning them around for the very first thing that will happen will be fires and/or sinkings to get rescued.
      The TPVs policy must be re-instated for starters.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      04:20am | 13/07/10

      I’m with Van Onselen, lying amateurs both parties.

      I wonder what the jerks call a ‘regional” centre considering Thailand has 3.6 million refugees and we have 5,000.  Do those in Thailand get to invade Timor Leste at our expense and expect to come here.

      We have been paying to have Afghans and Iraqis locked up illegally in Indonesia, why not just grant them a life here.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      04:40pm | 13/07/10

      You do believe in Law and Order don’t you Marilyn?
      There are about 15M refugees in total according to the UN, about 3M of those adjacent to Afghanistan and 80,000 Sri Lankans in India and so with the Thai 3.6 we’re closing on 7M not too far away.
      The UN annual resettlement program is a bit over 100 thousand and yes bugger all, of which Australia has a budget for a total of 13,750 people, about second in number to the US.
      That 13750 is split between refugees and the remainder called our Special Humanitarium Program which is essentially refugees that are sponsored.
      It seems reasonably fair to me that we should select the 13750 from all refugee centres and seeing as there are about 50,000 applications annually I would hope Immigration people attempt to pick the most needy but it must be a bitch of a job playing GOD if you think about it.
      Then we have the so called asylum seekers who have had finances to get themselves to Indonesia and would have paid to get onto a boat if they could have.
      Why, just because of they having money should they get preference over penniless true refugees likely to be in more desperate need of help.
      You’ve probably seen photos of refugees in African centres, mothrs aged beyond their years and babes with bulging stomachs, oversize heads and matchstick heads etc.
      Who are the real needy?
      If people have been attempting to scam the system and get themselves stuck in Indonesia, that’s the next best thing to them not attempting at all.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      06:49pm | 13/07/10

      Greg it has f all to do with being “needy’ and everything to do with who needs protection from persecution.

      Go and read the DIAC website where it specifically says that people who apply for asylum have to be here and those in camps with protection already have no right to come here at all.

      For christ’s sake the ignorance after ten years of this frigging nonsense is bizarre.

      Some poor person might break a foot and need attention but if a rich person has a heart attack they will still get first attention.

      Same with seeking asylum.  MAkes not a jot of difference between here or there - those here always have our priority because we cannot send them away.

    • Gregg says:

      01:14pm | 14/07/10

      You can pick on the words Marilyn but you cannot change the facts and that some people will resort to being abusive and throwing up stupid comments because they will for whatever reason not want to acknowledge the facts.
      Of course taking refugees is about persecution and violation of human rights but that does still not mean some are worse off than others and exactly why Immigration people have application numbers far above available places and have to make hard decisions.
      Yes I am familiar with the Immigration web site as I am involved very much in the area on a voluntary basis.
      True the SHP has both onshore and offshore components and the more onshore places being taken means that there will be less places for those people from refugee camps whether or not you can appreciate that their plight is more desperate.
      If anybody has ignorance it is yourself.
      But keep on with the abusive bullying rhetoric for if it is that which you feel fits best, then I can understand some people know no other way and that may suit them.
      http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/

    • Ture Sjolander says:

      10:08am | 13/07/10

      One have to focus on Who is going to Go instead of who is going to Come here.
      Use the empty leaking boats and fill them again with born and bred and inbred “aussies” and drag them out to the open Indian Ocean and let them find another place to get asylum.
      Alternatively hire Freedom of the Seas and load da big boat with 6.000 aussie’s back to England, or anywhere. U.N. has to make that decision.

      aussie, aussie, aussie sounds like nazi nazi nazi

      The first load should be staff at the Australian Broadcasting Operation who have been running the that rotten flagship more than a decade.
      The lenght of a journalist employment at ABC should by law be no longer than 3 year, unless they have been elected, by the people, like politicians. It is a disgrace for the nation having this soggy people there for a life time.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      02:20pm | 13/07/10

      The decendants of most of the people that live in Australia arrived by boat. We are a nation of boat people. My parents got here by boat (legally)..

      All this negative talk about boat people is offending me and the other decendants of this great land…

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      04:47pm | 13/07/10

      Do you want this great land hoodwinked Peter, by just people arriving here instead of checking in to UN centres in their region.
      Over 3M in centres adjacent to Afghanistan and 80,000 Sri Lankans in India.
      What of the trrue refugees in those centres losing out to people getting preference because they had finances.
      That is what offends me and my ancestors came on a boat too, nearly a couple of centuries back.
      Different time and vastly different situation.

    • Peter says:

      07:21pm | 13/07/10

      Absolutely Gregg, i want these people legally processed and assessed. The process of seeking refuge is to go to that country and ask for it. There is no queue. To get to point A from point B does not necessarily mean there will be a UN processing centre on your travels.

      How about we make Christmas Island a regional processing centre rather than pay someone 3 times as much to take a political problem off our hands.. Most of John Howards pacific refugees ended up coming to Australia anyway..

    • Peasant #3167 says:

      07:34pm | 13/07/10

      Look, this BS about turning the boats around is just Abbott talk. What really happens is this:
      You intercept the boat, interview them briefly, make sure they have fuel and food, and confiscate any weapons and navigation aids. Then attach a tow line and tell them you are towing them back to Australia. This will calm them down and make them happy. Then you do a wide circle and start to head a dogs leg North. When 110klms inside international waters cut the line, preferable at night. And then hit 30 knots South.

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      10:48pm | 13/07/10

      Julia doesn’t intend to tidy up the asylum seeker issue. She is pretending to talk to the East Timorese until the election. If she wins, then she will drop it saying no one has volunteered to put up a processing centre so we’ ll have to wait till the next election when she will magically find a location to happen after the next election. Buyer beware of the greatest spinner on earth, Queen Julia.

      Reply

    • MIRANDACARISSA18 says:

      02:53pm | 01/07/11

      Various people in every country take the personal loans from different creditors, just because it’s fast and easy.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed