The Gillard Government’s legal miscalculation of its Malaysian enterprise will amplify Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s consistent theme that it is an administration which simply can’t get anything right.

Asylum seekers on the third boat to arrive after the Government announced the Malaysia Solution. Photo: Stephen Cooper

It isn’t the first instance of clumsy handling of the asylum seeker debate and the political imperatives which are driving national attention on what is, essentially, a minor matter.

Against solid advice - including that of Kevin Rudd - the Government tried to get a detention centre deal with East Timor but had to limp away embarrassed from negotiations which were always destined to fail.

Mr Abbott’s attack - on what Liberal Scott Morrison yesterday called “a continuing pattern of failure” - has ramifications well beyond the puny numbers of asylum seekers arriving here by boat.

It will feed into Opposition attacks on the proposed carbon pricing laws, on management of the economy, on just about everything the Government does or says it will do.

The Malaysian deal collapse will join the home insulation debacle as Exhibits A and B of the Opposition’s prosecution of the Government on charges of incompetence.

Yesterday’s High Court judgment might not be all sweetness for the Opposition, either. Liberals argue the court gave a tick to sending asylum seekers to Nauru, but there is a counter interpretation of the critical paragraph 128 in the ruling.

That interpretation says the High Court was merely saying it was not dealing with Nauru - which like Malaysia has not signed the UN refugee convention - as a destination for asylum seekers. It might do at another time.

But whatever obstacles to Opposition policies the ruling might produce, they are nothing like those blocking the Government.

One difference is that the Opposition is in command of the politics on this issue. The Government has desperately been trying to play political catch-up since the election campaign last year.

It still is well behind the relentless and ruthless campaigning by Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison.

Many voters might think asylum seekers should be entitled to being processed on mainland Australia, but most of them do not live in the seats Labor has to capture or hold, such as in western Sydney.

A looming problem for the Government is that if its off-shore options are closed its alternatives might antagonise not only those voters, but those who believe the refugee claimants should be allowed to live in the community as their cases are reviewed.

The numbers involved are so small compared to the magnitude of the political issue.

So far this year, after eight months, 2183 people have arrived in the Australian jurisdiction by boat to apply for asylum - roughly a third of the total for 2010. Those who fly in are greater in number but are invisible in this debate.

So that’s not even 3000 people, which was around the number who protested against the Government’s carbon pricing plans on the lawns in front of Parliament House earlier in the year. But they have more political significance.

Scott Morrison has portrayed this little group as a massive drain on the exchequer by tallying the costs of everything from security to phone cards. This is designed to play on the insecurities of voters who think these blow-ins (or sail-ins) are enjoying benefits they can’t get.

It’s cynical but effective, and Mr Morrison has not been bothered by matching counter arguments from the Government.

There is another calculation to be considered. If Immigration Minister Chris Bowen is right, the court’s ruling will encourage people smugglers to get the boats launched again.

That means death at sea will again be a sad possibility.

351 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:15am | 01/09/11

      This will be a tough one for Labor to spin, but we can see the patterns forming:

      “the relentless and ruthless campaigning by Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison.” Set up the Bad Guys.

      “Many voters might think asylum seekers should be entitled to being processed on mainland Australia” Portray the community as supporting onshore processing, whereas in reality three-quarters of the voters actually want boat people sent packing.

      “The numbers involved are so small compared to the magnitude of the political issue.” Pretend it’s a trivial issue because numbers so far are small. Ignore bot the principle of sovereignty and control of our own borders, and the potential for huge growth in numbers in the future.

      Yes, it’s gonna be tough to make Labor look good on this. But someone has to try.

    • Vic says:

      07:40am | 01/09/11

      Good comment - I think that’s how they will try and spin it.  The truth is these are some key words which describe the REAL situation in Canberra:
      Gillard. Labor. Worst. Government. Ever.

    • George says:

      07:50am | 01/09/11

      “Yes, it’s gonna be tough to make Labor look good on this. But someone has to try.”

      And Mal Farr put his hand up!

    • watty says:

      08:31am | 01/09/11

      Must have blinked.When did Farr take his hand down?

      “The Gillard Government’s legal miscalculation of its Malaysian enterprise”

      Miscalculation my ar**.The might of the Attorney General’s office.The legal input from DFAT, outside legal opinion and Gillard’s own keen legal mind add up to much more than a “legal miscalculation”.

      This is blatant blind stupidity possibly given a push by Labor’s stubborness and heads should be lopped.

    • Knaverly Klitgaard says:

      08:37am | 01/09/11

      This will be effortless for Erick to spin. He’ll just regurgitate the same predictable bile from the foetid cesspit he wallows in and delude himself that the few fawning accolades from ignorant and bigoted freaks prove his unsubstantiated claims about public attitudes.

    • dovif says:

      08:38am | 01/09/11

      It is very hard to spin the following

      Gillard said “Every boat is another policy failure”
      Howard fixed the policy failure and there was only 400 AS in the last 4 years of the Howard Government

      Gillard then rewrote the Pacific solution
      Boats flooded in, there were over 1000 AS every year.

      Gillard then had to back track and started
      the failed East Timor solution
      the failed Indonesian solution
      the failed regional solution
      the failed PNG solution
      the failed Malaysian solution

      Then wikileak tell us that the government privately admits Gillard’s rewrite, was at least partly responsible for the increase in AS. As if the rest of us did not know that already!!!

      Another boat, another failed policy indeed

    • P. Oliver says:

      08:41am | 01/09/11

      While we all get our knockers in a knot with politicking, others are actually behaving like human beings.

      Tanzania extolled for naturalising refugees

      [ Before anyone carries on about us being swamped, the refugees don’t all want to come to Australia, they would far prefer to be able to gp back to their homes.]

      http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=32846


      The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has expressed gratitude for the unprecedented humanitarian gesture of the Tanzanian government to naturalize 162,000 former Burundian refugees.

      This was said recently in Dar es Salaam by UNHCR deputy commissioner for refugees Alexander Aleinikoff during his four days official visit to the country where he met various government officials and discussed the state of refugees.

      In discussions with Prime Minister, Mizengo Pinda, Aleinikoff said the government’s decision had helped the UN serve other needy people.

    • N8 says:

      09:35am | 01/09/11

      It is really quite impressive when you think about it. Malcolm Farr really is straight faced trying to suggest that the big problem here, the great tragedy of all this, isn’t the monstrous incompetence of the current Govt, but is in fact the ammo that this embarrassing stuff up has given the opposition.

      The Labour party shouldn’t be lamenting that they have given swords to their enemies, they should be lamenting the fact that they have proven their enemies right.

    • lemo says:

      09:56am | 01/09/11

      Hi Erick - your right of course - it has been years since anyone has looked good on this topic. We are all tarnished by this race to the bottom both sides of politices have been engaged in.
      Its now time to process these people on shore and let them wait in the community while the process is completed. Wouldn’t you agree

    • Matthew says:

      10:06am | 01/09/11

      The most stupid thing about it is the reason why they changed the policy in the first place.

      The Labor government changed it for 1 reason only and that wasn’t because it wasn’t working.  It was because it was a Liberal policy.  Bad leaders never admit that the government before them might have done something right.  A good leader admits that somethings are right and builds on them instead of knocking them down and rebuilding.

      This is why both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are so bad for this nation.  Not because they have stupid/bad policy but because they replace what did work with this new stupid/bad policy.

    • Dissident says:

      10:10am | 01/09/11

      Erick and the rest of you guys, you do realise that it is Farr’s job to stir the pot? People commenting on the punch mean more hits on the site, consequently more advertising revenue.

      This issue is already a dead set lock down win for the Coalition and as much is screamingly obvious to the general populace. If you can get the vast majority of the populace riled up, they are more likely to comment about your article.

      The High Court issue won’t be a problem, though. If Labor come up with a workable solution the Coalition will back it. For instance, if Gillard were to propse - let’s re-introduce the Howard Government total package on immigration, they would get a overwhelming majority in both houses of parliament. Problem solved.

      It is even getting to the point where Labor may have to just eat it and accept that Howard was right, go back to what worked and hope that the electorate moves on before the next election.

    • dovif says:

      10:19am | 01/09/11

      Lemo

      Yeah let them come in unsafe boat to Australia, so they can drown in the high sea,
      So that people in Malaysian/Indonesian/African camps have no chance to get to Australia
      So that asian triads and drug dealers can make millions, smuggling people to Australia, while telling them they will earn more on the dole, then they will ever do working in Malaysia/Indonesia.

      No let them in, I see no down side

    • lemo says:

      10:33am | 01/09/11

      Dovif
      Just in case you havn’t worked it out yet - ill spell it out for - THEY WILL COME ANYWAY - NO MATTER WHAT WE DO - so it is our responsibilty as a affluent, caring nation to look after them in the most humane way possible - and that is as I’ve said - process them on shore (health and security checks)and allow them to live in the community while their application for refugee status is being decided.

    • RyaN says:

      10:44am | 01/09/11

      @Erick: If anyone is going to be able to try and spin this for Labor its Mal Farr.

    • Demoman says:

      11:01am | 01/09/11

      I do not care about refugees as I think they should stay in their own country and fix the problems there rather than leech off the hard work of our ancestors.

      Support the treaty (political capital with other nations and gives us a moral high ground) but do not think we should let any in.

    • Luke says:

      11:42am | 01/09/11

      I don’t subscribe to the minority view of the bleeding-heart lefties and their opportunistic lawyers that boat people are genuine refugees who have fled their country of origin because of fears for their safety and that we should allow every single one of them to freely settle in Australia and no doubt bludge off the taxpayer in most cases.  Most of these boat people seem to have paid money to people smugglers and sailed right past several other safe haven countries (including Malaysia & Indonesia) with the land of the soft touch as their only destination in mind.  To me they are not “refugees” but “illegal immigrants” and they shouldn’t be locked up, but instantly deported back to the place that they sailed from instead.  They can make their claim for refugee status from their own countries and join the queue like the rest of the migrants who are going through the correct legal process to settle here.

    • TEZZA says:

      12:37pm | 01/09/11

      Here’s another example of “spin” for you Erick:
      “The Malaysian deal collapse will join the home insulation debacle as Exhibits A and B of . . . incompetence.”
      If only . . .
      What about the school BER debacle? What about the stupid idea of a carbon tax? What about the 500 other stupid ideas of this government? By my count we would be up to about Exhibit 499 of the government’s incompetence.
      One extremely damaging side effect of this last one is how we continue to put offside our neighbours by our “holier than thou” declarations as to how good we are and how bad they are; the Malaysians must be overjoyed to have been condemned by the Australian High Court. About as happy as the indonesians were to be declared inhumane for mistreatment of animals. One of these days we are going to want some goodwill from our neighbours and we will be surprised when they tell us to get stuffed.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      12:43pm | 01/09/11

      What’s interesting is the reasons the policy was rejected, Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Charter, but then neither was Nauru when Howard was sending refugees there. Doesn’t this mean that Howard was contravening the law?

    • Erick says:

      12:44pm | 01/09/11

      It always helps to get some polling perspective. Here’s a summary of a bunch of polls. One example:

      “Roy Morgan Research, July 2010 (finding 4536), asked ‘Should asylum seekers arriving by boat be allowed to apply for immigration as now, or should they all be returned and told to apply through normal refugee channels?’ 64% responded that they should be returned and told to apply, 26% ‘as now’, 5% other and 5% ‘Can’t say’.”

      Overall it’s clear that most Australians want the fake refugees out.

      @lemo - You are completely wrong. The boat people invasion dwindled to nothing under Howard’s enlightened policies. It’s way past time to take up those policies again - or, indeed, to make them even more effective.

      Dumping the outdated UN Refugee Convention would be a good start.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      12:53pm | 01/09/11

      Labor’s actions so far have been:

      1. Abolish Howard’s program that was working well.
      2. Create a new program identical to Howard’s program, but in a country which does not have refugee protection laws.
      3. Have the new program deemed illegal by the High Court, thus wasting ridiculous amounts of time and money.

      We are worse off than we were before, plus we spent a lot of time and money to get us to this worse position. Good governing guys, well done.

    • Smith says:

      01:01pm | 01/09/11

      To Lemo,

      What? we are affluent? We are borrowing to survive everyday and one day we have to pay back. We are running a budget deficit , get your facts right. We have to curb wage of public servants, reduce number of nurses and police coz we have no money. Check the foreign reserve and judge which countries could be regarded as wealthy.
      We can take the whole world in if you like.

    • mickijo says:

      01:34pm | 01/09/11

      The truth is that the ALP took over a country that had the system for illegal immigrants working well, a budget in surplus,a country that was on a such a steady course that people got bored. Then along came our brave Labor Party who stated they would “change everything”. We have lived in chaos ever since. I think the “refugee treaty” should be taken to the people for a referendum to decide whether or not to repeal it. It should be right out of the politician’s hands. It is the Australian tax payer who carries this burden, it should be up to them to decide.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      01:44pm | 01/09/11

      @ PsychoHyena. Apparently the case turned on the point that the agreement with Malaysia was expressly non binding. I.e. Malaysia didn’t HAVE to do what the agreement asked.

    • Lemo says:

      01:47pm | 01/09/11

      To Smith
      Negativity to suit your political ends is not very becoming Smith - the only people who think we are doing it tough are the ones who are want Labor out of Government. Take an honest unbiased look and get back to me.
      And this issues not about debt, its about doing the right thing by fellow human beings

    • dovif says:

      02:05pm | 01/09/11

      lemo

      No they stopped under the Pacific solution, for 2 years, there was 2 boats and 7 people

    • Lemo says:

      02:12pm | 01/09/11

      Invasion Erick ? Ha - Enlightened Erick - Ha Ha - by all means vote for whom ever you want - but be honest at least Erick - at the very least we should be able to expext that.
      Come on Erick - get that chip off your shoulder and get some compassion - we know you can do it - it doesn’t all come down to us and them or your side and our side

    • Andrew says:

      02:33pm | 01/09/11

      How many asylum seekers came by plane during the Howard years?
      Are 80% of them still on welfare?

    • lemo says:

      02:46pm | 01/09/11

      Dovif
      Even if the Howard policy was responsible for the decline in arrivals- and im not saying it was - if your are honest you will recognise there were other factors that also contributed- it doesn’t make it right - the ends don’t always justify the means - sometimes you have to show compassion and do whats right

    • dovif says:

      04:13pm | 01/09/11

      Lemo

      As I said, I do not see how asking people to risk their life on unseaworthy boats, after giving thousands of their lifesavings to triads and drug dealers. I fail to see how any of this is right

      The only right thing to do is ban People Smugglers and get more people from Malaysian and Indonesian camp

      With the money saved from the Camps, we can probably increase intake by 1000-5000 a year

    • Nathan says:

      05:19pm | 01/09/11

      @Knaverly Klitgaard - ah ok, I think I get it.

      So we have to be tolerant to people who only came here in the first place to take advantage of our systems. But people who pay taxes (DO YOU?) to support this deserve to be treated with contempt if they disagree with you.

      Do you honestly believe that everyone who has a different opinion to you on this issue is an ‘ignorant and bigoted freak’? Nice open minded tolerant attitude you got going on there! I think the overwhelming public opinion on this subject is well established, regardless of what you want to believe.

    • Mattb says:

      05:34pm | 01/09/11

      @Luke

      ‘To me they are not “refugees” but “illegal immigrants” and they shouldn’t be locked up, but instantly deported back to the place that they sailed from instead.’

      Just a few quick one’s Luke. What research have you undertaken when coming to this conclusion?. Have you spoken to each and every asylum seeker personally?. Have you travelled to every country these people come from and visited their old community to get an idea of the livability of these areas?. Have you travelled extensively through the countries they traverse in order to get on the boat to australia in order to maybe garner some understanding as to why they choose not to seek asylum in these said countries?

      Im just wondering. Your conclusions and subsequent opinion are your own and I guess you have the right to them, but maybe you can enlighten us all as to how you came to them because to me it seems like your above statement comes across as slightly arrogant, possibly ignorant and has racist tone to it. Hey, I could be wrong, and thus I’d appreciate it if you answered my questions truthfully and enlighten us all.

    • Erick says:

      06:20pm | 01/09/11

      @MattB - Have you done all those things yourself?

      Of course not. You’re just playing a cheap and dishonest rhetorical trick.

      If that’s the best your side can do, no wonder you’ve lost the debate.

    • Mattb says:

      07:34pm | 01/09/11

      Erick

      Thanks for the reply. Your correct, no I haven’t done any of those things. However, I’m not the one making the statement-

      ‘To me they are not “refugees” but “illegal immigrants” and they shouldn’t be locked up, but instantly deported back to the place that they sailed from instead.’

      Luke is. I’m just simply asking Luke how he came to his conclusion that the asylum seekers in question are not ‘refugees’. You might classify my questions as ‘cheap and dishonest tricks’ but I certainly do not. Are my questions invalid Erick?. I’ve never met an ‘asylum seeker’, never sat down and had a conversation with an ‘asylum seeker’. Have you?. Thus I have no fucking idea what it is that drives them to leave their country of origin and make the dangerous journey across the sea to Australia. Judging by luke’s comment he seems to know, he’s the one claiming they aren’t ‘refugees’, so I’m asking him a few questions about it. Surely he has done the research and has some evidence to back up his claim, unless of course you believe he doesn’t need to research the subject before forming a valid opinion. What about you Erick, can you answer my questions for Luke?.

    • me my mo says:

      07:49am | 02/09/11

      “Miscalculation my ar**.The might of the Attorney General’s office.The legal input from DFAT, outside legal opinion and Gillard’s own keen legal mind add up to much more than a “legal miscalculation”.”

      I wonder if it was designed to fail. The Greens and many members of Labor want the asylum seekers processed in Australia. The majority of voters do not. By making this go to court to be blocked, it makes it look like the government was trying but all anger should be directed towards the high court and that is how Gillard would spin it. It’s sneaky politics.

    • max headroom says:

      06:18am | 01/09/11

      what havent they miscalculated, this lot are just plain dumb, constantly they act without proper consideration, no wonder the carbon tax and the NBN scare the shit out of most Aussies. and what worries me as well is you and the majority of the Canberra press gallery still support them after 4 years of constant stuff ups with our money.

    • Deena says:

      08:17am | 01/09/11

      max, like I said this PM and her useless government don’t care about taxpayers or the money they waste on our behalf.

      Sad to see they have been given so many changes to make things right but wasted every opportunity.

      The first Australian female PM will always be remembered for all the very wrong reasons.

    • Ali K says:

      09:02am | 01/09/11

      Max,

      Good point boat people are quite a few rungs down on importance politically for me and while not an easy task, I would have thought that the Government should be close to working something out. My concern as you rightly pointed out is cost of living, carbon tax, NBN, job loses, 2 speed economy, education, health this list goes on before I get to boat people. If the Gillard Government cant work this out what other things have the cocked up.

    • Ed Balls says:

      01:37pm | 01/09/11

      I’m sure Max the dynamic duo of PM Gillard and Captain David Bradbury can do another stint out of Darwin,and repeat their patrol of our northern waters that unfortunately did little to stop these pesky boat smugglers.

      How dare these boat entrepeneurs show up more incompetence from our fearless leaders.

      Wha’t s several more billion dollars to these spendthrifts? It’s not out of their pockets.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      01:59pm | 01/09/11

      You see, that’s where you could be wrong max. You’re not thinking like a lawyer. ‘Proper consideration’ are just words.  What do they mean to you?  More importantly - what do you think they think it means. (I regard it as ‘front running’ the language. I.e. if you think what I’m saying is different from what I believe it to mean then that’s your problem isn’t it.)

      Perhaps Gillard’s government did get advice that the agreement might fail to comply with the Migration Act.  But they weighed this against the likelihood that it would actually be challenged in our inaccessible courts. How’s that not ‘proper consideration’ from a legal prespective.  And they called Howard: ‘Tricky John’.

      Some people eh!  If only they put as much effort into the task as trying to avoid it.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:20pm | 01/09/11

      I think max was using the word “consideration” in the classical sense, as in “they are acting without thinking about the consequences”. Consideration in contracts law would be something of value promised to the other party, which is required for a binding contract to come into force.

    • Mark says:

      04:08pm | 01/09/11

      I agree Max.

      I’m not really concerned about this refugee issue – once you strip away all the political bullshit it’s minor – but the problem is that’s it’s so symptomatic of the way this government does things.

      They’re so caught up in their own bullshit do-gooding opinions of themselves that they just leap into anything without thinking or planning for any consequences, and then are seemingly shocked when it comes unstuck.

      - Repealing the Pacific solution
      - Pink Batts
      - Malaysia “solution”

      Now what are this mob doing?  They’re spending $36 BILLION on the NBN – yes, that’s THIRTY SIX BILLION DOLLARS – and, inconceivably, there has been no cost-benefit done.

      It’s staggering.  “Governance”??????

      Mark my words – every day this mob is in charge they will send this brilliant nation further down the shitter.  Not to mention our reputation regionally and around the globe.

      To think they’re only running things because one bloke – one bloke – Tony Windsor – has put his personal hatred of a few individuals in the National Party ahead of the nation’s interests.

      Mind boggling.  How did we get to this?  Strange days indeed…

      At least a generation of voters is being a lesson, albeit very harshly.

    • Mattb says:

      09:13pm | 01/09/11

      @mark

      ‘Mind boggling.  How did we get to this?  Strange days indeed…’

      Mark, hate to break it to you, but, it’s what the voting population of this democratic country of ours voted for. Like the outcome or hate the outcome you need to start to DEAL WITH IT and be thankful you live in a society that enables you to vote. And guess what mark, in two years time (or maybe sooner) we all get to vote again, startling isnt it!. What’s mind boggling is the uneducated ignorance of those who can’t get their heads around this most basic of facts.

      @max

      You find the NBN ‘scary’ do you?, pfft, mate, living in Afghanistan would be scary, living in Libya right now would be scary. If your honestly ‘scared’ by the NBN, I feel sorry for you, next you’ll be telling us you have a security blanket, night light and can’t sleep in fear of the boogie monster….

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      03:38pm | 02/09/11

      @Mattb. Totally agree with you about Oz being soft. wink  So why is the left trying to make us more of a nanny state. Some people don’t have as much as others because ... well ... they’re soft and don’t study and then work as hard.

    • Chris_D says:

      06:30am | 01/09/11

      Politics aside, I have grave concerns about Australia not being able to decide who comes, who goes, and who stays in Australia.

      Politically, both parties want the same result: stop the boat people, as does the majority of Australians, whether you are pro-asylum seeker or anti-illegal alien.  It can be seen as a dangerous voyage that puts innocent lives at risk to some, or an open channel for all and sundry to enter our borders illegally to tohers.  Either view, the end result should be the same;  stop the boats, stop people from wanting to make the voyage.

      Whatever your views, whatever your political leaning, stopping people from making the sea voyage should be a priority, should be bi-partisan and should be encouraged by all Australians.

    • Vera says:

      07:50am | 01/09/11

      I agree, it is a world wide problem and there may need to be a different solution all together. Many come from Iraq the place we are at war with.
      Third world countries….. maybe, there needs to be a world body compound effort to this dilemma. You can’t make laws to suit only the one side.

    • Markus says:

      08:28am | 01/09/11

      “You can’t make laws to suit only the one side.”
      You can, actually. That’s what being a sovereign nation is all about.

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      10:45am | 01/09/11

      Not a bad comment Chris D. Whether they want to take responsibility or not, there is a solid basis for arguing that the next “at sea” deaths of asylum seeking economic refugees can be layed squarely at the feet of the likes of the Australian Greens, David Manne, Ian Rintoul, Marion Le and all the other punters (press types, soft touch blog posters etc) who routinely trot out the old chestnut of “push” factors being the main reason for the sudden spike in arrivals to Australia over the past 4 years, whilst worldwide asylum claims have actually decreased.

    • Kim says:

      11:28am | 01/09/11

      Sounds like you can’t wait, Cynicalgoat.

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      11:47am | 01/09/11

      A disgusting assertion that “almost” doesn’t deserve the dignity of a response Kim.

    • Kim says:

      12:13pm | 01/09/11

      Disgusting indeed, Cynicalgoat. Because it’s accurate, isn’t it?

    • Tedd says:

      06:31am | 01/09/11

      This scenario emphasises the folly of a new government changing procedure and policy for the sake of politics - they rushed to close and shun Nauru without Plans B, C or D even being contemplated.  Nauru was at least serving some purposes, including engaging New Zealand in accepting a proportion of the asylum seekers.  Sure, Nauru needed to process faster, but it could have been the first of a regional network extending eastward as has been proposed.

      The High Court decision makes a mockery of the credentials of the high proportion of politicians who are lawyers, as might the pending High Court decision around the Federal funding of the National School Chaplaincy Program.

      Add to that the dubious legal way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were started, and the appalling illegal processes like Guantanamo Bay, Neither side of Australian politics can hold its head high as examples of due and altruistic process.

      The pity is the Resource Super-Profit Tax and the well-compensated Carbon Tax could set Australia on course for a better lng-term economic base to cope with the changing world.

    • Nafe says:

      06:34am | 01/09/11

      True to form, you Blane the coalition. I like your comment about Bowen being right about this being a pull factor, actually didn’t you condemn the pull factor issue not that long ago when it wast in the labor policy book?

    • Elphaba says:

      06:38am | 01/09/11

      “amplify Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s consistent theme that it is an administration which simply can’t get anything right.”

      It’s not a theme.  It’s a fact.  Labor’s policy was flawed and ridiculous.  What is needed is a hardline approach.  Faster processing, and immediate deportation to those declared not refugees.  The burning of detention centres should have been enough for our government to wake up and stop letting these people hold us to ransom.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:44am | 01/09/11

      One problem: both speaking cynically when you look at government bureaucracy *and* when you look both psychologically and economically at how people behave, speeding up processing is going to allow *more* meritless cases into Australia, not less.

      It’s rare in the extreme for a refugee declaration to be reconsidered as granted wrong in the first place, and rarer still for a court to kick a person from Australia when it was considered wrong by fault of the bureaucracy.

      If it’s a condition of a person’s job that they must finish a task by X date, there is no incentive to get the job right.  There is only an incentive to finish the job by that date, which is what a directive from on high to speed up processing would amount to.

      96% of boat-arrival asylum seekers are declared refugees.  It’s not because 96% are genuine refugees, though.  It’s because the figure masks the fact DIMIA can only evaluate the refugee claim on the evidence it has, which is usually the refugee’s story without documents to verify it or contradict it, and some occasional intel from the country the refugee has come from.  On balance, the refugee is usually going to be declared a genuine asylum seeker because DIMIA can’t take the approach of “nonrefugee until proven otherwise”—it has to look at the evidence it has.

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:47am | 01/09/11

      It raises the question though, was the Nauru solution legal when it was in play?  Nauru are now signatories to the UN convention on refugees, but they certainly were not back then.

      If that’s the case, are we looking at a number of people with recourse to compensation?

    • Super D says:

      07:45am | 01/09/11

      I’m pretty sure if they had the grounds the refugee lawyers would have challenged it.  The Migration Act hasn’t changed.

      The aspects that stopped a Nauru challenge may have been that the Australian government maintained control over detainees in Nauru - and hence weren’t abrogating them to a third party with a dubious past or it could have been as simple that the Nauru refugees never set foot on Australian soil and weren’t able to access our court system.

      Either way it worked and was dismantled by the most foolish government the nation has ever known.

    • Andrew says:

      07:58am | 01/09/11

      Spot on, watch the flood of litigation.

    • marley says:

      08:06am | 01/09/11

      I don’t think Nauru actually is a signatory.  I thought it was too, but someone yesterday said not, and I couldn’t find it listed.

    • marley says:

      08:09am | 01/09/11

      @Mahrat - whoops, I’m wrong.  Sorry about that - it looks like Nauru has signed the convention.  My bad.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:36am | 01/09/11

      @Super D, you would think so, but I’m not sure.  We need someone with some more info on the matter to cast an opinion.

      @Marley, they are now, did read this yesterday. 

      I think Super D may have the right of it though - they were simply accommodated there, they were still our responsibility.

    • MarkS says:

      09:02am | 01/09/11

      Good chance that the Nauru solution as it was would be blocked by the High Court now. In the original case when the Howard government first sent the Tampa crowd to Nauru the bleeding hearts used Habeas Corpus, but by the time the case came to trial they were in Nauru. As the Australian Government no longer had them in its jurisdiction, Habeas Corpus was useless.

      The latest judgment from our evil overlords, the High Court uses the wording of the Migration Act. Soon as I saw the wording I knew the Government was doomed, as their lawyers said otherwise they must be crap.

      So the Migration Act has to be altered, the Greens will never agree, & neither will Abbott. Abbott will say the changes will not go far enough, any excuse to keep the pressure on.

      The problem will be that when Abbott wins the next election, the ALP will refuse to agree & the Greens are unlikely to lose the balance of power in the Senate.

      So for all those people, the vast majority of the Australian people, who are willing to accept refugees, but on our terms only. We are stuffed, the bleeding hearts & evil overlords will continue to do as they will & the politicians will continue to pay their games.

      Democracy walks out the door when the Rule of The Law takes over, the evil overlords & their minions say otherwise but note that the Rule of The Law, is not the same thing as the Rule of Law.

      The one good thing out of this stuff up is that 4,000 genuine refugees in Malaysia get a way into Australia.

    • Tedd says:

      09:24am | 01/09/11

      I agree with SuperD. Labour should have kept going wth Nauru - see my post earlier further up.

      It was Rudd’s ego that set them off chasing shadows.

    • gobsmack says:

      09:32am | 01/09/11

      Super D is correct.  Under the Pacific Solution, refugees sent to Nauru had their claims processed by the Australian government and they remained the responsibility of the Australian government (which is why most of them ended up being granted entry to Australia).  The Pacific Solution was set up first and foremost to remove boat arrivals from the jurisdiction of Australian courts.
      The Malaysian deal was different.  The processing was to be conducted by the UNHCR and, once sent to Malaysia, the refugees ceased to be the responsibility of the Australian government.

    • Kika says:

      09:34am | 01/09/11

      The whole thing is a farce. A FARCE! Nobody actually cares about the asylum seekers. Everybody cares about the votes you get for having a popular policy on them!

    • Disraeli says:

      01:03pm | 01/09/11

      marley,
      the Nauruans only signed back in June, and it does look as if Farr also got it wrong.

      Couple of refs:
      “Nauru’s UN move on refugee convention adds to pressure on Labor”
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/naurus-un-move-on-refugee-convention-adds-to-pressure-on-labor/story-fn59niix-1226077250521

      “Nauru signs refugee convention”
      http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201106/3247975.htm?desktop

      So unless I’m missing some subtle difference, Farr’s remark:
      “‘That interpretation says the High Court was merely saying it was not dealing with Nauru -  ** which like Malaysia has not signed the UN refugee convention** - as a destination for asylum seekers. It might do at another time.”
      is incorrect, at **, in current terms.

      Nauru wasn’t signatory, back in the days of the Howard Gov’t and their Nauru solution. But for reasons I don’t have time to get across right now, I gather that in a similar case in those days, the High Court did then give a different interpretation, which did *not* over-turn the Howard system.

      marley, we may differ very greatly on many things, but I’d be quite interested in your considered views on:

      The interpretation of the Nauru provision in the High Court case of Howard’s time

      and

      on what practical solution there should be for the treament of these particular irregualr arrivals.

      Only if you feel inclined, of course.  Things are pretty full on for me at present - it may be some time before I can get back to this.

    • marley says:

      02:28pm | 01/09/11

      @Disraeli - yes, I realize that Nauru wasn’t a signatory in Howard’s time.  And obviously, we’re all guessing about what would have happened if an identical argument had been presented to the High Court back then.

      So far as I know, however, the case the High Court dealt with back in 2002 was different.  On that occasion, the Federal Court had already ruled that the Australian government was within its rights to remove the Tampa asylum seekers to a third country for processing.  Law on this point is very confused.  The High Court chose not to intervene at the subsequent appeal because by that time the asylum seekers were out of its legal jurisdiction, in Nauru.  In other words, the issue had become moot.

      I think, though, that SuperD’s reasoning is probably correct:  the Nauru process might well have survived a challenge similar to this one because Australia controlled the process and could ensure the safety of those asylum seekers found to be refugees.  There was no prospect of Nauru unilaterally “refouling” the asylum seekers.  The Malaysian solution didn’t offer that level of control or protection.

      So, based on the High Court decision, I think it would be possible legally to revive the Pacific Solution with countries which are now signatories - but Australia would have to maintain very strong control of the process to meet the High Court’s standard.  I guess my question would then be, though, why bother with Pacific Solution, mark 2?  Detention and offshore processing are expensive enterprises, as Christmas Island has shown.  And the results haven’t warranted the expense given that almost everyone ends up in Australia anyway. The rest of the world manages to deal with much larger numbers of asylum seekers without resorting to across-the-board detention, or shipping asylum seekers offshore to be processed.  I’m not sure why we find it so difficult.

      I know some argue that the Pacific Solution created a deterrent – and to some extent that’s true.  It introduced uncertainty into what had been a clear process – arrive on boat, undergo detention, get visa, get residence.  But I’m not sure that it would still be a deterrent today – the smugglers now understand the process pretty thoroughly, and know their clients can be sold a boat trip on the basis of the high odds of eventual residence.  Ultimately, the real problem is the very high acceptance rates resulting from the determination process - and frankly, no one is going to convince me that 97% of all boat arrivals really meet the refugee definition in the Convention.  I’d be very surprised if the UNHCR believes that. 

      That high acceptance rate is an issue, no doubt, of the wording of the law itself, and the structure of a process which gives the asylum seeker the benefit of the doubt in the absence of documentation to the contrary (which is why so few boat arrivals have documents).  It is also an issue of the tribunals and courts regularly choosing to substitute their judgement of the facts for that of the original decision-maker.  Frankly, courts should be about determining whether the process is legally flawed;  they shouldn’t be about reassessing the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion.  But courts, like politicians, love to make visa decisions.   

      My own preference would be for a fast-track preliminary screening onshore of all asylum seekers and release into the community pending completion of processing, combined with a much more rigorous assessment of claims.  But, in this environment, I fear that would be politically unfeasible. 

      I should hasten to add, I’m not a lawyer, so my opinions on this matter are those of an interested, and, I hope, informed observer but not those of a legal beagle.

    • Disraeli says:

      03:16pm | 01/09/11

      Just time for a flying visit., to say Thanks, marley.

      Understood - your 2002 case remarks make sense to me (not being a lawyer either). Ruddock this AM was being so cautious I couldn’t get the gist of it.

      Matter of fact, I’m of similar mind, too, re dealing with these people, in Australia.

      A difficult area, one way and another. Needs more study than I can spare just now.

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

    • Gary Cox says:

      06:48am | 01/09/11

      What a bunch of clowns. Time for her to go and put someone safe (say Simon Crean) in there to save there being more cockups between now and the next election

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      08:20am | 01/09/11

      Simon Crean has more sense between his ears than practically the rest of the Labor government combined.  (and more experience)

      I think he would be strong enough to pull the rest of them into line.

      We live in interesting times   8-)

    • TomZ says:

      10:01am | 01/09/11

      Simon Crean is a decent bloke. Beazley was OK as was McMullen. However, the present ALP culture is rotten to the core.

    • James1 says:

      01:06pm | 01/09/11

      I’d add Faulkner to that list as well.  The ALP is losing all its best MPs and Senators.  Difficult days ahead for the ALP supporters.

    • gobsmack says:

      01:17pm | 01/09/11

      LOL.  Simon Crean was dumped as Labor leader because caucus formed the opinion that they were heading for a train wreck at the 2004 elections.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      06:48am | 01/09/11

      Good job gillards people trading policy (4000 return for a deposit of 800) was kicked into touch shows them up for the incompetent orfianry bunch of intellectual lightweight beauracrats that they are.
      There is something like 40K illegal overstayers from white europen countries in australia at present( this is from memory so dont qoute me) why arent they being hunted down and rounded up and sent to Malaysia or Christmas Island, the difference, they arrived by plane.
      About time there was a humane response to thisproblem.

    • BobM says:

      07:52am | 01/09/11

      @ sir ronald bradnam - they aren’t being ‘hunted down’ because all our immigration resources are being stretched to the limit by the number of boat people entries. Besides, those that come by air and have a passport are a bit different to those arriving by boat who have no identification papers and a bullshit story that has to be verified.
      But keep wringing your hands for the ‘poor’ (who managed to come up with $20,000 to pay the smugglers) refugees.

    • marley says:

      08:13am | 01/09/11

      @Sir Ron - well, it’s true there are a lot of overstayers here - around 50,000 - they’re mostly not “white Europeans” though - they’re Asians.  And they stay for a while, work illegally, and go home.  Or they’re caught and deported.  You can do that with people who aren’t asking for asylum.  The issue of overstayers is completely different from the issue of asylum seekers, and is largely irrelevant to the discussion at point.

    • Gaz says:

      08:24am | 01/09/11

      Most of the people that come by plane have a passport and paperwork. That’s the difference, authorities know who they are when they arrive and don’t have to process (find out who they are and where they come from) them. Overstaying is a problem though, they probably should be rounded up and sent home.

    • Sick of it. says:

      08:26am | 01/09/11

      Major difference Mr Bradman is that the ones who arrive by plane do not arrive with their hands out demanding housing, welfare, free medical care and that the government pays for the rest of their families to come here. Not to mention the number of alleged refugees who turn up on boats with large sums(six figures) of cash on their persons and women covered in jewellery that is worth more than an average house. Meanwhile these people take the places of genuine refugees who sit in camps waitng for a chance at a decent life.
      As for the issue of unaccompanied minors, we should look at charging the parents with child abuse for putting their children in this position instead of offering them a lifetime of welfare and public housing.
      I would really like to see some genuine figures about how many of these people are still on welfare after 1,3 and 5 years. Not to mention how many have TAFE and other tertiary education paid for by the taxpayer whilst taxpayers children pay through the nose.
      So come on and call me a racist. After you do that go and talk to a few people who have to deal with these people and you will find that my statements are both disturbing and based on fact.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      09:05am | 01/09/11

      Just be thankful you live in a land of opportunity with relative freedom of speech and thought (although that is becoming less everyday).
      There are actually more overstayers from UK, Europe and North America than asians, most people with a perceived negative skin colour are stopped at the border if they dont have the means of support to be here or if there is a hint they wont leave.
      Imagine living in a country where things are so bad that you will risk yours and your families lives to get to a safe haven with every penny you own being given to some dodgy indonesian rust bucket captain with no certainty that you can even stay just a hope for a better life.
      There are thousands of these people living in indonesia with the knowledge of the indonesian gov, if we are so set on stopping them why isnt the true being told what the indonesian complicity in this.

    • Hamish says:

      09:25am | 01/09/11

      Sir Ronald, they do hunt overstayers. Overstayers are simply a different issue and are really not much of a problem at all. It’s obfuscation to suggest they are. It’s just a tired mantra which gets trotted out by refugee advocates in the hope no one actually knows anything about the difference between overstayers and asylum seekers. For one, overstayers don’t deliberately hide their identity.

    • marley says:

      09:31am | 01/09/11

      Sir Ronald - yes, I’m glad that I live in a country of free speech.  And you should be glad too, particularly as your statement that “There are actually more overstayers from UK, Europe and North America than asians,”  is factually wrong.

      According to DIAC,  of the top 10 source countries for overstayers, the US ranked 2nd and the UK 4th;  the other 8, including China at 1st, were all Asian.  China is by far the biggest source of overstayers, at almost 7500, followed distantly by the US at 5000, then Malaysia, the UK, Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Thailand and Vietnam.

      And those are facts.

    • Andrew says:

      11:28am | 01/09/11

      @ Sick of it

      “Major difference Mr Bradman is that the ones who arrive by plane do not arrive with their hands out demanding housing, welfare, free medical care and that the government pays for the rest of their families to come here.”

      Any facts to back up this bile?

      “Meanwhile these people take the places of genuine refugees who sit in camps waitng for a chance at a decent life.”

      So its ok for people coming here by plane to jump the queue.

      Scary that everyone gets to vote.

    • FINK says:

      01:08pm | 01/09/11

      marley,
      How can the Chinese be classified as over-stayers? Don’t they own this country?

    • marley says:

      02:39pm | 01/09/11

      @Andrew - the point is that most overstayers do not make asylum claims so they’re not taking anyone’s place in any queue.  We only get a couple of thousand claims from air arrivals in a year, out of the 53,000 or so overstayers on hand - so that means well over 50,000 do nothing but work illegally or surf and smoke bongs or whatever, then go back home.  They’re irrelevant to the discussion of asylum seekers - a red herring, in fact.

      PS sorry if this is a repeat - my first message seems to have gone into the great black void.

    • Mattb says:

      02:41pm | 01/09/11

      Hell yeah Andrew, of course ‘sick of it all’ has facts to back up his bile. Got them straight of alan jones, ACA, 60 minutes and Today Tonight. The education mediums for all the ‘redneck racists’ of our great country!!!....

    • marley says:

      07:45pm | 01/09/11

      @Andrew - I’m not into spin.

      I’ve looked at DIACs figures for the last five years, and we’re talking an average of something like 3000 to 4000 asylum claims from onshore applicants annually, out of about 53000 overstayers in Australia at any one time. 

      Relative to the number of overstayers, that’s a pretty small percent - what, about 7%?  Most overstayers are not going to claim asylum, and have to be taken out of the equation when it comes to discussing asylum issues.

    • Nathan says:

      04:20am | 02/09/11

      where does this idea that all they want is handouts coming from. I think the reality is they worker harder than the average person and what they can for their family. That is just a stupid thing to say

    • jf says:

      06:55am | 01/09/11

      “That means death at sea will again be a sad possibility.”

      And for you this is “essentially, a minor matter.” Classy.

    • iansand says:

      06:56am | 01/09/11

      Nauru has now signed the Convention.  However, had the “Nauru Solution” been run up to the High Court prior to that, there is a good chance it would also have been thrown out.

      Disclaimer:  I have not read the Court’s opinion - only the judgment summary they released.

    • Dash says:

      08:03am | 01/09/11

      Are you handing out straws for Labor people to hold onto iansand?

      It doesn’t change the fact that the ALP and this government are the biggest pack of morons to ever hold office in this country! They are a rabble who move from one disaster to another. And anyone who still blindly supports them (including the “independents”) after all of this must surely be a fool!

    • C1 says:

      08:19am | 01/09/11

      I agree - interesting though that why didn’t the same advocates who prosecuted this case for Malaysia not do so when Nauru was set up by the Howard Government?????

    • Andrew says:

      08:22am | 01/09/11

      Nauru was tested by the high court and somehow it passed.

    • iansand says:

      08:41am | 01/09/11

      No, Dash.  I am simply making an observation.  It will apply to the “Manus Island Solution” as well.  In fact, it will make any “offshore processing” very difficult.

      This decision is part of a long line of decisions by the High Court and Federal Courts foiling attempts by governments (of both flavours) to remove refugee issues from supervison by the courts.  IIRC, the Coalition had a few fails along the way as well. 

      In 50 years time the detail of the various cases will have ceased to be relevant.  However it is my guess that the decisions will be taught in law schools as a noteworthy step along the way in the ongoing saga of turf wars between the executive and the judiciary.  It is a battle that has been fought over (so far) about 8 centuries.  One of the first skirmishes resulted in a thing of which you might have heard - Magna Carta.

      It is my view that the politicisation of refugee issues, and the promulgation of scare campaigns, has resulted in some very bad law.  It seems to me that it is inexcusable for a person on Australian territory to be excluded from access to Australian courts.  But that is one of the outcomes that has resulted from bad law made in a climate of ignorant fear.  The Malaysian Solution was one of a series of bi-partisan demonisations of boat people.

      The excision of offshore islands from “Australia” was another.  Does anyone else fall over laughing at the concept that bits of Australia are not “Australia” for some purposes?  I do.  It is like a bunch of 7 year olds playing chasings in a playground, where a random bit of playground furniture is declared “bar” and is therefore, and for no other reason, a safe haven.

    • marley says:

      08:56am | 01/09/11

      From what I understand, and I suspect SuperD above is correct, Nauru passed muster because the processing remained under Australian control whereas that would not have been the case with Malaysia.  The other factor is that the agreement with Malaysia apparently contained the statement that it was not legally binding.  Not sure what the Nauru agreement said, but having an agreement which doesn’t bind the Malaysians to observe seems like something of a legal flaw, wouldn’t you say?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      09:01am | 01/09/11

      I never agreed with the Malaysian ‘solution’, but I think it high time the courts stopped telling Governments what to do, particularly when it is related to non-citizens. 
       
      How many High Court judges live in Bankstown or Springvale or Pooraka, anyway? They wouldn’t know what it is like to feel like a stranger in your own country.

    • Dash says:

      09:06am | 01/09/11

      iansand - well said but the Malaysian solution was never “bi-partisan”. At no stage did it have LNP support. And it’s a fabrication for you to suggest otherwise and to try to link the LNP into the pathetic failure of this ALP government,.

      Everytime the ALP screw up, there is some apologist on here calling Abbott Hitler and the LNP Nazis to try to justify their own foolish and irrational decision to continue support for what is just plain crap government!

      I’ll happily say that the Hawke and Keating governments were sound and good governments. As was the Howard government. But this incarnation of the ALP is nothing like those governments. It is severely compromised. It is marginalised to the left and it is nothing but an incompetent rabble no matter how you look at it. I am perplexed by the fact that people still, even after all the lies, waste and policy failure, make excuses for them. I just don’t understand it at all!

    • MarK says:

      09:21am | 01/09/11

      “there is a good chance it would also have been thrown out.”

      In sanderson speak this means he has no idea and is trying to justify the indefensible by popping up a unicorn.

      Nauru worked. It was not challenged successfully for a reason.

      I am sure you can work out why. Left wing lawyers with a bleeding heart are not a construct of this (mis)adminsitration.

    • gobsmack says:

      09:26am | 01/09/11

      @ToP
      This is what the Chief Justice says at the start of his judgment:
      “Courts exercising federal jurisdiction, for the last two decades in particular, have had to decide many judicial review applications in respect of administrative decisions affecting asylum seekers. Some of their decisions, including decisions of this Court, have had practical consequences for the implementation of government policy. It is the function of a court when asked to decide a matter which is within its jurisdiction to decide that matter according to law. The jurisdiction to determine the two applications presently before this Court authorises no more and requires no less.”

    • iansand says:

      10:01am | 01/09/11

      I made a mistake.  I read one of MarK’s posts.  I see he is still confusing abuse with rational argument.  I blame his teachers.

    • MarkS says:

      11:03am | 01/09/11

      @MarK
      I have read the high court judgments both the latest one & the one when the Tampa people where first sent to Nauru.

      The argument used against the Howard government is not the same argument used against the Gillard government. If that present argument had been used against the Howard governments use of Nauru, it is possable that Nauru would have been blocked. As it remains possable that any attempt by the Gillard government to use Nauru would be blocked.

      But it was very stupid of the ALP to alter a policy that was working.

    • iansand says:

      11:54am | 01/09/11

      Dash - The Malaysian Solution was not bi-partisan, but the demonisation of boat people is.  We have had a classic race for the bottom.

    • frankr says:

      02:42pm | 01/09/11

      iansand,

      the nauru solution (and it was a solution) would never have got to any court let alone the high court.

      the reason, the illegal immigrants boats were intercepted before they arrived, as they are now.  BUT, they were then taken to nauru without landing in any australian territories, therefore they were not subject to any appeal system in this country. they were then processed off shore (hence the “off shore solution”). those that were deemed refugees were admitted to australia.

      That in a nutshell is why that simple policy worked. shame some people decided to fix something that wasnt broke.

      the biggest laugh out of all this was bowen claiming that this non solution had stopped the boats. how can he seriously use this spin when we were half way through the 800 within two months of this disasterous policy’s implementation

      and still the lemmings wail they’resupport

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      03:50pm | 01/09/11

      @TOP

      I live in Lakemba, I dont feel like a stranger in my own country. Would rather live here then in a suburb where all I see is white faces, baby prams and Southern Cross tatts

    • Dash says:

      07:08am | 01/09/11

      You mention 2100 people have arrived, but you forget to mention that the government through its incompetence has increased that number by 4000! Surely anyone prepared to vote ALP now, would do so even if Joseph Stalin lead the Labor party.

      This is the biggest pack of morons to ever hold offfice in Australia. They are a complete rabble. And by implication so are the independents who blkindly support them to the detriment of all of us.

      This government can get nothing right! If they had not dismantled the old system when they came into office, we would not be having this discussion! We now have 4000 to be moved and settled here at a cost to the taxpayer of over 50,000 dollars each. Gillard stood up before the last election and announced an East Timor solution which never existed! She said there would be no more onshore detention centres yet the ALP has announced three to be built. And now there is talk to return to the original policy which they dismantled! The ALP ripped 20 billion away from Australian famlies in their last budget. Yet how much have they wasted on their incompetent handling of this issue.

      How anyone in their right mind could justify and support this government is beyond me! The list of their failures, lies and waste is disgraceful. When will an independent have the guts to do the right thing and withdraw their support?

    • gobsmack says:

      07:48am | 01/09/11

      I’d vote for Stalin if the only alternative was Hitler.

    • Sarah says:

      08:19am | 01/09/11

      @Dash. I agree completely with every word you have written.

      I can answer your last comment though - the reason why the Independents have not withdrawn support is that the lot of them are in real danger of losing their seats and thus - their cushy cushy overpaid jobs with obscene perks and lurks and of course - that beautiful pension at the end of the day….

      They are as corrupt as Thomson in their own ways and the fact that Australia is now going to be forced to have Pokie reforms, because if we DON’T get these reforms, Wilkie withdraws his support and the ALP goes down.

      Yet ANOTHER ill thought out policy. Its criminal the amount of money that this government is wasting. Absolutely criminal. In any other country in the world, there would be riots and and burning in the streets over a government this incompetent.

    • Andrew says:

      08:28am | 01/09/11

      Classic gobsmack!

    • Markus says:

      08:31am | 01/09/11

      Stalin could at least formulate a longterm plan, and stick to it.

    • Dash says:

      08:48am | 01/09/11

      Or perhaps fabricate a fantasy to justify a stupid and illogical decision.

      It’s hillarious (if not disturbing) to see ALP supporters look for something, no matter how fanciful or untrue, to justify why they continue to be idiots!

      When you have to demonise someone as Hitler in an attempt to justify why you continue to blindly support an incompetent pack of morons, there is something seriously wrong with you.

    • gobsmack says:

      10:03am | 01/09/11

      @Dash
      I didn’t demonise Abbott as Hitler any more than you demonised Gillard as Stalin.
      My point is that in deciding between two alternatives (which, realistically, is all we are offered) you must assess not only the performance of the incumbent government but also the likely performance of the opposition.
      No party should feel entitled to government simply because the other side is incompetent.  They need to demonstrate that they could do a better job.

    • Dash says:

      10:33am | 01/09/11

      gobsmacked - that’s great. If it’s demonstration you want, look at the LNPs performance during 11 years of government. Repaid $96billion in ALP debt, restored the AAA credit rating Keating lost, delivered the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, delivered 5 years of consecutive PAYG tax cuts, balanced the buddget, left $26billion in surplus to the ALP and increased real disposable income for all Australians by 15%  during their 11 years in office.

      Compare that to the performance of this incumbent ALP and I think by your own standards, only a fool would continue to blindly support this Gillard Government.

      Most people would fail to see how you can create an argument that a LNP government would be worse than what we have at the moment! this incarnation of the ALP has been nothing but hot air, hollow promises, lies and waste.

    • RyaN says:

      10:54am | 01/09/11

      @gobsmack: “They need to demonstrate that they could do a better job. ” They already did, they paid back the last incompetent Labor governments debt and left us in the best standing to weather the GFC even though this incompetent lot tired really hard to send us broke during that time.

    • andye says:

      12:14pm | 01/09/11

      @Dash - Haha, oh man. You go around comparing people to Stalin then get all huffy when someone makes an equally ridiculous comparison. How precious.

    • gobsmack says:

      12:25pm | 01/09/11

      @RyaN
      So basically you’re saying that John Howard, Peter Costello, Alexander Downer etc. weren’t really important components of the last LNP government.

    • RyaN says:

      12:34pm | 01/09/11

      @gobsmack: nope can’t see where I said that, remember there is no “I” in “team”. Well at least the LNP work as a cohesive one except for Malcolm Turnbull.

    • Dash says:

      01:17pm | 01/09/11

      andye - clearly your comprehension is lacking! Read my post, I compared no one to Stalin.

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      02:45pm | 01/09/11

      In all honesty…. I’d vote for Hitler over any communist any day of the week.

    • frankr says:

      02:51pm | 01/09/11

      gobsmack,

      hitler killed less people for political/ehthic reasons than stalin, is that why you would vote for him??

    • Dark Horse says:

      07:10am | 01/09/11

      We now need the Australian Army to set up a tent city somewhere in the north of West Australia and surround it with a wall of razor wire where the thousands of economic refugees and others can be housed while their applications are processed.

      There’s no need to make it too comfortable, otherwise they’ll continue telephoning their friends and telling them what a great place it is where you don’t have to work and the government hands you taxpayers money and provides free everything.

    • Enkl says:

      07:17am | 01/09/11

      This was not a legal “miscalculation”. The vote was 6-1. It was not even close. What was Gillard thinking? - that the high court would just roll over?

      The Labor vote is now 27% nationally; 23% in Qld; 22% in Tas; and 14% in the high court.

    • Gratuitous Adviser says:

      07:20am | 01/09/11

      A great win for the people smugglers and illegal immigrants.  The only possible saving grace for the Labor governments incompetence is if Abbott proposes a new Work Choices, which looks like is going to happen. 
      The irony is that because the actions of Arbib, Feeney, Shorten, Farrell, spokesman Howes and the main sponsor behind the removal of Rudd, the AWU’s Bill Ludwig, the future standard of living of the great unwashed in Australia is now potentially worse than it has ever been. We are certainly destined for a generation of hard conservative rule.  Well done boys.

    • George says:

      08:04am | 01/09/11

      That’s it when the ALP lap dogs run out of mud to sling at the Coalition and Tony Abboitt they bring out “Work Choices’!

      It goes to the lack of depth and the lack of scope and ideal the current ALP has.

      Anyways what is wrong with conservative rule?  Under the previous conservative government Australia returned to the top echelons of the world economic elite from the depths it had been sunk by its ALP predecessors.

      Now Australia is falling, falling, falling! The only thing that slowing down our descent to economic wasteland is the previous conservative government’s economic legacy.

    • Lance says:

      08:50am | 01/09/11

      You mention Howards Work Choices, funny thing about that roll back, it’s also coming back to haunt them just like rolling back Howards Pacific Solution. (popular politics)
      Playing popular politics is usually what Labor and their supporters scream at Abbott, but Gillard is the queen of playing political games and popular politics and she’s come unstuck. “Whatever it takes” doesn’t seem to be working. Rudd warned her!

    • Dash says:

      09:19am | 01/09/11

      George - you are right. The previous LNP government repaid $96billion in ALP debt, restored the nations AAA credit rating which Keating and the ALP lost, delivered the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, protected the financial services sector from the GFC through the Financial Services Reform Act, set up the futures fund, delivered 5 years of consecutive PAYG tax cuts, balanced the budget and left $26billion in surplus to the Rudd government!

      It seems ALP people are falling over each other to see who can come up with the lamest reason to justify why they continue to support the worst government in Australian political history. It would be funny if it wasn’t so alarming to think people are so blind they will follow the ALP into the abyss!

    • Andrew says:

      10:06am | 01/09/11

      Abbott will tax like his idol Howard, the highest taxing prime minister in our history.

    • Dash says:

      11:05am | 01/09/11

      @Andrew, you are wrong to include the GST in your assessment which was designed to replace a raft of state taxes. Also once you take into consideration the carbon tax, profits tax, flood levy, removal of superannuation tax consessions, freezing of family assistance payments, and proposal to means test the private health tax rebate, your accusation is wrong!

      The ALP are high taxing and high spending. The top marginal tax rate was still $60,000 under Keating! It was the LNP that brought real PAYG tax relief not the ALP. They delivered 5 years of consecutive PAYG tax cuts. The ALP “me too’d” the LNP’s cuts at the 2007 election and last budget after all the LNP cuts had been delivered, the ALP delivered none! Not one cent. In fact they stripped $2billion away from Australian families! Yet they can find money to fund ALP Carbon tax propaganda.

    • Dash says:

      12:09pm | 01/09/11

      @Andrew - Ha, this is great. Thanks for the link. This shows the following between 2007 and 2011:

      1. Government receipts have increased under the ALP by $31.1Billion (that’s an 11.39% increase in receipts)
      2. The nations underlying cash balance has gone from a positive $17billion under Howard to a negative $50billion under the ALP
      3. Our net financial worth has deteriorated under the ALP by $137billion!!!!!

      Thank you for attaching this for everyone to see. It shows that tax receipts have gone up, and the ALP has destroyed net worth by $137billion! Backs up my comments beautifully. I’d encourage everyone to take a look at your attachment and see what a financial mess the ALP are making of the federal budget.

    • AdamC says:

      01:42pm | 01/09/11

      Did you look at that link before you posted it, Andy? It’s a bit of an own goal!

    • Andrew says:

      02:16pm | 01/09/11

      Dash and AdamC.

      Preface:
      I am not a labor member or voter.

      You are both correct, thats the beauty of numbers. I agree everyone should be informed.

      My point was in regards to the highest taxing prime minister.
      By your reckoning Dash.
      1. Under the LNP the tax reciepts increased by 106 billion dollars.
      That equates to a 61% increase.
      2. In regards to the net financial worth, I fail to see how much different it would be regardless of who was in power at the time, the GFC did a good job of flat lining/slight decline of government revenue and increasing its costs.

    • AdamC says:

      03:36pm | 01/09/11

      Andrew, true, but it looks like Honest John isn’t the biggest spending PM ever. That dubious honour goes to JuLiar. What. A. Surprise.

    • Andrew says:

      04:25pm | 01/09/11

      Spot on Adam C, my point was about highest taxing.

    • Andrew says:

      04:25pm | 01/09/11

      Spot on Adam C, my point was about highest taxing.

    • Andrew says:

      05:32pm | 01/09/11

      Correction to point 1:

      Government tax receipts increase from 133 billion in 96-97 to 272 billion in 06-07.
      Total 139 billion. 95% increase on 96-97 levels.

    • Joan says:

      07:26am | 01/09/11

      `Scott Morrison has portrayed this little group as a massive drain on the exchequer by tallying the costs of everything from security to phone cards.`  So $5 million asylum seeker phone card money paid by tax payers just petty cash it would seem -according to Mr Farr. Asylum seekers should write letters or reverse call charges. A failed government, failed policies slowly sending Australia broke on the road to ruin and a laughing stock on the World stage.

    • Andrew says:

      09:31am | 01/09/11

      Spot on Joan, Nauru didnt cost us a penny did it?
      How much did it cost to deploy the entire navy to defend australia from leaky boats?

    • Peter says:

      10:53am | 01/09/11

      Andrew, using the Navy to patrol for country shoppers didn’t involve any additional expense. The Government pays for the Navy regardless of whether they are doing something useful or carrying out training excercises which is prabably what they would have been doing if not for this.

    • frankr says:

      03:00pm | 01/09/11

      andrew

      you are totally out of your depth.

      methinks you should stick to your dinner parties with the cultural elte, sample the latest chardonnay, discuss the worlds problems, be disgusted at the plight of the poor and then decide who else should do something about it

    • Andrew says:

      03:02pm | 01/09/11

      Peter, it is cheaper to keep them in port, however i expect you already know that.

      As for training, turning fishing boats around is hardly preparing them for war.

    • Peter says:

      03:36pm | 01/09/11

      Andrew, You don’t honestly believe that Navy ships stay docked unless they are being used at war do you?

    • Andrew says:

      04:28pm | 01/09/11

      Good to see you playing the man frankR and not the issue, best excuse to avoid the reality.

      Rule 2 of your handbook i assume.

    • Ron says:

      07:32am | 01/09/11

      it looks like if you are an illegal person you have more rights the an legal person who comes here or lives here! no wonder this country is buggered!

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      07:34am | 01/09/11

      What I want to know is

      If you are in jail in Aussie you are not allowed to have mobile phones . - worldwide.

      Where are they getting access to phones and where are these destitute refugees getting Australian currency ?  ( for public phones)

      It gets more interesting by the day

      And yet these asylum seekers are using mobile phones (or maybe public phones) to call all and sundry

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      07:36am | 01/09/11

      During all the years of both Coalition & ALP Federal Governments no-one from either side has told us, the people of Australia, why all Asylum Seekers, Refugees, Displaced People etc. cannot have their applications processed within Australia.
      Would someone, somewher please tells us why this is impossible.
      Why are people still being held for years?
      Why are children being held in prison?
      What sort of Minister for Immigration is Chris Bowen when as the Legislated Guardian of all minors trying to come here that he ia/was prepared to send them to places like Malaysia which are not signatories to the various UN Charters to which Australia & so many others are?
      How can the Legal & Only Guardian of these children possibly exercise his guardianship when he has or would deliberately remove those children from his control?

    • Anna C says:

      08:49am | 01/09/11

      Robert S McCormick, people are being held in detention for years because their applications for asylum have been rejected and they are exercising their right to appeal these decisions. That is why the whole process is dragging on and on.

      Also some people are remaining in detention because they have either been found to be a security risk to Australia and cannot be released into the community or are not considered to be refugees but cannot be immediately deported back to their country of origin. 

      The government is refusing to process asylum seekers in Australia because sending them to another country is supposed to act as a deterrent to others. Otherwise we would start being swamped by asylum seekers just like in Europe.

    • Gratuitous Adviser says:

      10:04am | 01/09/11

      Robert.  Perceived acceptance by politicians of Illegal Immigration and queue jumpers is poison for them individually or as a group by the voters.  Just watch what happens to the Greens next election.  Because of our soon to disappear “fair go” culture the fact that immigrants can cheat their way into the country is not acceptable to the average Australian and he/she reacts at the ballot box if a party is seen to be soft on this issue.  This is a fact.  We do not like people cheating and getting away with it.
      Thanks to the publically funded lawyers and incompetent pollies we are doomed to the fact that illegal immigrant cheats prosper.  The constant description of these people as “asylum seekers” and not what they really are, “illegal immigrants that have had the money to pay for their trip” is a strategy that the lawyers and others use to soften the crime.  Another strategy is putting the argument that there is only a few of them anyway and insignificant to the number that overstay their visa’s so, it’s all OK.  It’s not OK.
      I personally think that Australians welcome immigration and the people that come to Australia the right way.  Immigration has made modern Australia what it is today.  What Australians worry about is if the government is not capable of controlling illegal immigration then they are not capable of preventing Australia from having the problems that are in Europe at the moment, culminated in the London riots.

    • Rose says:

      10:05am | 01/09/11

      Rubbish Anna C, the only reason these people are held in detention indefinitely is that it’s politically popular. They have committed no crime, have not done anything that warrants imprisonment and yet we still lock them up. The tragedy is that as a result of locking them up we damage them mentally, as has been clearly documented over many years.
      The correct way to deal with this people would be to release them into the community after the initial health and security checks, allow them to work and go to school. The sooner people are allowed to become independent the better. Processing should be sped up and we should consider tightening other visas, such as family reunion visas. At the same time we should be increasing penalties for people smugglers, ensuring that the legnth of imprisonment is long enough go deter most who are attempting to make a quick buck.
      The truth of the matter is that the huge majority of asylum seekers are genuine and will be granted refugee status and will be released into gthe community, we owe ikt to ourselves and them to ensure that we don’t make that transition harder than it already is.
      Just quietly, they do not receive any benefits that in excess of those enjoyed by Australian citizens, unless you consider being locked up in prison like accomodation without reason a ‘benefit’.

    • Anna C says:

      10:43am | 01/09/11

      “The correct way to deal with this people would be to release them into the community ...allow them to work and go to school. The sooner people are allowed to become independent the better.”

      Unfortunately Rose, 80% of refugees still unemployed and living off welfare even after 5 years of their arrival. That is why many people do not support asylum seekers coming here because they are a financial drain on our society and continue to be so even after 5 years.  http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/05/05/80pc-of-refugee-and-humanitarian-migrants-on-benefits-after-5-years.aspx

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      10:50am | 01/09/11

      Anna C.
      You say some of these would-be asylum seekers have been assessed as a risk to Australia, had their applications rejected. The moment any one of them is judged tobe a “risk to Australia’s security”  then there is no reason at all why they can’t be tossed out. The department of Immigration does it to people who are of no risk to us but who have simply overstayed their tourist visas & been, sometimes after years, been caught. They get sent out within days if not hours. Those deemed tobe security risks can & should be sent out in the same way.
      We are told that well over 95% of all these Displaced People eventually get permission to remain here.
      In case anyone has received that email purporting to tell us that these people get benefits in excess of those available to Australian’s getting Welfare Payments etc, free housing & heaven knows what else I would suggest you contact your local MP or Senator. I did for, like others I was concerned that if it was true then it should be stopped. They replies I got, from all sides of the political arena was that this email was, in it’s entirety, a hoax. If you can’t be bothered to write a letter to your MPs then may I suggest you go onto the Scamwatch web site which lists all the scams, hoaxes etc. as they appear.

    • Anna C says:

      11:26am | 01/09/11

      “Anna C ...you say some of these would-be asylum seekers have been assessed as a risk to Australia, had their applications rejected. The moment any one of them is judged to be a “risk to Australia’s security” then there is no reason at all why they can’t be tossed out.”

      Unfortunately, Robert this is sometimes easier said than done.  I heard on ABC News Radio a week ago that we are spending thousands of dollars guarding an asylum seeker who remains in detention because she is considered to be a security risk but had to be flown from Christmas Island to the mainland to give birth. She was under guard even while in hospital.  I think she was a member of the Tamil Tigers and was suspected of being involved in possible acts of violence and so cannot be deported back to her country because of fears for her safety. So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    • Rose says:

      02:12pm | 01/09/11

      “Unfortunately Rose, 80% of refugees still unemployed and living off welfare even after 5 years of their arrival.” You can blame that on mandatory detention to a large degree. People who are already struggling are incarcerated for indefinite and excessive lengths of time and that causes significant damage to their mental health. Had these people been (health and security) checked and released into the community quickly they would have escaped the sometimes irreparable damaged caused by this type of detention. Mental health among asylum seekers has been extensively studied and all reputable studies show that our system causes mental health conditions in asylum seekers.
      Mandatory detention solves nothing, it is a populist political solution to a humanitarian problem, a problem which is not unique to Australia but is worldwide, and in fact we have one of the smallest ‘problems’ in this area!

    • marley says:

      02:52pm | 01/09/11

      @Rose - actually, there is a genuine issue with the length of time it takes for refugees to become self-sufficient, and it has nothing to do with detention.  There’s a study on the DIAC website that looks at different refugee populations, for the first five years after they get residence - and most of those would be offshore selections who never underwent mandatory detention.  There are some quite stark differences in relative success rates between say, west Africans and Afghans.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      04:48pm | 01/09/11

      Anna C, There are always a few exceptions such as the woman you cite but they are a rarity.
      However even if those rejected on a purely “Security Risk” basis are in danger of being imprisoned in their own countries then they should still be sent back there & let their own countries bear the cost.
      Some may risk getting killed by their own people but that was exactly the same risk they were prepared to take when they got onto that leaky, dirty boat. If any of those coming, by whatever means, to Australia were involved in Terrorist activities - that will probably be the very reason they were rejected by Australian Immigration - then they should still be returned whence they came.
      Hard? Yes. But why should we have to take people who pose a possible risk to our way of life?

    • thatmosis says:

      07:37am | 01/09/11

      Another stuff up by the Queen, or is that King of StuffUps. This pattern that is emerging certainly makes one wonder a to the competance of everybody in the Government as another plicy goes belly up. It doesnt matter one iota what anybody on their side writes from now on as most thinking people realise that the Labor government is Cluster F*ck of the worst kind that does nothing except waste tax payers money, destroys businesses and lives and panders to a minority to stay in power. Joolia can go on as many whistle stop tours as she likes to try and shore up voters but as soon as she opens her mouth the lies start pouring out once again. This Government is like a Dead Man Walking.

    • Doug says:

      07:45am | 01/09/11

      ? Labor should Go for Broke
      The High Court rejection of the ‘Malaysia Solution’ is almost certainly the beginning of the end of the Labor government.  Even more likely, the end of Julia Gillard’s ignominious Prime Ministership.

      This, folks, is what you get when the order of the day is trimming, compromising, placating and general brown-nosing. It is not a sustainable model of government.

      You can’t win over the racists who don’t want any brown and yellow people coming here, no matter how they come, which is the core constituency chanting ‘stop the boats’. 

      Everyone else has long since worked out that any offshore processing solution is both ridiculously expensive and inhumanly cruel.

      Labor needs to turn this around with a frank acknowledgement that refugees, however they get here, are Australia’s problem and need to be dealt with by the Australian government on Australian soil.

      We can’t keep outsourcing this to our poorer neighbours, as if refugees were a product to be ‘processed’ (and what a telling word that is) like industrial waste, out of sight, out of mind, and who cares if it pollutes the environment, so long as it’s not our environment.

      The situation calls for something that’s been missing in Australian politics for a long time: a bold and courageous policy based, not on what focus group say will play well in the Murwillumbah RSL, but on what is self-evidently right.

      And let’s face it: neither Labor nor Julia have anything left to lose. Without a truly bold stroke that cuts through all the crap, they’re gone, and Tony Abbott is our new PM.

      The ludicrous expense of offshoring probably provides the way to do it. If you can’t sell the notion of processing people onshore, in or near our capital cities, where help and support is readily available to assimilate the influx, on the basis of simple humanity – and that is how low we have sunk – you can at least make a decent fist of selling it on economic grounds. Protect the Budget surplus!

      Onshore management of refugees is faster and cheaper, and delivers less-damaged people sooner. Provided with language teaching, social integration services, legal support and surrounded by members of their own ethnic community, refugees integrate into Australian society far sooner and better, and become a net economic benefit to the country, rather than a drain.

      As it is, we are spending millions of dollars on something which, if truth be told, is nothing more than a vast bribe for the votes of racist rednecks.

      We can’t, and shouldn’t, afford it.  In these straitened economic times, we need to get the Budget back into surplus, bank the proceeds of the mining boom for future generations, morally and fiscally responsible course, blah, blah . . . I’m sure you can write the speech yourself.

      But what does this do to ‘stop the boats’? Nothing.  We can’t ‘stop the boats’, and especially not by incarcerating the people who get on them in malarial concentration camps, entangling them in endless mind-destroying bureaucracy in countries with scant regard for human life, let alone human rights. That’s what they’re running from in the first place.

      If the government would like to save money, save lives, and destroy the people-smugglers ‘business model’, they could get into the people-smuggling business themselves. Set up a public-private partnership to run refugee ferries. 

      Ok, that was a bit tongue in cheek. The numbers are so small, it may not be economically viable.

      Or they could just try running a decent, humane, transparent and generous refugee policy. Now there’s an idea.

    • Rose says:

      01:35pm | 01/09/11

      Probably the most intelligent post I have ever read on “The Punch”, Bravo!!

    • Gavin says:

      02:55pm | 01/09/11

      So what your suggesting is to sweeten up the pull factors??
      Do you even care that people die at sea?

    • Watcher says:

      07:52am | 01/09/11

      Disaster!! But I must say I am relieved, I saw the footage of caning and it made me feel sick to think we were sending anyone there , let alone children. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know this, the majority of Aussie’s are decent people, yes we don’t want the boats but we don’t wish anyone any harm. Things have got much harder on the boat people issue since that made that other big mistake..ousting Kevin Rudd. If I was a Labor backbencher I would be trying to get Kevin back to clean this mess up or buy the newspaper and start looking for another job.

    • Mayday says:

      08:08am | 01/09/11

      The plain packaging on cigarettes could easily be another own goal,  a legal challenge by the tobacco companies is more than likely…..bet they have not thought this through either!

    • BrisJack says:

      08:15am | 01/09/11

      Unlike her other failed policies she had no controll over the High Court.
      Enquiries into her other failures, she has selected the heads for the decision she wanted to soften the wave to a ripple.
      Mal, ripple sounds like a labor spin word for tsumanie

    • JohnB says:

      08:16am | 01/09/11

      NZ is no longer accepting refugees. Why can’t we do that?

    • Fiddler says:

      08:18am | 01/09/11

      Malcolm, it isn’t a theme. Name one success they have had? Plain cigarette packaging, wow that makes a massive change to the running of the country. And please don’t run out how many pieces of legislation they have got through, none are of significance

    • Colours says:

      09:04am | 01/09/11

      This isn’t a success yet. BAT, Phillip Morris and others are waiting to sue the Australian Government (read taxpayer) for damage to their brands. These brands are worth hundreds of millions (if not billions). I hope they’ve better legal opinions on plain packaging than the Malaysian distraction.

    • Anna C says:

      10:15am | 01/09/11

      Only this government would be stupid enough to pick a fight with big tobacco and once again we the taxpayers will be the ones paying for their mistakes. This Incompetent government seems to think that we have money to burn.

    • Andrew says:

      10:51am | 01/09/11

      Public health has a cost, I applaud them for trying to make it better.

    • Fiddler says:

      11:24am | 01/09/11

      @Andrew, if I thought it would make a difference I would support it, but lets face it people will just buy the packet covers. If they want to make a difference and stop it, simple, a rolling ban on it. Make it illegal to supply it to anyone born after say 1/1/95 coming in on the 1/1/13. Controversial? Yes, but it would show real leadership

    • Colours says:

      12:35pm | 01/09/11

      Just sit and think rationally for a sec. Andrew, if the altruistic goal is for public health, then alcohol and obesity would be on the table as well. The damage alcohol does to communities and the pressure both alcohol and obesity place on the public health budget is considerable.
      The demonising of cigarettes is a lazy, easy out for a government desperate to be seen to be doing something - for what end? Smokers will continue to smoke. Plain packaging won’t stop them. Anybody who believes this is delusional. It’s similar to a carbon dioxide emission tax that will achieve zip in terms of a climate change outcome, but will have significant impact on consumers and businesses alike.

    • Andrew says:

      02:27pm | 01/09/11

      How much government control do people want in their lives?
      Where is the evidence backed up by research that a glass of wine every now and then in going to kill you?
      As for obesity, yes there are education campaigns, but there is also the need for people to take some responsibility for their own weight.

      We know smoking causes lung cancer and raise the risks for other cancers. We know that smokers smoke, passive smoking, places non smokers at risk of getting cancer. I fail to see how trying to reduce the percentage of smokers in society is a bad thing.

    • Outraged says:

      03:31pm | 01/09/11

      @Andrew: if the Government was so serious about “reducing the percentage of smokers”, why don’t they just ban the damn things! Make ‘em illegal like pot and meth…

    • Colours says:

      03:57pm | 01/09/11

      “How much government control do people want in their lives?” Interesting idea Andrew. Shame you shoot the question down by supporting government restrictions of seeing the brand on the outside of a product that is legal to buy.
      I want the minimum government intervention - just enough to have a safe and happy society. As I said if they were serious about public health there would be restrictions on alcohol and obesity. you obviously believe your little sin (a glass of wine) is OK while someone else’s (tobacco) isn’t. Are your choices better than other.
      I support Outraged. They should ban them if the goal is to reduce smoking. I passionately hate smoking, but realise that my beliefs shouldn’t be imposed on others. While they continue to be legal and they collect taxes the government is complicit in the effect on public health. I repeat “it is a lazy, easy out for a government desperate to be seen to be doing something”.

    • Andrew says:

      05:02pm | 01/09/11

      I agree with you that they should be banned, but as always we take small steps. I am supporting a process that will reduce the number of smokers in society, I don’t see the other side of the fence wanting to do anything about it.

      You are pulling a long bow if you believe that a glass of wine every now and then equates to being a smoker.

    • Glen M says:

      05:20pm | 01/09/11

      the government dont need to ban them or put them in plain packaging, simply raise the tax on them sufficiently to cover the costs of the health implications of smoking and the percentage of smokers will reduce very quickly. Really only this government could come up with such a stupid contrived solution to such a simple problem. mmm I think I see a pattern emerging.

    • jg says:

      08:35am | 01/09/11

      Completely and utterly incompetent and disfunctional.

      How bad can this government get?

      They are a laughing stock.

    • Anna C says:

      10:18am | 01/09/11

      Malaysia is certainly laughing.

    • Jennie says:

      08:41am | 01/09/11

      Damn Tony Abbott, NEWSLtd and the shock jocks! It’s their fault!
      Julia is a Lawyer and she knows what she’s doing? Right? It’s not a big issue anyway, there’s only a trickle of boats.

    • Jennies Friend says:

      10:31am | 01/09/11

      Yes it is a big issue.  These illegal immigrants are cheating their way into Australia.  I welcome immigrants to come in the right way, like mine.  Legally and with a ball and chain.  Not illegally with a good lawyer.

    • Allan says:

      08:51am | 01/09/11

      I had thought that the Rudd/ Gillard Govt was as bad as the Whitlam Govt.
      I now accept they are even worse and is now challenging the Govt of Billy McMahon for the title of worst ever Govt.
      The interesting thing to observe over the next month is how many boats will set off for Christmas Island and points South before the Govt has an opportunity to develop some other policy mirage.
      Will Australia be flooded with illegal immigrants or not.
      That will be the question answered.
      By the way, every person who arrives by air has a valid visa with all the penalties incurred if the visa conditions are broken unlike illegal boat arrivals.
      Can we please have an Federal Election, pretty please!

    • Hamish says:

      08:54am | 01/09/11

      Seriously when is Ashton Kutcher turning up to tell the Australian people that they’ve been punked? Surely the Gillard government is some kind of elaborate practical joke? I don’t believe anyone can actually be this incompetent without putting some kind of effort into it.

      When even Farr can’t make excuses for you - not even of the standard pathetic variety - it must be time to go.

    • Gordon says:

      08:54am | 01/09/11

      Sometimes wonder what has infected the Labour movement, State Labour Govts are on the nose as is Federal. This is possibly the worst, arrogant bunch of incompetents we have seen. How can this Power Hungry mob bend to the whims of the loony left (Greens) and still say they are in power. Something has to happen, and soon otherwise this once great country will go down so far that recovery will be impossible. Why does the GG not step in, silly me she is one of them.

    • The Very Reverend Lance Boil says:

      08:56am | 01/09/11

      At times like this we should all turn to the scriptures and read passages such as the lamb shall lie down with the lion. Bless you my children.

    • Philip Crowley says:

      09:09am | 01/09/11

      I like Woody Allen’s version Rev.

      The lamb shall lie down with the lion…
      But the lamb won’t get much sleep smile

      Have a good day Rev.

    • Anna C says:

      08:57am | 01/09/11

      I don’t know whether to be happy or sad because of the High Court’s decision. Either way it spells disaster for the Gillard Government.  They just can never catch a break ... the poor dears. Sucked in.

      This government has proved itself to be the most incompetent government ever and couldn’t organise a chook raffle to save their lives.

    • BillRS says:

      09:01am | 01/09/11

      oh woe is me!
      I have to pay my own legal fees and mobile phone bills. but I’m just a citizen in a ghetto electorate.
      I have read a number of these bloggs by tallying the costs of everything from security to phone cards. and wondered why Farr gets pinged for his Hawker Brittain spin but I can see it now:
      ....by tallying the costs of everything from security to phone cards.
      Morrison tellig the truth is rabid politics,
      p.s I ahve to pay my own credit card, too
      how do I become an ex-unioist pollie or a boat person?

    • Freeman says:

      09:13am | 01/09/11

      Hi Mal,

      I saw the following written by Graham Richardson the other day and I thought you should read it.

      “Some of my friends in the party are pleading with me to stop criticising them in whatever I write or say. The obvious difficulty with that is the 27 per cent figure, which is the lowest recorded by a main party since polls came into being. Lavishing praise on the party is impossible in these circumstances if I am to be left with a shred of credibility - and credibility is not a word too many would associate with this Labor government”

    • Andrew says:

      09:15am | 01/09/11

      Gillard no longer only has red hair, but is red faced also. Not only fails as Prime Minister, but also fails as a Lawyer.
      She should have just stuck with her true ambition, working in a class room.

    • Kika says:

      09:30am | 01/09/11

      I seriously don’t understand this country.

      A few years ago the general consensus amongst those against asylum seekers was “Who cares about the UNHCR? It’s a complete waste of time. There’s a hundred other countries these people could go to before getting to Australia”

      NOW the liberals are up in arms because Labor has made a decision to off shore process people in a country who aren’t signatories to the convention.

      What the?

      Once again the asylum seekers are stuck in a political tug of war with NOTHING to do with them or their situation but for political mileage. It disgusts me.

    • Kim says:

      09:56am | 01/09/11

      It’s not hard to understand, Kika. As Malcolm points out, there are a disproportionate number of votes to be gained by dog whistling.

    • Babs of Syd says:

      10:42am | 01/09/11

      Kika - the asylum seekers are stuck in a situation they created themselves by throwing away their documentation and buying their way to the country of their choice.  Accusing the Liberals of making “political mileage” out of the situation is stupidity on your part.  What would Labor do if the situation were reversed?  Obviously your “disgust” is only reserved for the Liberal Party and you seem to look the other way when it comes to Labor ‘s management of the situation.

    • Mark says:

      10:58am | 01/09/11

      Kika,

      It is easy to understand.

      It’s the incompetence of this government the people have an issue with, not the policy as such.

      From what I have read here today the vast majority of comments relate to the sheer incompetence this government continues to display. It is truly astonishing. This is just another cluster mess in a very long list.

      I’m a very long way from being a Labor support but I liked the policy, it makes sense. I have always thought the solution was to dramatically increase our asylum seeker intake through other channels and stop the acceptance of asylum seekers that arrive illegally. When the chances of being accepted into Australia are significantly greater through other options than if arriving by boat, why would an asylum seeker risk arriving by boat?

      I, like so many, find the trade in people abhorrent, that is why we need to stop the options people smugglers have. Its pretty simple.

    • Kika says:

      11:45am | 01/09/11

      Kim - Agreed… It’s sad but true.

      Babs - did you read what I said? I didn’t say disgusted by the liberals, I included the whole country which includes the labor party.

      My distaste in the situation is because the policy on asylum seekers is used for votes and has nothing to do with the welfare of the people.

      I am also shocked by the liberals, yes true, that they are swinging this against labor even though the Malaysian deal is not that much different to the Pacific Solution John Howard brought in. I can clearly remember debating at the time about the UNHCR and no one giving a rats a**se about it, but now they do? And I bet any money that if the libs had thought of this they wouldn’t have battered an eyelid. We’re sending them back to where they most likely originated from.

      Come on!

      P.S. Throwing away documentation? LOL.

    • AdamC says:

      09:40am | 01/09/11

      I was watching 7.30 last night, and Scott Morrison was putting on another excellent performance. While I am not necessarily advocating a leadership change, with Morrison as opposition leader, I suspect the Coalition could get Labor’s primary vote below 25%.

      I think the next step here needs to be for the Coalition to offer to assist Labor in passing enabling legislation for a Manus Island or Nauru solution that would meet the requirements of the High Court decision. Otherwise, the people smugglers will be very much back in business with their business model very much intact.

    • Kim says:

      10:14am | 01/09/11

      Why would the Coalition offer that, Adam?  They’re trying to win votes here, not lose them.

    • AdamC says:

      10:40am | 01/09/11

      Because is it both smart politics and in the national interest, Kim. The Coalition would have a pretty effective comeback to the silly ‘Dr No’, ‘Mr Negativity’ taunts, wouldn’t they?

    • Hamish says:

      11:07am | 01/09/11

      Yes AdamC, but what would happen to the rainbow coalition in that circumstance? The necromancer might fly the coop.

    • Kim says:

      11:37am | 01/09/11

      So it’s smart politics to lose votes now, Adam?

      Nothing can save Abbott from his negativity.

      And as for the national interest; don’t make me laugh.

    • James1 says:

      12:22pm | 01/09/11

      Excellent thought there Adam.  What happens next will be the real test of whether the ALP is interested in effective yet humane policy, or if they are just interested in not losing the next election.

    • AdamC says:

      12:58pm | 01/09/11

      Your assumption is wrong, Kim. It is great for oppositions when they are seen to be leading with the policy answers - being the de facto government, as it were. It will not cost the Coalition votes to bail out the hopeless rabble from this lastest policy catastrophe.

      James1, sadly, don’t we already know the answer to that question?

    • James1 says:

      01:13pm | 01/09/11

      Sorry Adam, perhaps I should rephrase my original comment.

      “What happens next will be confirmation that the ALP is not interested in effective yet humane policy, and that they are just interested in not losing the next election.”

      There.  Much better.

    • Kim says:

      07:18pm | 01/09/11

      @Adam

      Your assumption is wrong. The Coalition could simply support amendments that would render the Malaysian deal valid, but they won’t, because if we had bipartisanship they’d lose their dog whistle.

    • Fred from Queensland says:

      09:41am | 01/09/11

      A clear ruling from the top legal experts should stimulate a rethink of asylum policy in the context of domestic and international LAW. Media had better catch up and report the difference between an asylum seeker LEGALLY entitled to cross our border and ASK for protection and the fully adjudicated UNHCR refugees who are selected for resettlement in Australia as “refugee migrants”. We cannot escape our obligations to asylum seekers, most of whom who come by boat are processed and confirmed to be refugees needing protection. We can be as generous or mean as we like about the number of refugee migrants we choose to resettle each year, and 6000 plus another 1000 Burmese this year from Malaysia is not a big number if the migrant intake is 180 000 this year.
      Malcolm, how will resettleing 1000 Burmese, possibly Chin, possibly Christian and longtime exploited residents in Muslim Malaysia stop the mostly Muslim Afghans, Iranians and Iraqis from taking the desperate last option of the boats? Should we not resettle also those potential boaties who ARE refugees before they get sucked into the commercial travel trade? Our focus should be on stopping the potential passenegers abnd giving them a decent choice, not on the bloody boats. How many processed UNHCR refugees from the Middle East /Central Asia war zones are in the pool of those waiting for UNHCR resettlement? Are they deliberately by- passed in the Malaysian 1000 for four years deal? Can you check if the total quota for refugee intake from KL this year’ s program is the 245 from last year PLUS the 1000 new ones?

    • Al says:

      09:50am | 01/09/11

      I don’t like where this is going. I find it very disturbing as do my work and social mates. Without resorting to name calling or glib throw away lines, can the wise amongst you please use some rigor when answering my questions.

      Do we now have ANY right to our own sovereignty?

      Do we have ANY ability to protect our boarders?

      Do we have ANY ability, intent or means to determine who can stay in this country and who can’t?

      Why do foreign nationals have greater access to legal aid and representation than our own citizens?

    • Anna C says:

      10:27am | 01/09/11

      I agree with you Al. It seems like we no longer have a right to protect our way of life or a say in how we choose to live. Everyone else’s rights seem to trump our own. We should stop being so bloody namby pamby and assert our rights as a nation. Bugger the UN and their stupid refugee convention. It’s 50 years out of date.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:49am | 01/09/11

      “Without resorting to name calling or glib throw away lines, can the wise amongst you please use some rigor when answering my questions”

      Considering those questions amount to stupid hyperbole, complete with Internet shouting, I doubt you’re going to get any intelligent responses.

    • James1 says:

      12:32pm | 01/09/11

      “Do we now have ANY right to our own sovereignty?”

      Yes.  That is why the Immigration Department can and does refuse people (even those applying for asylum) visas.  That is why we have a Defence Force.  That is why the UN recognises Australia’s soveriegnty, and its rights to territorial integrity.

      “Do we have ANY ability to protect our boarders?”

      If you are worried about the safety of your boardshorts, lock your doors and windows when you aren’t home, and tie the drawstring tight when you wear them.  When it comes to protecting our national borders, it is incredibly difficult due to our long coastline, but our Navy and Customs service are actually quite effectively equipped - that is the reason why these boats, more often than not, are intercepted before they reach the Australian mainland.

      “Do we have ANY ability, intent or means to determine who can stay in this country and who can’t?”

      Yes.  See the answer to the first question.  All the statistics can be found in the Immigration Department’s Annual Reports.

      “Why do foreign nationals have greater access to legal aid and representation than our own citizens?”

      They don’t.  What makes you think they do?  Every Australian citizen accused of a crime has access to legal aid.

      Anna, can you provide an example of a time you were denied the ability to live how you see fit due to immigrants?

    • Anna C says:

      01:27pm | 01/09/11

      “Anna, can you provide an example of a time you were denied the ability to live how you see fit due to immigrants?”

      Well James1, I like many people would like to see a stop to asylum seekers arriving here by boat. I have no problem with immigrants who arrive here via the proper channels.

      Sending asylum seekers to Malaysia, Manus Island or Nauru would have had a deterrent effect on more asylum seekers arriving here by boat but according to the High Court we are not allowed to send them to these countries.   

      Also I am not a big fan of refugees because most of them are still unemployed and living off welfare even 5 years after arrival (see one of my earlier posts for web link as proof). This means more of my taxpayer dollars are being spent on people who either cannot or chose not to contribute to our society by working and paying taxes. This puts a greater burden on the rest of us to work and pay taxes to support the ever expanding number of people living on welfare. That is how I am being denied the ability to live how I see fit, because I have to support more and more of asylum seekers/refugees who don’t want to help themselves.

      I’m sure support for asylum seekers/ refugees would increase within the community if the majority of them got jobs and paid taxes just like the rest of us. I don’t think I’m asking for too much from them. Other immigrants work and pay taxes so why can’t they?

    • James1 says:

      02:56pm | 01/09/11

      That’s a long bow to draw Anna.  Personally, I am more concerned about bigger items of expenditure than what is spent on asylum seekers, but if you really feel that is affecting your quality of life, you are free to do so, I guess.

      For me, instead of worrying what someone else is getting and becoming all het up about it, I just look to myself to improve my own quality of life.  Several thousand asylum seekers getting benefits instead of some third generation dole bludger that happens to have been born here isn’t going to make me upset, or make me feel like I am hard done by in some way.  Keep in mind that most of the expansion in welfare comes about not due to asylum seekers, but the breeding lumpenproletariat that fills housing commission neighbourhoods and regional and remote communities all across the country.

      But like I say, you are allowed to choose what you get bothered by.  judging by your original post, I just thought you might have an actual example, rather than this abstract idea that some people getting something means that you are missing out on something else somehow.

    • Al says:

      07:39pm | 01/09/11

      James1

      “Yes. That is why the Immigration Department can and does refuse people (even those applying for asylum) visas. That is why we have a Defence Force. “

      The entire Australian Defence Force, including the reserves of all three services, won’t even fill the MCG. It only just makes ¾ of the crowd for the Sydney Olympic Stadium. It is over tasked and under resourced. The Immigration Dept is even smaller. Why would you think this government Dept would be any better resourced or any more capable to defend our boarders than the ADF?

      “That is why the UN recognises Australia’s sovereignty, and its rights to territorial integrity.”

      Yet lambasts us and calls us racists at every opportunity, then sticks its hand out for more money or a signature on the bottom of yet another treaty, how many of which are actually debated in parliament?

      “When it comes to protecting our national borders, it is incredibly difficult due to our long coastline, but our Navy and Customs service are actually quite effectively equipped - that is the reason why these boats, more often than not, are intercepted before they reach the Australian mainland.”

      I will argue differently after having lived in the NT for a number of years and having seen firsthand a number of camps set up on our shores by illegal fishermen from Indonesia. Then there is the dodgy light plane flights that come in low to bush strips and are gone again before the authorities can react. When foot and mouth disease breaks out in our livestock industry as a result more people are going to have the same point of view.

      “Why do foreign nationals have greater access to legal aid and representation than our own citizens?” -  They don’t. What makes you think they do?

      I have seen the posters in the common rooms of the Baxter Detention Centre. I have spoken to guards that worked there. The foreign nationals that end up in the detention centres have paid their way here (whether by air or boat it doesn’t matter) and use our legal system against us. How many times have we seen that reported? Below are just a couple of examples:

      http://www.news.com.au/national/refugees-set-to-sue-australia-for-millions-for-psychological-damage/story-e6frfkvr-1226069828228

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-19/asylum-seekers-could-sue-commonwealth-lawyer/2650620

      http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/refugees-to-sue-for-time-in-detention/20110606-1fnuj.html

      How much do you think it would cost to mount this type of legal action if you were going to pay for it out of your pocket?

      Where do you think the asylum seekers got these ideas from? Certainly wasn’t the average taxpayer.

      Do you think they have the right to sue their government for the same issues in their own country? Probably not, that’s why they left.

      Would they be able to afford it in their own country? If not, why is it they can afford to in this country?

      “Every Australian citizen accused of a crime has access to legal aid.”

      Sorry, wrong, Every Australian who is accused of a crime is means tested before they are granted access to legal aid. A fair trial only exists if you can afford to pay for representation. If you’re on 40k, in a relationship and have a car, you don’t qualify for legal aid. I know a young bloke in just this situation. He is already 30k plus in debt from legal fees and hasn’t gone to trial yet!

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      01:28am | 02/09/11

      We do not get to protect our borders from refugees, why don’t you ask Afghanistan and Iraq about us invading their borders with war planes, drones, bombs and bullets.

      You selfish little cowards wouldn’t know a hard time if it bit you on your selfish little noses.

    • Al says:

      10:34am | 02/09/11

      Ahh, so you are the infamous Marilyn Shepard.  So nice to be graced by your short-sighted bleeding heart.

      While you’re at it Marilyn, why don’t you ask the Afghani asylum seekers why their country actively harboured international terrorists for so long, why they still repress the rights of women and children and why they ran away instead of fighting to improve their own country.

      Then ask the victims of the Bali bombing if they are magnanimous enough to forgive radical Islam who targeted them during their holidays and have also planned attacks in Melbourne and Sydney.

      Then when you have done that you can ask the Iraqis why the majority Sunni population had not stood up for themselves when they were repressed by Saddam Hussein and why they too ran away instead of standing up for their own country.

      Who is the coward Marilyn, someone who is prepared to right the wrong or someone who wants to runaway? How many war zones have you been in Marilyn? I’ve been in three. How much sacrifice have you made Marilyn? My family and I have done our share.  It is so nice of you to snipe from the side lines. Next time you look in the mirror the coward will be looking back at you.

    • Aitch B says:

      09:53am | 01/09/11

      I’m waiting for the “Marilyn Shepherd solution”......... smile

    • James1 says:

      12:38pm | 01/09/11

      No doubt it will involve people being called “sniveling racists” or perhaps “retards”, and it will all be John Howard’s fault.

    • Tammy says:

      09:58am | 01/09/11

      Pushing aside any political gain on how this problem could be solved I wish Malcolm Farr would for once write something that could be helpful all round. The Nauru solution worked and should be taken up again, this time making sure that those arriving on our shores are treated humanely on Nauru waiting to be processed. It seems off shore processing is needed to prevent these vulnerable people from paying boat smugglers large sums of money to come to Australia. Nauru, an island whose people are ready to welcome these people is our best bet. Nauru under our living standards and in our control would be far better than what these people are running away from. This couldn’t be done in Malaysia but can be done in Nauru.

      Together Labor and the Opposition can fix it.

    • Lucas says:

      10:23am | 01/09/11

      What do you mean TOGETHER?
      The Coalition had already fixed it!
      It was arrogant populist Labor who wrecked something that already was working to try and win more votes. Labor are the WRECKERS! Labor said NO! to a policy that worked, Labor were the NEGATIVE! ones on Howards border protection policy., Labor and Gillard in particular that launched FEAR/SCARE campaigns (another boat another policy failure) against Howard and it’s Labor who have NO border protection policies!
      This is Labors mess to sort out, nothing to do with the Coalition or Abbott.  Abbott and the Coalition have a sound border protection policy ready to go and always have.

    • Andrew says:

      10:52am | 01/09/11

      Nauru wont pass the test anymore without bi-partisan changes.

    • Tammy says:

      12:33pm | 01/09/11

      Lucas what is the point of getting angry - Labor versus Coalition. As I said lets put that all that political scoring aside and deal with what is best for the nation and the asylum seekers. The problem now is dealing with the High Court to enable off shore processing to take place. Nauru worked so together the major parties should see to it that those seeking asylum be sent to Nauru for processing to take place. Please read my comments again.

      Andrew is right Nauru will only work now with bi-partisan changes making sure it will be approved in the high court. Forget everything and allow the two parties to work together for a solution.

    • Mrs, Grey says:

      10:07am | 01/09/11

      The more we get of refugees just brazenly waltzing in through the back door then the more this country is going to become a third world country. Where is our border protection? Where is our national security? I for one don’t want my tax dollars footing the bill for refugees and their families lifetime existence living off welfare. We need to set new tough rules and no more pussyfooting around.

    • Cate P says:

      10:11am | 01/09/11

      Those who fly in have documents proving their identity so are processed differently than those in boats who have no ID; and Morrison’s arguments are devastatingly effective and can’t be countered because they are true.  This is just another monumental government stuff-up of a particularly humiliating kind.

    • Monty says:

      10:14am | 01/09/11

      The boat people are a never ending story…the problem is not people seeking asylum in Australia its the the bloody boat smugglers whom seem to be profiteering from the chaos they have brought about.  Both political parties should be red faced that they have not found neutral ground where they can work together.  Its not the boat people it’s Australia that is running scared and we have been doing that for years.

    • MarK says:

      10:18am | 01/09/11

      “Yesterday’s High Court judgment might not be all sweetness for the Opposition, either. Liberals argue the court gave a tick to sending asylum seekers to Nauru, but there is a counter interpretation of the critical paragraph 128 in the ruling.

      That interpretation says the High Court was merely saying it was not dealing with Nauru - which like Malaysia has not signed the UN refugee convention - as a destination for asylum seekers. It might do at another time.”

      And

      “It still is well behind the relentless and ruthless campaigning by Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison.”

      And

      “So that’s not even 3000 people, which was around the number who protested against the Government’s carbon pricing plans on the lawns in front of Parliament House earlier in the year. But they have more political significance.”

      And

      “Scott Morrison has portrayed this little group as a massive drain on the exchequer by tallying the costs of everything from security to phone cards. This is designed to play on the insecurities of voters who think these blow-ins (or sail-ins) are enjoying benefits they can’t get.
      It’s cynical but effective, and Mr Morrison has not been bothered by matching counter arguments from the Government.”

      So apparently the Liberals are in trouble on an issue they didn’t create and in fact had in total control.

      Of course this can be put down the “relentless and ruthless” campaigning by Abbott and Morrison which is apparently bad because no other opposition has ever held a government to account or pointed out when they break perfectly good and working policy settings. Unheard of stuff that.

      And anyway we all saw how useless people power is and demonstrations that ordinary Australians….oh sorry right wing extremists and Tea Party wannabes attend and with numbers so minimal we can draw a direct correlation between those numbers and the number of asylum seekers to get another dig in at truck drivers and the like concerned over the future of their country under current management.

      This is intellectual correct because everyone acknowledges if you can’t get more to a protest than turn up on a boat in a set time period then both are inconsequential.

      Not to be quite done yet we also should not mention the cost which was negligible after the Pacific Solution worked because to actually point out we are paying more for this tougher/weaker/more and less humane/abandoned East Timor/illegal or whatever it is at the moment “solution” is what….rude I guess?

      Or it is playing on “insecurities” whatever that means.

      So in conclusion damn that cynical Morrison for having a solution which worked demonstrably well.

      It is all so unfair isn’t it?

    • Disraeli says:

      12:52pm | 01/09/11

      Nauru and the UN Refugee Convention:

      Nauru’s UN move on refugee convention adds to pressure on Labor
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/naurus-un-move-on-refugee-convention-adds-to-pressure-on-labor/story-fn59niix-1226077250521

      Nauru signs refugee convention
      http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201106/3247975.htm?desktop

      So unless I’m missing some subtle difference, Farr’s remark

      ‘That interpretation says the High Court was merely saying it was not dealing with Nauru -  ** which like Malaysia has not signed the UN refugee convention** - as a destination for asylum seekers. It might do at another time.”

      is incorrect, at **, in current terms. Since June this year, Nauru is now a signatory.

      It *wasn’t*, back in the days of the Howard Gov’t and their Nauru solution. But for reasons I don’t have time to get across right now, I gather in the case of the time the High Court then gave a different interpretation, that did *not* over-turn the Howard system.

      Difficult area, all this. Serious loss for the Gillard Gov’t.

    • daniel says:

      10:18am | 01/09/11

      Many refugees and asylum seekers that arrive by boat are attempting to seek protection because there is a genuine fear that they will be persecuted, or in some cases have been persecuted, in their ‘home’ countries. These people should have every right to re-establish their lives in a place such as Australia where they are free from persecution; it would be what every Australian would want if their Government or society did the same. The majority arriving are ‘genuine’ with only a very small percentage having economic intentions and thus, contrary to ‘extreme’ opinion; refugees and asylum seekers are not invading Australia.

      Even though refugees and asylum seekers should be accepted upon arrival in Australia, there should be deterrents to make them come by means other than boat. It is all very well that political parties such as the Greens say that refugees and asylum seekers arriving by boat should be accepted because it would be inhumane to do otheriwse, that which is understandable, but dangerous to essentially invalidate the correct and safer channels to arriving in Australia. This statement gives out the message to refugees and asylum seekers that it can either be by boat or plane, although as the latter takes longer, boat is preferrable given that the outcome, asylum, is the same.

      The Government should be engaging in every avenue available to deter refugees and asylum seekers from thinking that arriving by boat is quickest way to get to Australia and have claims for asylum granted. There can be various Government solutions, mainly assisting in expediting the asylum recognition process in other countries. Through such measures the Government would be less likely to see refugees and asylum seekers risking their lives on the seas and a severe blow to the people smuggling trade as it would be seen as something that is no longer necessary due to more desirable channels being safer and efficient.

      Examining Australian off-shore processing in regards to refugees and asylum seekers it might be worth noting the arrangements other countries have had both in the past and in the present. The Italian and Libyan Governments at one point came to an arrangement whereby ‘illegal immigrants’, though as the UNHCR determined were asylum seekers, were deported from Italian detention centres to Italian funded Libyan detention centres as a solution to ‘off-shore processing’ or externalisation. Those that were deported were abused and had asylum claims ignored because Libya did not recognise the UNHCR mandate. There are similar arrangements across Europe, particularly that regarding the deportation of ‘illegal immigrants’ to their point of entry or the country they first entered in Europe.

      Current arrangements are nowhere near those that are or were established in Europe with the processing and securing of refugees and asylum seekers rights being taken up by the Australian Government. The ‘Malaysian solution’ that the Australian Government proposed was getting close to those arrangements in Europe, shrugging responsibility off to another country that could not necessarily guarantee their rights. By rejecting the ‘solution’, the High Court has maintained responsibility on the Australian Government tthat refugees and asylum seekers rights are ensured.

    • josh says:

      08:52am | 02/09/11

      No. Most of those coming here burn all forms of identification - they are ‘found’ to be refugees as they get the benefit of the doubt. They are in fact greedy, demanding, ungrateful queue jumpers.

    • daniel says:

      04:54pm | 02/09/11

      Josh, refugees and asylum seekers burn their documentation and identification because they are seeking refuge from persecution and asylum. They are not going on a holiday or temporarily staying for the purposes of work. That is an important distinction that should be emphasised as carrying documentation and identification across borders is to submit oneself to the ‘formal’ or ‘ordinary’ immigration process. For example, when you travel overseas, [in most cases] you require your passport and a visa application to enter the country. If you do not have a passport or visa application upon arrival then customs will immediately send you back because you have entered the country illegally.

      By burning documentation and identification, refugees and asylum seekers are not submitting themselves to the ‘formal’ immigration process, as others such as you or I would when we step off a plane in an airport and enter customs. If refugees and asylum seekers did submit themselves to the ‘formal’ immigration process, particularly in countries neighbouring that which they are fleeing, then they would be sent back by border security because they have entered ‘illegally’. It is very unlikely that they would have the time to submit the necessary applications to travel; undemocratic regimes might deny access to such services or such services might not be available during conflict.

      You are right in saying that those that arrive on Australian shores are given the benefit of the doubt as ‘refugees’. That would make sense as by labelling them as ‘ungrateful queue jumpers’, ‘economic migrants’ or ‘illegal immigrants’ at the outset would invalidate their applications, not only in entering Australia, but other countries as well. These individuals would then be forced to enter ‘formal’ immigration processes that might be difficult to obtain in their home countries. That is why refugees and asylum seekers burn their documentation and identification, so as to enter the ‘informal’ immigration process or asylum determination process.

    • DaveC says:

      10:19am | 01/09/11

      It’s a difficult, human problem, badly handled by both sides of politics. Labor shouldn’t have tried to win over the other side in the first place, but now the haters are getting boisterous.

      So tough, so fearless - are you prepared to sink overcrowded boats? Are you prepared to let unseaworthy boats full of people sink? Pretty easy to pretend it’s all about “queue jumping”, and “lock ‘em up somewhere else”.

      “It’s about sovereignty”, you say; it’s all about “we will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come”. “It’s all about stopping people smugglers”. That’s delusional, self-comforting bullshit.

      Desperate people will do what it takes to get a better shot at life, and it’s usually about just getting a fair go - a safe place to live, work and raise a family.

      You all sound pretty determined, fired-up sorts - bet you wouldn’t let your family languish in a hell-hole like Iraq, or Afghanistan or [insert third-world or war-ravaged country name here]?

      No way, you wouldn’t stand for that - you’d be getting them the hell out of there, right? And you’d be rushing-off to the nearest “queue”? Put yourself in their shoes, and get real.

      The “Ship ‘em out, lock ‘em up and f**k ‘em over” approach makes hard-hearts feel good, but costs a fortune to run, and costs even more when the victims turn out to be refugees afterall.

    • MarkS says:

      11:17am | 01/09/11

      @DaveC
      I am cold, callous & heartless, so yes I am prepared to sink overcrowded boats, if required & if I would get away with it. Fit your model for a bad person do I?

      As it is not required & I would not get away with it, so I & indeed no one here has recommended doing so.

      As for delusional, self comforting bullshit, well your post was. Sovereignty may be bullshit to you, but your position is bullshit to most Australians.

      Would I allow my family, should I have had one, to languish in a hellhole, no, so what. Just becouse I am capable of thinking what standing in other shoes means & would act the same does not mean I have to allow them to do to me what I would do to them. If I was a drug addict I may steal, does not mean I allow drug addicts to steal from me.

      Have you managed to make yourself feel oh so superior & smug with your display of greater self righteousness & compassion? Yes, well congrats, but it does not make your argument any more logical.

      Moral posturing full of sound, fury & bullshit, sigifying a empty mind & a bleeding heart.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      10:22am | 01/09/11

      This is joyous news indeed. While political parties sell their soul for a short term fix – it turns out our courts still have integrity – its enough to make a man comment again.

    • 14th Man says:

      10:35am | 01/09/11

      Malcolm,  there seems to be an air of sympathy for Labor from you, if you read between the lines of this story. To say that Mr Morrison is being cynical in some way by pointing out the huge taxpayer expense of dealing with the asylum seeker issue, is either drawing a very long bow indeed, insulting to voters who genuinely want to know the cost, or it exposes your own leanings toward the Gillard Govt in the faint hope that you might be one of their media ‘saviors’  or a combo of all three. Please don’t patronise us Mr Farr. We know what’s been going on for years ! We just want the truth and the Opposition is delivering that as best they can and it seems you for one dont like that very much at all.

    • Cate P says:

      11:00am | 01/09/11

      Now that you point it out, a vague leaning towards Labor is sometimes faintly discernible in the very balanced, even handed pieces that Malcolm Farr writes for The Punch.  But heck, the guy’s only human.

    • GC Dude says:

      10:56am | 01/09/11

      I read somewhere that the new name for Gillard is the “Limbo Queen”, as in how-low-can-she-go in the polls. Hopefully there is a stop to the music soon so we can all be rid of this ongoing disaster of a Govt. Hats off to whoever came up with that name.

    • poa says:

      11:02am | 01/09/11

      Wow….all that ALP spin. You get a hand from the Press releases from ALP central?
      Tony Abbot and the bad Liberals will attack us Goodies over this minor setback?
      Interesting that we are seeing more and more how union monies have gone missing and potentially ended up in ALP electoral campaigns.
      Perhaps you can tell us all if you’ve heard anything at all about such things?

    • Jackson says:

      11:05am | 01/09/11

      Ministers in the current government - Gillard - Lawyer, Crean - Lawyer, Smith - Lawyer, Roxon - Lawyer, Wong - Lawyer, McLelland - Lawyer, Ludwig - Lawyer, O’connor - Lawyer, Shorten - Lawyer, Butler - Lawyer, Clare - Lawyer. How are these people getting it all so damn wrong ?

    • Ron Vincent says:

      11:48am | 01/09/11

      You could have gone further Jackson and listed those who are promoted members of unions. No one is denying that many on the Labor side of politics has a good education, BUT I can’t recall one, not one, of them showing any COMMON SENSE.

    • Jackson says:

      12:17pm | 01/09/11

      Ron it was more an indictment of their individual and collegiate legal competence

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      03:01pm | 01/09/11

      Exactly Jackson.  And the first thing any lawyer will tell a client is, you may be in the wrong, but will it actually go to trial. If no body takes you to court about it then you can do whatever you please. My guess is the ALP knew exactly what the risks were, knew exactly what they were getting into but decided on the balance the punt that no one would take this to court was worth the risk.

    • Against the Man says:

      05:57pm | 01/09/11

      Guess the answer is simple. Their as dumb as shit. Wher;e is Roxon? In hiding? How is the health care no-reform f@#k up going? smile

    • Leigh says:

      11:18am | 01/09/11

      Illegal entry is not a “minor matter”; nor, relative to our population and culture, are the numbers of illegals “puny”.

      Nauru is a joke: most of those put on that island ended up in Australia, and it cost us big time.

      The problem started with another Labor idiot, Doc Evatt, who signed up to the Refugee Coaltion after WW2. Our refusal to break off relations with the corrupt UN and its world government ambitions is another problem. Both of these problems stem from the main problem   - the utter incompetence and cowardice of Australian politicians.

      The biggest threat to Australia is not lack of border protection, globalisation, selling off of land to foreigners, imports of tainted New Zealand apples and other food best produced here. There is only one real problem and threat to Australia: the moronic politicians Australians vote for irrespective of ideology. Labor, Liberal, left or right - they are all the same.

      To say, as Farr does, that “...the Opposition is in command of the policy on this issue.” means nothing.

      The Oppostiion’s shadow Immigration Minister is no more impressive than Bowen, and the Goverment has two years to run. What the Opposition does, says or thinks is irrelevant.

      What Australia desperately needs now is a male Pauline Hanson - with brains.

    • mike j says:

      11:21am | 01/09/11

      This Government is comically bad. Ignoring your constituents is nothing new, but first-year law students saw this judgement coming a mile away.

      What a waste of time, money, and our nation’s credibility. These people aren’t fit to be backbenchers.

    • Mickey T says:

      11:22am | 01/09/11

      I can’t for the life of me fathom why Gillard did not adopt the Nauru option; it would have gained bi-partisan support from the LNP…end of story. Surely it wasn’t based on ‘they did that’ - ‘we can’t’, if it was based on pure childish politics then we are all in serious trouble. This charade must stop, grow up Australia.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      11:46am | 01/09/11

      Good call. Let’s go back to using Nauru.

      And ffs, let’s stop letting these people use our legal system against us. Who funded this charade? I’d be very, very angry if there was any taxpayer money involved.

    • fred from qld says:

      01:14pm | 01/09/11

      let’s ask some Australian citizens whta it was like to be isolated and abandobned for 2(minimum) to five years on birdshit island, 21 sq miles of expended phosphate ? Never heard comment from former Afghan Iraqi refugees, have we. UNHCR won’t line up for the processing job., so will Nauru with 10 000 inhabitants   train qualified refugee claims assessors quick time? Know of any Immigration Officers who would volunteer to travel there and stay there for any length of time and work in third world conditions in the equitorial heat? Will lawyers and migration agents be prepared to work there? ( Only those with high mortgages and few career options?) How many trained mental health nurses and psychatrists will be stationed there, or be prepared to fly in fly our? The Coalition proposal to reopen Nauru should be killed off right now, on the logic that when challenged Nauru too will be found an unlawful option and no solution. Like last time.
      Processing abiout 4 000 boat arrivals seeking protection a year (12 000 in last 3 years) is no big deal, shouldn’t cost a billion.

    • Kika says:

      01:45pm | 01/09/11

      Well it’s hard to have a good government if all the opposition want to do is oppose everything… yes… be in opposition but if you have nothing constructive to discuss and if you have no alternative policy solutions don’t oppose like like a angry 5 year old child who can’t get their way.

    • AdamC says:

      01:54pm | 01/09/11

      Kika, “nothing constructive to discuss” ... “no alternative policy solutions” - are we talking about the opposition here or the government?

      “Well it’s hard to have a good government if all the opposition want to do is oppose everything ...” Well, the last Coalition government managed it for 11 years.

      I mean, I feel sorry for the Labor tragics at present, but really!

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      02:10pm | 01/09/11

      kika - why should the Liberals support bad policy as so far they’re all just been brain-farts. Labor’s failed policies haven’t all been about Liberal negativity - its been about mismanagement and disorganisation on the part of Labor and obviously their new strategy is to blame all this on the Liberals. Maybe if the Labor Party got something right for a change there wouldn’t be anything for the Liberals to be negative about - the Labor Party only have themselves to blame for their cluster-f*cks especially this High Court judgement.

      And Kika you said “you have no alternative policy solutions don’t oppose like like a angry 5 year old child who can’t get their way” - the opposition do have a proven policy they keep putting forward - Nauru !! but the Labor Party have been too childish to listen.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      11:25am | 01/09/11

      But where is Acotrel with his “something something budgy smugglers divert divert”  spiel today?  come on Acotrel, even Mal Farr was able to somehow spin this back onto Abott,  surely you can give it a shot!

    • David S says:

      11:31am | 01/09/11

      I wonder when the penny will drop that this is quite an activist stance that the High Court is taking.  They are setting a very high standard for treatment of asylum seekers who have managed to reach Australian jurisdiction.  This is a trap for the coalition, but it seems their celebration of a defeat of the Government has blinded them to the realization that this kills their own policies. 
      ‘Stop the boats’ can be added to the list of completely unachievable policy positions set out by the coalition.  Even if the statutory human rights requirements in domestic legislation were watered down substantially, the base requirements of the UN Human Rights convention will be extremely difficult to legislate around in a way that bullet-proofs the off shore processing of refugees from High Court sanction.
      Then the champagne corks will be well and truly back in the bottle.

    • marley says:

      02:46pm | 01/09/11

      Actually, on this particular issue, I don’t think they’re taking all that activist a stance at all, nor are they setting a particularly high standard.

      Did you know that most of the EU countries are signatories to something called the Dublin Convention - which allows countries to send back asylum seekers to the first country they set foot in - but every country which is a member of the Dublin Convention is a signatory to the Convention, every one of them has a proper refugee process in place, and all of them have good human rights records.  And it still took years to get the agreement in place.

      Canada and the US have a similar agreement - and again, it took years to get through all the legal arguments and hurdles.

      Why the Gillard government thought it could do better, and come up with something legally fireproof in a couple of months, especially when it involved sending refugees back to a non-signatory country, is anyone’s guess.

    • Steve says:

      11:34am | 01/09/11

      The ALP has no alternative but to deploy the full suite of diversionary tactics.
      There must be an immediate announcement of a concience vote debate on:

      The Republic
      Euthenasia
      homosexual marriage

      The debate should take place immediately after the AFL/Rugby finals season.

      After that I am clueless on what they can do in 2012 which is of course the year of the pokies and carbon dioxide.

      I wonder if Bob Brown can come up with a few ideas.

    • Mark says:

      01:17pm | 01/09/11

      Steve,

      Don’t forget Work Choices and the favourite, “it would be worse with Abbott”. They will say anything to avoid looking at their checklist of disasters.

    • Mayday says:

      03:53pm | 01/09/11

      Steve, so true.

      Finally we can stop ignoring the elephant in the room that is Industrial Relations and you’re right the Left will scream and shout their Work Choices mantras again.
      The new Fair Work Act needs some definite tweaking so business has more flexibility and penalty rates need revisiting, its 2011and we live in a 24/7 world.

    • Steve says:

      04:59pm | 01/09/11

      Totally agree mayday. But make it part of the coalition platform prior to the election. With an honourable mandate to revert IR to the pre work choices era.

      I don’t want Abbott to specifically rule our IR reform in the campaign then break that committment after the election. Take the people with you Tony.

    • You are Joking. says:

      12:18pm | 01/09/11

      Question: Who is running this country? The government that the majority of people elected (in theory) - or a bunch of judges who were not elected by the people??

      If the MAJORITY of people in this country want people smuggling stopped, then why cant the will of the people be carried out by the democratically elected government?

      Summary: You can have democracy - provided it doesnt upset any Left Wing nutbags.

    • You are Joking. says:

      12:18pm | 01/09/11

      Question: Who is running this country? The government that the majority of people elected (in theory) - or a bunch of judges who were not elected by the people??

      If the MAJORITY of people in this country want people smuggling stopped, then why cant the will of the people be carried out by the democratically elected government?

      Summary: You can have democracy - provided it doesnt upset any Left Wing nutbags.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:31pm | 01/09/11

      I suggest you do some reading on:

      1) The philisophical reasons for seperation of courts and governemt

      2) The history of nations which have a seperation between courts and governenments - and how they always seem more stable and prosperous than the alternatives.

      Armed with this knowledge, I’m confident you will be able to answer your own questions accurately.

    • Disraeli says:

      12:38pm | 01/09/11

      +1, htpm.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      02:16pm | 01/09/11

      All the High Court said was the democratically elected government can’t side step the laws the democratically elected parliament wrote. The agreement with Malaysia was expressly non binding. I.e. Malaysia didn’t HAVE to do what the agreement asked. So the Minister can’t hand asylum seekers over to Malaysia who doesn’t HAVE to do things the Migration Act says the Minister does HAVE to do.

    • You are Joking says:

      03:28pm | 01/09/11

      Yes Yes…Separation of powers….

      But i reiterate:

      “If the MAJORITY of people in this country want people smuggling stopped [by the government], then why cant the will of the people be carried out by the democratically elected government?”

      ...or is the bottom line that we just need to change the law?

    • marley says:

      04:09pm | 01/09/11

      Of course the bottom line is that we have to change the law.  Governments are bound by legislation just as much as the average citizen, and a good thing too, or you’d have the cops tapping your phone line and the ATO snooping through your mail.  The Court has done its job and said, right, here’s the law, and you’re breaking it. 

      The government has two choices now - change its policy or change the law.  Because when it comes to a choice, law trumps policy every time.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      04:13pm | 01/09/11

      “...or is the bottom line that we just need to change the law? “
      Exactly. Parliament just needs to change the law and then Gillard government will be free to pack as many of em as it wants off to Malaysia or where ever it pleases. alternatively the Gillard government can find somewhere that will sign a binding agreement. Something along those lines anyway.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:29pm | 01/09/11

      No chance. The Greens and the Coalition would vote any changes to the migrantion act down - for different reasons

    • Daniel says:

      12:24pm | 01/09/11

      This means that the Greens were correct all along. Very good work.

    • Tammy says:

      12:48pm | 01/09/11

      No wrong we need to have a deterrent and off shore processing plus TPVs has to be part of the policy. Just because the High Court has ruled the Malaysian solution out doesn’t mean that these asylum seekers be processed here. Nauru with TPVs worked before so together the two major parties should make bi-partisan changes making sure that it is approved by the High Court. Nauru we are in control and therefore are in the position to treat them humanely according to Australian standards. In Malaysian these vulnerable people would be out of our control but in the hands of the Malaysian legal system etc. Take politics out of it we can then at least have a humane system happening which will take care of every situation.

      The problem we have now if this government doesn’t take up Nauru quickly is having to still take the 4,000 refugee from Malaysia and paying them $300 million even though we are not sending them the 800. This was all part of the swap deal which have been forgotten.

      Please if you are to reply no politics, it simply won’t get us anywhere.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      01:16pm | 01/09/11

      The Greens? LOL. That’s the same mob that said it would never rain again and wants to shut down our coal mines.. ..

      Credibility = 0

    • Trent says:

      12:30pm | 01/09/11

      How anyone can expect or trust this Gillard Government to roll out the worlds biggest carbon tax and the NBN efficiently and professionally is beyond me. How can anyone believe anything they are telling us about their “sound advice”?
      These guys are a bunch of arrogant, lying, deluded clowns who have no idea what they’re doing.
      Game over Gillard Labor! Your an embarrassment!

    • Stephen of brisbane says:

      12:38pm | 01/09/11

      Are the same cronies behind this that was behind the Rudd downfall.
      Looks like it me.
      Put Rudd back in, there wont be many cronies left.
      I voted Rudd in not Gillard.

    • Judy Jetson says:

      01:18pm | 01/09/11

      I suggest you give up on the Labor party alltogether - most of Australia has.

    • Steve says:

      01:27pm | 01/09/11

      Peter Beatie is making a press release tomorrow. It is whispered he will put his hand up for the Federal seat of brisbane.

      It is also believed that he is earmarked as the “long term” leader of ALP
      and will succeed Gillard.

      Given that a week is a “long time” in politics, I would suggest that Gillard doesn’t shop for bulk items to save money as it will be easier to pack.

      Also the Western bulldogs play their last game this week so if she intended to unpack those last few boxes still sitting around after the move last year then I would probably just hold off on that for now.

    • Ryan Melrose says:

      12:53pm | 01/09/11

      This is a media driven debate. Believe me I don’t walk into work and ever talk to my colleague about assylum seekers. It is only in the media and pollsters. Believe me it is not ever talked about.

    • Steve says:

      02:29pm | 01/09/11

      People avoid being labelled a racist or redneck at work. True feelings and the depth of that feeling are not revealed through superficial workplace relationships very often.

    • Jay says:

      01:04pm | 01/09/11

      What has happened to Labor? They simply do not want to listen. They tell us what we want to hear then renege because they know better. The Victorian Labor Party refused to listen to people calling for law and order and lenient sentences and got thrown out. Gillard is refusing to listen to the people about the Carbon Tax and illegal immigrants and she will get smashed at the next election. Politics 101, listen to your electorate. People do not want illegal immigration to continue because we do not have the recources to process them whilst families sleep in cars and tents waiting for public housing. Meanwhile we put up these people in 4 star hotels. It it any wonder Richo is just shaking his head in disbelief at what Gillard is doing to his beloved Labor Party.

    • Judy Jetson says:

      01:05pm | 01/09/11

      I wonder if the next Federal Election could be held on the same day as the QLD State Election - it would make it so much easier to vote out both incompetent Labor governments in one go.

    • Ian1 says:

      01:09pm | 01/09/11

      So ALP Ministers are acting outside of the law…  what’s new?

      Anyone with half a brain could have told you that with Malaysia not being a signatory to the UNHCR conventions, the legal rights of the illegal immigrant hopefuls wouldn’t be enshrined there.  Nairu on the otherhand was always a processing facility in line with Australian standards, as we were running the joint.

      Once again, a very costly blunder by a decrepid and leprous government and we the taxpayer foot the bill.

      Not happy Julia.

    • Sony b Goode says:

      01:16pm | 01/09/11

      What I want to know is what the 27% who still support labor are thinking?

      How pathetic does a government have to be before people vote with their heads rather than how their parents told them to vote.

      If you are one if those 27% reading, maybe you can explain yourselves?

    • Kika says:

      01:40pm | 01/09/11

      Hello Sony. I am a Labor voter. I have never been polled by anyone lately to see what I think about things. Frankly I wouldn’t be voting for Labor tomorrow. I wouldn’t be voting Liberal either. I am unimpressed with either side of the fence at the moment and if the election was called tomorrow I’d do a donkey vote.

    • Your name:glenm says:

      05:37pm | 01/09/11

      That kind of pathetic response shits me to tears. Im a labor voter but I wouldn’t vote for either .. What crap.  Use the half brain you have and maybe open your eyes to what is happening. Labor voters really are ignorant. You are the reason we are in this mess, stupid people voting for Rudd back in 2007 , why oh just because we need a change. Well here you go this is what you get for kicking out Howard.

    • gra gra says:

      02:32am | 02/09/11

      @glenn.m ...What a dickhead. We Labor voters never voted out John Howard. Don’t you remember, his own Liberal constituents, finally recognising him for the horrible person he was, threw him aside. You remember that, don’t you? The same thing awaits the religous crank who followed his every word. He’‘ll be discarded by honest Australians too.
      What you meant to say was that Australia, in massive numbers, threw out the Liberal/ National Party Coalition. Because they were, and are, political opportunists without forward policy for the betterment of this Nation.
      Don’t underestimate the intelligence of the Australian electorate. We are a little bit smarter than you silver-spooners, (and those who pretend to be silver-spooners) realise.
      One day your National Party farmers will tell the Nation why they employ, at low rates, those immigrants who don’t get vetted but stay, (overstay) their welcome on their “visitors, or work visas” but are a source of cheap labor for the farmers, canegrowers, orchardists, and other low-paid jobs. It’s called “expediency”, and don’t you miserable,
      “Howard-mourners” love it!
      You make me sick with your supplicating to those you obviously consider to be your masters. This is the biggest problem facing Australia today. The preparedness of weak, insecure, easily manipulated people who would rather follow an ‘elevated’ dogma, so as to have a feeling, however false, of moral and elevated superiority,
      than be just nice people.
      And for all of you dipsticks out there who follow the political scenery in this country “so closely”, their is no federally registered LNP Party. But don’t let that stop your Facsist rants. I love reading your whinging, and your oft-heared phrase, “How did Howard get put out? We are the ‘chosen people’! Sorry, you’re not!, but we are. We are the ordinary folk that make up this great Country.

    • marley says:

      07:32am | 02/09/11

      @gra-gra - nice rant.  What you’re saying is, the ALP can abuse the law and the most fundamental traditions of human rights and the refugee convention, and that’s fine with you because at least they’re not Libs or Nats.

      You’re in no position to criticise the moral stance of others.

    • Soames says:

      01:19pm | 01/09/11

      I agree with Malcolm Farr. The asylum seeker debate is a minor matter. And in terms of important matters, like inflation, house prices, 2 speed economy, unemployment rates, MRRT (that’s the Mineral Resources Rent Tax) etc, the shark like frenzied attacks by disenchanted individuals, only has to be led by a fisherman who knows which bait to put on the hook, wind in at the right speed, and the minnows will follow. The asylum seekers arriving by air recieve little press coverage, probably because no aircraft has so far crashed, and no burnt or drowned bodies are exhibited on news programs. There’s principally, at this hour, only one outcome in this matter, it’s a field day for journalists and commentators.

    • Brian Baxter says:

      01:26pm | 01/09/11

      I think people should firstly renounce their rights to Australias welfare system BEFORE they start complaining about others receiving what they themselves are entitled to. After all people did nothing to become Australian citizens (except for murdering the indiginous population and claiming all of their resources). Us white aussies will only run this country for a limited time, don’t get too comfortable!

    • gobsmack says:

      01:28pm | 01/09/11

      Not quite on topic, but does anyone else wonder how anyone from Afghanistan can claim to be a refugee?
      Didn’t we get rid of the Taliban and instal a nice democratic government with that well dressed man as president?  And isn’t the country filled with soldiers from the US, Australian and other western democracies.
      How is it that every western intervention in these countries (eg Iraq) is followed by a flood of refugees from the places supposedly liberated?

    • RyaN says:

      01:49pm | 01/09/11

      @gobsmack: a further question is why we don’t compulsorily draft these “refugees” back into the army and send them back to Afghanistan to fight for their country instead of leaving it up to us.

    • MarK says:

      01:59pm | 01/09/11

      Because they are economic refugees and are country shopping.

      Same as the Sri Lankan refugees fleeing from….a boring test match I guess.

      And the list goes on

    • marley says:

      02:33pm | 01/09/11

      Well, there are a couple of perspectives here.  One is that a great many Afghans did return home to Afghanistan after we kicked out the mullahs and brought in the man with the nice suits.  About 5 million of them, in fact.  So the intervention wasn’t a total loss.

      Unfortunately, we’re still there, still fighting, and the nice suit has control over Kabul and not much else.  The Hazara, the main target of Taliban ethnic cleansing, don’t live in Kabul.  So, they’re still facing a lot of the same old persecution from their Pashtun neighbours.  But, just to be clear, they’re still fleeing the Taliban, not us.

      The other point is, of course, that some of those Afghans are in fact Pakistanis from the same tribes but from the other side of the border.  And life in Sydney is better than life in Quetta.

    • Cuppa says:

      03:35pm | 01/09/11

      YOne word Gobsmack.CENTRELINK.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:13pm | 01/09/11

      ” And isn’t the country filled with soldiers from the US, Australian and other western democracies?”

      What, you mean the 66,000 from the US?  Take a look at any calculation of Afghanistan’s total area.  It works out at less than one US trooper per square kilometre.  The numbers hedge up very slightly if you roll in all the other allied troops, but there are less troops on the ground in Afghanistan, by several orders of magnitude, than there ever were in South Vietnam.  That is not large enough to assert occupation control of a country.

      In short, the West does not control armed insurrections inside Afghanistan and never has.  The US has never tried to control more than the northern half of the country; Australia, one province—Oruzgan.  This is not an occupied country like Japan after World War 2, it is still a war zone.  Worse still that the enemy is not the Taliban, it’s the Taliban and any random moron with a Russian AK-47 who has a beef with Karzai’s government or indeed Westerners in general.

    • Smack your gob says:

      05:00pm | 01/09/11

      people should be gobsmacked you asked such an ignorant question, on topic or not…

    • FINK says:

      01:39pm | 01/09/11

      If you take this issue to the base point then really aren’t we all just descendants of boat people? I guess we all should be thankful that Australia’ first immigration official was a Judge from the Old Bailey!

    • marley says:

      04:26pm | 01/09/11

      Certainly not.  I came by plane.

    • ausspud says:

      01:48pm | 01/09/11

      I really dont know whats worse, The fact that everything this government does turns to shit or just like middle easterners shooting up sydney , Ive gotten used to it & not outraged any more.

    • Luke says:

      01:54pm | 01/09/11

      The electroral rolls from the last election should be scrutinised by the police. All people identified as voting labor should be charged with treason.

    • peter says:

      01:55pm | 01/09/11

      I am just glad for the brains and humanity of the High Court Judges. Pity we can’t have the same of those in this government.

    • josh says:

      02:00pm | 01/09/11

      I speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of Australia, we must reduce our refugee intake to zero, we must reduce our annual immigration number to zero, we must have planes at christmas island nose to tail waiting for anyone who turns up on a boat to send them straight back, we must use the money wasted for the benefit of Australians who are doing it tough. We must return any refugee arrived in the last 10 years & by doing so we will save Australia.

    • marley says:

      04:13pm | 01/09/11

      As an Australian of four years’ standing, who wouldn’t have been allowed to join my Australian spouse under your rules, I assure you you don’t speak for me.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:27pm | 01/09/11

      As an Irish/Scandavian kid born in Adelaide as part of the 4th generation - you don’t speak for me.

    • josh says:

      04:28pm | 01/09/11

      I don’t include you as an Australian so don’t worry.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:40pm | 01/09/11

      Clearly you speak on behalf of the majority of Australians.  You don’t know how to use punctuation correctly.

    • James1 says:

      04:46pm | 01/09/11

      As the son of Irish migrants who fled the Troubles after conceiving me in Belfast, you most assuredly do not speak for me.

    • davo says:

      05:29pm | 01/09/11

      Owww…I’m hearing a very shrill, high pitched noise. Is that a dog whistle??

    • St. Michael says:

      05:35pm | 01/09/11

      Also: as the grandson of an Australian whose family arrived in the 1880s on the Scottish Wizard, and on the other side the grandson of a Polish family whose home was blown to bits by the Nazis and then occupied by Soviet Russia after the war, you do not speak for me.

    • josh says:

      06:25pm | 01/09/11

      So what if i don’t speak for a few lefties, check the comments in here and all over the news websites, you’re in the minority. My views will save Australia - your views are tearing this country apart.

    • St. Michael says:

      06:58pm | 01/09/11

      Your views are that of an idiot xenophobe, which when last I looked didn’t include the majority of Australia, any more than the patrons of News Limited amount to the entire Australian voting population.

      Merely that you bray louder than the rest doesn’t mean you speak for the majority.

      Also, you might want to look into how rational economics works: morons who create monochromatic nations tend to wind up with no one but themselves in the country.

    • josh says:

      08:34am | 02/09/11

      I have to live with the end result of your head in the sand views of Australia, I am trying to fix it - I make no apologies & don’t have to resort to calling people idiots. My views are for the best & yours will see Australia head down the same path to hell as the UK & for that I hate you with every ounce of my being.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:24am | 02/09/11

      Irrational hatred is also the mark of an idiot, so I don’t think it was calling names.

      But hey, don’t let logic or facts get in the way of your silliness.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:26am | 02/09/11

      P.S.  Also, I don’t hate you with every ounce of my being.

      But I do pity you.

    • josh says:

      01:05pm | 02/09/11

      You pity me for wanting to save Australia ? I hate Australians for the way they either refuse to accept we are on the eve of destruction or trying to laugh off anything with their attempts at humour. You only need have a look at different Sydney suburbs to see what an absolute mess things are, Anglo-Saxons being abused in Auburn, an Anglo-Saxon being assaulted by a group of African youths in Blacktown and told to get out as ‘this is our town now’. By all means keep screaming xenophobe and pretending there isn’t a problem - the truth is a very different story.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      01:40pm | 02/09/11

      Josh mate you honestly are in trouble. If you have that much hate in you I promise you this - it won’t be some non-Anglo person that gets you. A heart attack however will.

      You might think that hate keeps you strong for the fight - buts its probably quite literally killing you.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:47pm | 02/09/11

      @ Josh: I pity you because you lack sufficient intelligence for anything other than hate in your heart against what amounts to an easy target, and sufficient wilful blindness not to try to understand how and why social demographics develop as they do.

      Maybe in the middle of the suburban nightmare you’re apparently living you’ve concluded the only strand of hope is lining up for execution the kaffirs, the ay-rabs, and the blecks for good measure.  Unfortunately for the other 99% of us that experience does not hold true.

      So no, I don’t pity you for trying to save Australia.  I do pity you that your mind’s that small you actually conceive of your views as being capable of doing so.

    • Hyper-bowl Julia says:

      02:36pm | 01/09/11

      I can’t wait for someone to tell me exactly who in Indonesia is ill-treating the people who are paying criminals to smuggle them into Australia . Is the Indonesian government persecuting them so badly that they are seeking asylum in Australia, or are they destination-seeking?

      I thought that the first country of asylum was the place from where people lodged applications for legal immigration to a country of choice. I don’t see how leaving a safe, culturally compatible country via paid boat fare constitutes fleeing from persecution.

      This latest Gillard stuff-up facilitates the old Labor pull factor: open border Australia. Come on down. We’ll tax the living daylights out of hardworking Aussies to pay for your housing, health, education, baby bonuses and legal expenses.Spend your money on a boat fare. We took a solution and turned it into a problem.  Our taxpayers will foot the bills. Come on down.

    • Coop says:

      06:24pm | 01/09/11

      Well… If she imports enough and immediately gives them a vote she could improve her current standings. About 5 million should do it… That is until they work it out

    • Craig says:

      02:45pm | 01/09/11

      Malcolm stop guilding the lilly….she is dead man walking…..incompetent, incapable (see BER massive waste, current tidal wave coming in relation to IR change), untuthful, unimpressive…..I can see a day when Oakshott and Windsor dump her to save themselves….it will happen quickly when they know the end is nigh….by the end of next week is my guess.

      It is time that Farr, Coorey, Oakes, Gratten, Maher and the other trendy left ackowledge what the population have known for months now…..she is GONE

    • BS says:

      02:49pm | 01/09/11

      If anybody really think Tony Abott will do any better, you must be kidding your self. The main problem in this couutry is not “No leader”, the main is “Not enough clever educated voters”.

    • frankr says:

      03:22pm | 01/09/11

      or people who can put togeher a sentence that makes sense

    • Babs of Syd says:

      04:16pm | 01/09/11

      After 4 years of this garbage I’m willing to give Tony a go.  Stupid to say he will be worse when he hasn’t had a chance to perform the duties of PM.  Lets put him to the test before you start criticising eh.

    • Paul says:

      10:48pm | 01/09/11

      Well he certainly couldn’t be any worse!

    • Garry says:

      02:51pm | 01/09/11

      Well we’ve all heard Gillard blame Abbott, shock jocks, News Ltd, Journo’s and certain media. Now she adds to her blame list the “Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia”.
      UN- bloody believable!

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:04pm | 01/09/11

      Well that’s it then – game over.

      Just read Ms. Gillard’s attack on the high court. She’d lost my vote already (I decided awhile back I will not vote for any party that uses refugees as a political football).  For attacking the high court for doing its job - she has now lost my respect. I think many feel the same. The next set of polls is going to look even worse. The left will no longer be vaguely distasteful of her but genuinely adversarial.

      I’ll be surprised if she’s still PM in a fortnight.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:22pm | 01/09/11

      Even more amusing is that the guy she’s criticised, Robert French, the Chief Justice, was a Labor appointment to the High Court.  His tenure as Chief Justice started in September 2008.

      She also sputtered specifically that French decided like cases in a different direction when he was still on the Federal Court.  The only reason that would be relevant is if she thought it would get consistent decisions from him on the High Court.  Guess she must be thinking the bastard’s stabbed Labor in the back.  I suppose we won’t see anybody appointed from Western Australia for a long time to come.

      And Bell J was appointed in 2009.  The rest were Howard-era appointments.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:24pm | 01/09/11

      P.S.: Although sniping from Parliament at Chief Justices is a long-held Labor tradition.  Whitlam lambasted Sir Garfield Barwick for his role in the 1975 dismissal; Barwick was Chief Justice of the High Court, an old enemy of Whitlam, and advised Kerr that he had the residual power to sack the government,

    • faintly fanatic says:

      03:20pm | 01/09/11

      You have to hand it to the Imperial pretender BobBrown.  NO green to be seen anywhere. No need Julia cops it all in the neck - much of it caused by having to dance with him to get the keys to Boganville
      He can sit back on this one and be all warm and fuzzy; he can take the moral high ground & noone will take issue with him or even the SA hansom cab.
      Adam Bandt is a lawyer from the same Firm as Gillard; he hasn’t sid much either.

      We are missing the point, as always.  We are funding the money that is paid back to the people smugglers. That’s our hip pocket nerve tweaked overtime.

    • Happy in Oz says:

      03:41pm | 01/09/11

      I think the fact that Gillard was quite happy to send unaccompanied minors to a country with a very questionable record with regards to human rights, speaks volumes about her and what kind of government she’s “leading”. Instead of leaving people languishing in a detention centre, they should investigate their claims of asylum quickly and if found to not be genuine, send them back to their own country straight away. But, you don’t use unaccompanied minors as political punching bags.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      04:23pm | 01/09/11

      I can’t believe our lovable PM has launched a public attack on the Judiciary! Ms Gillard, we know you were once upon a time a Solicitor, but telling High Court Judges that they interpreted the law incorrectly is not only disrespectful, it is down right unacceptable for a PM!

      It is days like this that we can see exactly why separation of powers is so important. To put it plainly, shut it girl, the big boys have spoken.

    • Gold Coast says:

      04:40pm | 01/09/11

      The problem from the government’s perspective is that constituents will forgive a government just about anything, except looking ridiculous.  Whether or not it deserves it, that will be the real driver of the downfall of this government.

    • Matt says:

      04:57pm | 01/09/11

      I don’t see why they’re looking for an off shore facility when they should be processed in centres on shore.  Nauru was dumped not because it was a Liberal policy but because of the huge cost to taxpayers to process one assylum seeker.

      While they may not be getting anything right, if Abbott does reinstate Nauru, he’ll be sending his party and the country broke..  So far, he intends to re-use Nauru (impossible) at huge taxpayer expense, somehow lower taxes as promised if he gains PM, while also throwing huge chunks of taxpayer money to stop big businesses polluting under Direct Action…

      While ALP and LNP are in the state they’re currently in, we’re totally screwed… How can two parties get it so wrong…

    • Ting says:

      05:27pm | 01/09/11

      I am Australian and I came from Vietnam 27 years ago and now I speak English. I have many friends here but I don’t like what I see with the new refugees when they don’t want to mix in or even care to speak the English language. No wonder many of us aussies are scared of them and me too. Rules should be stronger for people who want to settle here. We all have a job to do to live and work together and to speak English.

    • Steve says:

      06:18pm | 01/09/11

      The newsagent I but my paper and lotto from is a Vietnamese refugee circa mid 1970’s.

      He doesn’t like most of the present refugees either. He told me that the south Viemtnamese fought it out to the end of the war and only left after it was lost to avoid reprisals. He does not agree with young men from the middle east abandoning their country while there is still a conflict going on.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:54pm | 01/09/11

      The more things change ... I have very distinct memories of Teh White Population not wanting any Asians around in the eighties or so—and they were boat people, too.  Hands up how many people can remember the old rhyming joke about the Vietnamese which ends “Plenty room in Vietnam”?  If it sounds familiar, it’s because they’re using it now in relation to Afghanis as well.  Remember Jack Van Tongeren? The way some of us are behaving now, you’d think he was just a bit ahead of his time.

      The idea of “stay until you lose” is a bit bullshit, too.  If it held true we wouldn’t have any Polish immigrants here at all—they lost their country to Russia after WW2, too, and there was an underground guerilla war being waged there for forty years after, but nobody ever accused a Pole of abandoning his country while there was still a conflict going on.  Ditto Italian immigrants—they *were* on the side of the Axis, you know.

    • Steve says:

      05:29pm | 01/09/11

      Have you noticed how calls for an immediate election have dwindled from the coalition supporters.

      It is a bit like a football grand final. There is 15 minutes left and you are unassailable. It is the greatest feeling and you never want that game to end.

      I am having so much fun watching the ALP implode and their valiant supporters come up with excuses that I find myself hoping they run a full term.

      Having said that the concession speaches by Gillard,Oakshot, wilkie and Windsor will be great to watch. No crying boys and keep it short oakshot.

    • Glen M says:

      05:40pm | 01/09/11

      No Steve the feeling is more like a heart attack, you know its happening you need to get to a doctor quick but the ambulance hasnt arrived.

    • MarK says:

      06:11pm | 01/09/11

      There should be an immediate election.

      The country needs cleansing.

      i am ashamed of my prime Minister and I am ashamed of my local member.

      Deeply ashamed.

      I actually feel dirty that she represents me and my country.

      She should resign but is so enamoured of her own ability and right to rule she will not.

      I cannot wait until the country is rid of the stench and stain of this womans rule

    • Richard says:

      07:28pm | 01/09/11

      @Steve

      That’s because it’s somehow finally dawned on some of them that in Australia we don’t just keep having elections until some whinger gets the result they wanted.

    • Richard says:

      05:39pm | 01/09/11

      William Shakespeare was in Australia and seeing this Govt perform went home to England and wrote the play A Comedy Of Errors, for indeed this Govt is a Govt of errors. I can answer the boat people question with one word….. submarine.

    • Dick J says:

      06:28pm | 01/09/11

      Naru was a great place to process asylum seekers. They had a free run of the island , were treated humanely about 40% came to Australia and others to other countries. Some were rejected.

      I listened to Ruddock on the ABC the other morning with Adam Spencer. Ruddock said that the refugee problem was akin to a hospital triage situation. Imagine if there was a catastrophe and many people were injured some worse than others some could wait and some needed urgent medical treatment on hospital. Then not so badly injured people paid a corrupt orderly for them to jump the queue for treatment before others in more need.

      People smugglers are the same as the corrupt orderly. Go to a refugee camp on the Thai Burma or Kenyan Somalian boarder. Those people need to be dealt with first. not people who pay a smuggler to queue jump.

    • JT says:

      05:09am | 02/09/11

      perfectly stated… and the crux of the matter

    • EC says:

      08:02pm | 01/09/11

      I have one question that I would like someone to answer. It doesn’t matter if they of Liberal, Labor or any other persuasion, I would just like a simple answer after reading so many comments over the past day or so.

      If there is only one available refugee spot available and we have a) a person in a recognised refugee camp and b) a person who arrives in a boat, then why does it appear that person b receives special treatment through provision of medical care, accommodation, etc?

      This is a serious question and I have tried to use unemotive language so that I can get a serious, honest response.

      Thank you.

    • sam says:

      09:37pm | 01/09/11

      person b had and has money to get to Australia so they are here and them bleeding hearts can only see what in front of them here and now . person a is out of sight of said bleeding hearts and it is as simple as that

    • Enrico says:

      09:13pm | 01/09/11

      Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save Julia Gillard.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:56pm | 01/09/11

      At least be original FFS.

    • Splash the cash says:

      10:24pm | 01/09/11

      Time for gillard to step down or be removed.
      Every big issue she tackles seems to turn to Shit and alot of labor ministers and back benchers will lose their jobs, because of her leadership.

                        The labor boys must pull the trigger soon
      . The greens and the wishy washy independants, will do nothing,as they have no where to run.They will Scatter into their burrows like Rabbitts.

    • Jane says:

      11:16pm | 01/09/11

      I’m certainly not trawling though over 300 comments to check but you are wrong Malcolm.  Nauru signed the UN Convention in June this year.  They signed before the one sided, possibly deceitful in intent ‘Malaysian (non) Solution”

    • trublu says:

      04:52am | 02/09/11

      the failure in our policy is not letting them come here, its in making it so attractive to come here that they will risk life and limb of themselves and their children… what other country welcomes you with open arms, feeds you, houses you gives you public money all the while ignoring the problems of its own people ... oh thats right australia does.    I believe we should help our fellow man in whatever way we can, whenever we can however we can but NOT before looking after our own back yard.  No one can help another until they are right within themselves, a person, a family, a community or a country.  Look after your own, then look after others.

    • marley says:

      02:04pm | 02/09/11

      What other country?  Oh, off the top of my head, Canada, the US, the UK, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,  Belgium, France….

    • Rales says:

      07:41am | 02/09/11

      Thank you Trublu, it is about time the Government started doing it’s job and looking after the Aussie people that put them there. I don’t care about the UN I don’t care about forign aid ? I care about all of the Aussies losing their jobs to off shore companiesand the pathetic health system that is still crumbling. Australia first before all others.We want our contry back!

    • josh says:

      08:35am | 02/09/11

      Amen, strength in numbers - we have this & the lefties know it.

    • Silent Majority says:

      09:16am | 02/09/11

      The one thing that s**ts me about this govenrment is the total lack respect for Australia and its people. The uncontrolled spending on programs that at the end of the day provide no benefit to, and are generally not popular with the majority of Australians need to be stopped. 
      Forget a seat on the UN security council, increasing forign aid and looking good on the world stage, lets start putting in place policies that look after Australian interests as a priority.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      01:41pm | 02/09/11

      I listen to parliament anytime I can on ABC News Radio.  I wish more people would because they would see the ALP’s duplicity. Particularly Swan.  He’s all Mr Calm and Mannered when he’s on popular TV or Radio speaking to the masses. But when he’s in parliament he’s Mr Agro Shouty. Many of the voting public are clueless to this other side of Swan. He’s just one example.

      But my reply is more directed to your comment “total lack respect for Australia and its people”.  Another favourite tactic of these ALP MPs in parliament is the jab at the Co-alition like ‘those opposite who think they are born to rule”.

      In my experience ‘lack of respect’ is a common trait of those who think they are better than everyone else.  I.e. those who think they are born to rule. And in my experience this behavior is just at home with the left leaning ‘intellectuals’ and thugs as it is on the right.  They think they are better. And it’s showing isn’t it.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      02:41pm | 02/09/11

      Oh dude, parliament is like pro-wrestling the agro is just for show.

      When I used to work in state parliament (I was a researcher for an MP) the MP’s would say really vicious personal stuff in there (about their weight, acting against their conscience, being such and such’s lapdog ect) – they’d be laughing about it in the bar afterwards. The guy I worked for needed a JP once for a personal matter (he was a JP himself but obviously can’t witness his own documents) , so we headed over into the enemy camp and asked if they would sign them. No problem, stopped what they were doing then and there and signed it for us – service with a smile.

      They have to sit together for hours on committees – travel round the state (or country together) and sit next to each other at charity events. They need to at least have a decent working relationship. They get on fine when the camera’s are off.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      03:17pm | 02/09/11

      HTPM.  I know that.  You know that. But many of the punters don’t.  They vote on who seems the nicest on TV. It’s all fake, false , a fabrication (Remember that ‘sound bite’ from Rudd?). It’s acting. If more of those ALP flag wavers for once listened or watched parliament they might start to get a clue. Y’know.  Take the red pill. Which was kinda the point I was making. But I suppose - love is blind. Like an abusive relationship really isn’t it. These voters stick by their abusers because the abuser keeps promising they’ll make their life better. It’s actually really saddening.

      I’m not surprised someone on the right thought it might be good idea for Abbott to take acting classes: he’s so bad at it compared to his peers.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:31pm | 02/09/11

      Yeah, I’ve never really understood the rusted on voter (to either side) showing loyalty to an organisation that treats you with contempt ain’t my cup of tea.

      I guess people vote on TV, but really no-one ever looks good in question time. Usually who ever is in government looks worse (because the blatant misuse of the position by the speaker is obvious) but neither side looks good

    • Anichol says:

      06:53pm | 06/09/11

      I might be wrong but didn’t Rudd take his asylum policy to the 2007 election?
      To say Howards policy worked better is a little short sighted for me, I fail to see what difference it made as over ? of those detained on Nauru still got asylum in Australia.
      So what was the deterrent?
      Maybe it just coincided with a global fall in asylum seekers
      I think the asylum issue and the government’s desperate attempt to stop them is our entire fault as we clearly have shown we don’t fully grasp the issue.
      If the Malaysia deal had been supported by the Libs then we would have stopped the boat people but they chose to make it an issue in there hunt for votes.
      Stopping the boat people is what the majority want isn’t it?
      If these so called asylum seekers can afford to pay $20k+ to get on a boat then I say send them back, don’t process them on some pacific island that still costs the tax payer millions.
      I’m all for genuine refugees and to me they’re the ones who cannot afford the plane fare or the boat ride.
      Shame most of the right turned this into a noose around the government’s necks rather than backing it and sending a clear message don’t get on the boat!
      When the Libs get back into power and go back to the Nauru solution and the boats keep coming look out!

      Maybe it just coinsided with a global fall in asylum seekers
      I think the assylum issue and the governments desperate attemps to stop them is all our fault as we clearly have shown we dont fully grasp the issue.
      If the Malasia deal had been supported by the Libs then we would have stopped the boat people but they chose to make it an issue in there hunt for votes.
      If these so called asylum seekers can afford to pay $20k+ to get on a boat then i say send them back, dont process them on some pasific island that still costs the tax payer millions.
      Im all for genuine refugees and to me their the ones who cannot afford the plane fare or the boat ride.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

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

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

Paul Colgan

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

Paul Colgan

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

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

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?

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

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]

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