Ugly asylum seeker spat sparks Liberal tensions

Dissident says:

02:27pm | 16/02/11

Here, here, Tony.

The simple fact is that all the party consensus that the media keeps hammering on about is a myth and a diversion from the real story.

Myth - that parties are united. 72 people wouldn’t be able to agree on what to have for dinner - how does any rational person expect that they will share the same views on something as complex as immigration. They represent different electorates as well - and I’d venture a guess that the people of leafy, affluent Sydney suburbs might have slightly different views on (well, pretty well everything…) as the people of O’Connor.

Diversion - Let’s talk about party disunity instead of the colossal failure of the immigration policies implemented by the current Federal government. Or the Health failure. Or the budget failure. Or the Climate Change failure. Or the ‘no carbon tax under any government I lead’ failure. Etc.

And for all the Labor lovers out there, don’t try to paint the loss of hundreds (yes, hundreds) of lives lost at sea since the cancellation of the highly effective Pacific Solution / TPV’s as anything other than a colossal failure.

john says:

03:33pm | 16/02/11

Everyone has forgotten its Labor that made the mess in the first place and changed Howards policy, I can’t see why the tax payer has to foot funeral or travel bills as well, that ridiculous. No-one from government ever paid for any of its citizens to travel to family funerals regardless how tragic the circumstances are.

Labor has reached a new height in stupidity.

persephone says:

03:45pm | 16/02/11

Dissident and Tony

So Australia hasn’t been able to solve a problem which no country in the world seems able to solve?

Sounds a bit like climate change, doesn’t it? (And I’m tempted to add here, what difference would Australia stopping a few thousand asylum seekers make when there’s hundreds of thousands throughout the world?)

Italy’s got thousands of Tunisian refugees arriving every day. There’s something like 12 million (some say over 40 million) refugees world wide.

So it’s not just an Australian problem, it’s a global one, and not one any country in particular looks like solving any time soon.

Ah, you’ll say, but Howard stopped the boats.

Well, no he didn’t, as Downer admits. They turned them back, they didn’t stop them. By turning them back, they created problems with our near neighbours, risked lives (both of the asylum seekers and of our navy) and created a new desperation amongst asylum seekers, which led to their taking even higher risks.

Over 300 people we know of died because of this policy.

The Pacific solution was also incredibly expensive. Here we have a Liberal frontbencher whinging about a few thousand dollars being spent transporting families to funerals - less than the cost of the car Barnaby wrote off - whilst the Howard government spent over $1.4 million to keep one asylum seeker on Manus Island.

The consensus amongst refugee groups seems to be that the best way to stop the boats - and I agree, I don’t want people dying to get to Australia - is to provide an alternative destination, one which doesn’t require an ocean crossing to get to but which then provides the same level of scrutiny and the same processes.

That’s the idea behind the East Timor solution (and ET is not necessarily where it needs to happen, simply the option currently being investigated).

Asylum seekers can get there easily, without major risk to their lives. They can then be processed fairly, under the UN. If successful, they won’t necessarily come to Australia, but can be settled in one of the co operating countries.

It’s a cheaper solution than the Pacific one. It’s a safer one, too. And it doesn’t rob asylum seekers of their rights.

But hey, we all know that this issue isn’t in the news because you guys have suddenly come over all humanitarian.

This is a classic Liberal distraction - from their own internal problems, on one hand, and from the fact that the government is hitting some goals on the other.

Tony—- if they can’t manage their toner budget how can they govern the country? If they’re willing to rip off the taxpayer when they’re in Opposition, why shouldn’t we believe they’ll rip them off more when in government?

I’m surprised you let this one go to the keeper so easily - imagine how you’d carry on if it had been ALP MPs involved.

persephone says:

03:51pm | 16/02/11

Tony

Apologies, I misread the context of the $300 k remark, and thought you were referring to the photocopier toner scandal.

Hmmm…more toner for the photocopier, helping families attend a funeral for their loved ones….I can see why that would be such a hard one for conservatives.

(Which means I retract the comment about Barnaby’s car; it only cost a third of that. Teach me to turn the radio off and do some gardening).

MarK says:

04:45pm | 16/02/11

We had it solved pers.

Rudd and Gillard stuffed it up. That is why we are flying people to funerals.

Rudd and Gillard have blood on their hands.

Roja says:

05:05pm | 16/02/11

So lets me get the facts straight, good thinking conservatives and the liberal government have no issue when we spend $300,000 utilising the Navy to save an idiot French sailor off the WA coast when his expensive boat has a few issues.  Just not when transporting some parents to the funeral of their children.  Ok, if thats what you stand for by all means.

Me I think assisting poor people escape persecution for the ridicilous goal of seeking a better life in a country that houses a population that is for the most part immigants is just fine. 

Italy had more illegal immigrants this week than Australia had last year, South Africa had one hundred times more last year than us.  I fail to see any basis for this One Nation created and media inflamed problem.

The people who spew the most bile, are all immigrants.  So you got here first, good for you.  Hypocrites.

john says:

05:09pm | 16/02/11

@persephone, ALL costs that are from the public purse should criticised, from either party when taxpayers dollars are abused, quoting the liberals toner waste, to lighten labors burden of criticism for its wasteful ways, doesn’t counter balance bias towards labor. It re-affirms that labor spends without thinking if their decisions are fair ‘calls’ taking into account historical interconnected events - something they are useless at. Perception of labor mismanaging the economy is amplified, and hence why the liberals are leading in the polls and at this rate will win the next election even if the drovers dog with rabies on life support was its leader.

Steve Woy Woy says:

05:12pm | 16/02/11

Can someone please stop all this stuff and nonsense being played out for so, so long now….. The right wing fanatics really are starting to believe their own press and keep on pushing around this same dead old wheelbarrow ... THE MASTERS OF DEBT, SPENDING AND QUESTIONABLE FINANCES!!!
On the Pacific Solution Howard wasted nearly $2.5 billion of OUR money to keep out 1500 asylum seekers, 99% of whom are now Australian citizens.
He kept one man and his cat on Manus Island for six months at a cost of $23,000 per day. This same man is now working as a mechanic in Melbourne and studying aeronautical engineering, and he’s gradually piecing his life together… but apparently not the “kind of people” we want in Australia!!
http://www.safecom.org.au/monashconf05-burnside.htm
The link above will take you on a ride that Tony and Scott would not want you to experience. Remember those words!! Tampa… The Tampa episode was an international disgrace for all Australians…. All these things were kept from the people of Australia like so many other things, such as the BBC production called ‘Australia’s Pacific Solution’, which has been shown all over the world, but not in Australia, interestingly!! (At this point I generally begin to wonder exactly how much Howard’s broad based censorships cost the taxpayer).
Should we just talk about waste in $$$ where to start? ..
AWB we just make up a number there…
Read the SMH story of July 1 2007   “The Prime Minister’s Sydney to Canberra jet taxi cost taxpayers nearly $600,000 last year - but nearly a third of the flights had no passengers. That’s so Johnny could live in Kirribilli House!!
Boxing day cricket: It cost $13,254 to fly Mr and Mrs Howard and their sons Richard and Tim to Melbourne for the second day’s play at the MCG and then home to Sydney. Mr Howard’s sons paid commercial rates.
But I’ll tell you what - there are lots of spare shares being offloaded from an old telecommunications company that laid thousand of kilometres of cable all over Australia; all paid for by us as well!! I know it is hard to believe this but it was a $10billion per year cash cow for the owners…  and they sold it so we could all make lots of money from it and buy shares that were going to skyrocket out of this world. Guess who??
To take over with the biggest resources boom this country has ever known at the time $3.3 bil then have a ten year negative growth for the country; take our national debt from $700 bil in 1996 to $3.2 trillion in 2007; steer us on track like the rest of the Liberal Republican right wing agenda governments around the globe to crash out of sight… Interestingly Labor’s stimulus package comes in at about 1% of that total - that’s the one which saved us from the GFC and I’m sure not many really understand that either… or don’t wish to..
I’ve just come back from a ten day tour of what could have been called the Howard and Costello future visions of Australia tour… USA, UK and Ireland tour… I particularly like the way they begged at the windows… http://youtu.be/koY6kXhQDQo the link will help you save some face and gain some insight into how you were duped.
Protection from public monies and management of .... you jest of course!!

Economist says:

05:17pm | 16/02/11

So we have Morrison, Abbott, Andrews, Bernardi, Abetz all Islamophobics. But I’m seeing a pattern here. They’re all Catholic or Catholic educated. Just as not all Islamists are terrorist, but all terrorists are Islamic, not all haters are Catholic, but all Catholics are haters.

Well as a secular Australian I’ve had a gutful of the waste of tax payers dollars that’s spent on Catholics and the we have to accept their way of life under the guise of multiculturalism. Catholics continue to arrive by plane and expect us to look after them. Just as its a waste of $300000 to charter a flight from Christmas Island for a few Iraqi’s We waste $15 billion a year subsidising Catholics, because they don’t pay taxes and expect us to subsidies their lifestyles. As an agnostic I don’t get the same subsidy. What a waste of my tax payer dollars. Bugger Sharia Law, the greater threat is Catholic law, they want to tell us that women can’t have look after their own bodies and have an abortion if they choose. they want to tell me I’m going to hell. Well bring it on. They’re also a greater threat because there’s more of them, 26% of Australians are Catholic compared with around 2% Islamic, and they have more representatives in parliament, in fact they’ve even infiltrated both sides of parliament.

We’ll I’m fed up with subsidising their choices, I also reckon that there are more of them on welfare because they like to breed. Well I for one have had enough. This is not the Australia I want. Send’em back to wherever they came from.

Ben81 says:

05:26pm | 16/02/11

Pathetic whitewash and spin as usual persephone.
“Ah, you’ll say, but Howard stopped the boats.
Well, no he didn’t, as Downer admits. They turned them back, they didn’t stop them.”
Well yes he did, common sense says.  The almost complete absence of interceptions and resulting lack of thousands of people in our detention centres, which was the entire bloody point, was a result of that.  The resulting almost overnight return of people smuggling after 2007 is further proof.

“The Pacific solution was also incredibly expensive.”
Compared to what, constantly intercepting boats and having over 6000 people locked up in immigration detention at a time for how many more years?  It was worth every cent and every life saved.  So much for this so called more humane alternative.

On East Timor - great, build it.  If it works as well as the Pacific Solution did then mission accomplished, for the second time.  Come back to us when it’s actually a solution and not nothing much more than talk.

john says:

05:42pm | 16/02/11

@Roja looks like a hypocrite too, kettle, black?:

Labor footed the bill for this rescue, and the final cost remains unknown:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/teen-solo-sailor-feared-lost/story-e6frf7lf-1225878265069

And in the issue of the rescue of the french sailor off WA coast cost $4 million dollars….FROM LABOR Federal Labor Member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon…not liberal.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/french-sailor-arrives-back-in-fremantle-after-high-seas-rescue-20081222-736b.html

Research and know your history before opening your TRAP.

Ben81 says:

06:04pm | 16/02/11

Steve Woy Woy - just to be fair and pretend you actually care, would you like to take a look at how much the government is spending right now on the thousands of people locked up as we speak and show us that you’re equally outraged that most of them end up accepted as refugees?
Is the fact that the per capita cost is more when there’s hundreds instead of thousands of people in immigration detention your real problem?

Roja - “Me I think assisting poor people escape persecution for the ridicilous goal of seeking a better life in a country that houses a population that is for the most part immigants is just fine.”
Yes, we take in and house them.  Luckily we’re not in a position some other countries are where the out of control situation results in tent cities and the red cross feeding them, not sure how it would help refugees or us to go that way ourselves or how there’s any comparison.  I’m also not sure how talking about problems other countries face will magically give us the resources to deal with the same thing ourselves.

persephone says:

06:27pm | 16/02/11

Ben 81

so where did all the people on Nauru come from, then, Ben?

Alexander Downer has admitted that boats were turned back on a regular basis. They didn’t stop coming; they were intercepted by the navy and forced to return.

We know that this policy was directly responsible for over 300 deaths. We don’t know how many other lives were lost at sea.

As for cost, the Pacific solution cost $500 000 per asylum seeker. That’s a lot of flights to Sydney.

As I said, I agree that we should do all we can to stop people dying to get to Australia. That’s why the regional processing centre should be supported.

Ben81 says:

07:42pm | 16/02/11

pers “so where did all the people on Nauru come from, then, Ben?”
The ones that actually ended up there?  Boats.
I don’t see how it’s possible that there were many more people there, even under the absolute worst case imaginary scenario, than their capacity of about 800 or so would have allowed though.  Not much in comparison to the situation now, even if we stretch into fantasy and pretend it was full.
Unless of course there was some secret island somewhere, where all the other intercepted boats were taken after some kind of coverup.

And i’m not even sure I want to get into the ridiculous argument that stopping boats meant more deaths from boats sinking, it’s just not even worth it.

“As for cost, the Pacific solution cost $500 000 per asylum seeker. That’s a lot of flights to Sydney.”
Yes, it certainly cost a lot more per asylum seeker in the end.  It now costs less per asylum seeker, yet we have over 6000 of them locked up right now.  This is not a good thing in any way.

As for Downer, I’m aware of him referring to a number of instances of interceptions that add up to the tens when you tally them, what particular quote are you referring to?

“As I said, I agree that we should do all we can to stop people dying to get to Australia. That’s why the regional processing centre should be supported. “
Great, the responsible thing to do would have been to think about that before throwing anything to do with the Liberals actions on people smuggling in the bin for political reasons.  Doing that then saying “oh crap, we have a problem on our hands again, let’s start talking about a solution” is not good enough.

Roja says:

08:51pm | 16/02/11

@John - Nice try but the liberals did indeed save a French sailor during their time - try look further back in history young man before telling me to shut my trap. 

Thanks for researching my primary point that the Coalition didn’t complain about $4 million for a spoiled American brat being saved but did about people going to their childrens funeral.

Mark James says:

08:52pm | 16/02/11

Tony of Poorakistan asks, “can SOMEBODY just do something to stop the boats???”.

Well, Tony, 5000 Tunisians just turned up in Italy. Seems like they just turned up without Italy having changed any of its immigration policies.

Maybe the ALP’s dismantling of Howard’s Pacific Solution caused the Tunisians to go to Italy?

Maybe they think the onset of globalization means labour is now free to cross borders and not just capital?

acotrel says:

04:30am | 17/02/11

‘It’s a cheaper solution than the Pacific one. It’s a safer one, too. And it doesn’t rob asylum seekers of their rights.’

Who ‘robbed asylum seekers of their rights’? - it’s a dirty lie!  Well I suppose that compared to that, being mingey over dead asylum seekers funerals is chicken shit, and ‘SHIT HAPPENS’!

Ryan says:

08:49am | 17/02/11

Gillard Labor, directly helping create people smuggling businesses and keeping them in the cash.

Paul says:

09:42am | 17/02/11

Gee, we are a sad bunch. A few thousand people arrive and we get all upset and demand that someone should stop the boats. Let me know the crountry that manages to do it. All Howard did was redirect them to hell holes via legal bastardry and then lied to us that he had stopped them. Most of those people ended up in Australia anyway, so what did he achieve for his billions? Nothing.

If you want to stop refugees, stop bombing their countries and stop supporting corrupt governments - Iraq, Afghnistan, Sri Lanka, et el. Refugees only exist because it is not safe in their own land.

Fly on the wal says:

10:32am | 17/02/11

I am an “anonymous insider” who would like to leak the story that the Labor party is using the media for its own ends.

Randal says:

10:59am | 17/02/11

Perse, you are nothing but an apologist for a failed government with posts full of lies and misinformation.

Let’s take this post as an example of this:

“it’s (Refugees) not just an Australian problem, it’s a global one, and not one any country in particular looks like solving any time soon.”
- No one is suggesting that Australia can solve the issue of refugees globally, but we can certainly address the issue of those that attempt to arrive here as illegal entrants.

“he (Howard) didn’t, as Downer admits. They turned them back, they didn’t stop them”
-  Only 7 boats where ever “turned back” during the Howard government’s time in power, the last of which was the SIEV 14 on the Nov 04, 2010… Don’t believe me then read it for yourself in Julia’s own words http://www.katelundy.com.au/2010/07/12/prime-minister-gillard-on-asylum-seekers/

“Over 300 people we know of died because of this (turn back) policy”
-  There is no evidence of any of the 7 boats ever sinking, and the most well known tragedy during the Howard era occurred aboard the SIEV X, which sank on route to Australia and was not turned away by the Australian navy. There were no known deaths from 2003 - 2008, and the deaths (over 200) have begun again only since the softening by the Gillard/Rudd government of the border protection laws, a number that will continue to rise as long as the boats keep coming in the numbers that they are.

“The Pacific solution was also incredibly expensive…whilst the Howard government spent over $1.4 million to keep one asylum seeker on Manus Island.”
-  The current forward estimates equate to $1.2 billion from 2010/11 - 2013/14 in processing and housing asylum seekers, this does not include the costs of building new facilities on the mainland ($400M), or the cost to the Navy in intercepting boats, or other incidentals such as the $2.5M a month the government is spending on hotel costs on the mainland. Costs that make the ‘Pacific Solution’ appear most cost effective.

“The consensus amongst refugee groups seems to be that the best way to stop the boats… is to provide an alternative destination”
-  There is only one destination that the refugees seek, and that is Australia, otherwise they would claim asylum when they reached Indonesia or Malaysia. The processing centre, in the unlikely event is was ever built, would quickly fill and the boats would just keep on coming.

The truth is Perse, the only proven effective solution to the boats is a return to TPV’s and deterrent ‘off shore’ processing as was in place under the ‘Pacific Solution’. We know this works as the numbers under the Howard government provided clear evidence:

2001 - 43 boats & 5516 arrivals
*‘Pacific Solution implemented from 2002 - 2008
2002 - 2008 25 boats & 449 arrivals (in total)
*‘Pacific Solution’ & TPV’s scrapped
2009 - 2010 195 boats & 9728 arrivals

Despite your mistruths and innuendo these figures cannot be questioned, and the ‘Pacific Solution’ was an effective deterrent in reducing the boats to a trickle, and until the Gillard government gets tough and returns to these successful policies the boats will keep coming and the death toll will continue to rise as the people smugglers get richer and richer.

Gregg says:

11:51am | 17/02/11

Ah Persey me lad
The greatest rant you have had in a long time
Lets start with
” Italy’s got thousands of Tunisian refugees arriving every day. There’s something like 12 million (some say over 40 million) refugees world wide.
So it’s not just an Australian problem, it’s a global one, and not one any country in particular looks like solving any time soon. “

When you say some say, that would be the UNHCR and those Tunisians and others attempting to get across the meditteranean are just like those using people smugglers via Indonesia are probably not even in the UNHCR figures of roughly 15M refugees and about 27M that they called IDP - Internally Displaced People, meaning they are in the care of UNHCR and other agency camps.
Yes, it is a global situation that will likely not get any better too soon while we have conflicts, increasing population and limited resources.
And then you have on Howard
” Well, no he didn’t, as Downer admits. They turned them back, they didn’t stop them. By turning them back, they created problems with our near neighbours, risked lives (both of the asylum seekers and of our navy) and created a new desperation amongst asylum seekers, which led to their taking even higher risks.

Over 300 people we know of died because of this policy. “
And outright lies for look at the immigration figures for the period spanning about ten years from 1998 to 2008 and you’ll see that people smuggling was on the increase and then it dropped because along with TPVs, Australia was no longer the soft landing touch.
And then see the rise in figures once the TPVs were revoked, all the Krudd/Gillard doing.

Yes, there have been a heap of people die at sea, one report some years back of supposedly over 300 going down with one overloaded boat but these people decide to take the journey on to thwart our humanitarian effort in conjunction with the UNHCR, putting Australians lives at risk, queue jumping and then putting in injury claims and the like.
How much money do people like you want to fork out to these freeloading parasites?
And yes, the Pacific Solution was expensive but we did not have Christmas Island built then either.

And glad you mention an alternative destination and the UN in one breath for why have the UNHCR setting up something in East Timor when it could be in Indonesia or Malaysia and meanwhile having these so called refugees bypassing refugee centres much closer to home.
It is actually UNHCR policy to have refugee centres as close as possible to locations with problems for most true refugees would rather return to their homeland and it is cheaper to care for them in familiar surroundings, that meaning more can be looked after for the same ammount of $$$$ that would be needed at places like Christmas Island or Timor.
It would seem that along with Steve from Woy Woy, you would rather Australia too be in woop woop poop poop.

kel says:

03:27pm | 17/02/11

don’t create wars then they might stop.

James Hunter says:

06:02pm | 17/02/11

Tony of Poorakistan
A burning issue? Oh excellent line. Was that thought out or just good luck ?
Seriously though the Conservatives look like a mob. A mob of kids caught playing hookey. Not Hockey. Oh oh, now Im doing it too. !!
John Howard had no problem steeling policies from One Nation so most likely Foney Rabbit still thinks it is a source of ideas. He need to get ideas from somewhere and to the Conservatives I guess One Nation is better then Nothing.

Lindsay says:

09:31am | 18/02/11

@MarK, you’d think that Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd had sunk the boat themselves. I’d probably say that it was the people smugglers who supplied them a boat and crew which could never have handled the conditions that they found themselves in off Christmas island.

Perhaps we should go back further and blame the Taliban in Afghanistan or maybe John Howard for dragging us into the war in Iraq on George Bush’s coattails (Which thank god he did or goodness knows what damage all those non-existent WMDs might have done) if we’re going to be playing the blame game then maybe we should blame the causes of those two conflicts which have generated most of the refugees that have tried to come to Australia since John Howard’s time.

Who knows maybe Kevin Rudds weakening of John Howard’s xenophobic pacific solution has led to more refugees coming to Australia but he certianly didn’t cause the conflicts that have led to their refugee status. For goodness sake, it’s time to treat these people like humans not problems.

SteveM says:

03:05pm | 16/02/11

Exactly right Adam!

Certainly have more respect for Mal if he at least tried to even up the ledger??

bobw says:

03:17pm | 16/02/11

(1) The fact of taking a stance on a particular matter in a particular article does not indicate “bias”. 

(2) Crude “scorecards” provide a weak basis for measuring journalistic balance.

(3) “Left” and “Right” are not equivalent to “Labor” and “Liberal”.

(4) The article does not cite “an anonymous staffer of an internet forum” as a “source” for anything.  It simply points to the fact that someone claiming to be a party staffer posted an online attack on Hockey, and the fact that it was swifly removed, as evidence of internal party tensions.  Granted, it’s not very meaningful evidence.  However, if Mal was using the staffer as a “source” he would have written something like:  “The anonymous staffer said that Hockey is a big baby and still wears nappies, so that is almost certainly true”.

Seano says:

03:19pm | 16/02/11

You could always read Bolt or Ackerman where the combined total for Left and Neutral bias would be 0.

Adam Diver says:

03:30pm | 16/02/11

Its not even the number of articles left or right that worries me. Its the content of these articles. A political journalist using an anonymous internet source for a fairly serious attack on a political party. Surely Mal would have connections directly within members of all the parties, and in various levels of government, if not what the hell does he do all day?

Tony says:

03:35pm | 16/02/11

So Labors dodgy immigration policies open the door for boat people, hundreds die at sea taking up Labors offer (these ones just happen to be filmed drowning).
And some how its the Liberals fault , according to Mal. Gee mate, they better give you a really safe seat after all the work/spin you are doing for them.

Bobster says:

03:36pm | 16/02/11

Bias is in the eye of the beholder - just because you’re further to the right than Hitler doesn’t mean much to anyone, Adam.

And, by the way, there is nothing left wing about the Labor Party. Seeing as you’ve decided a mob of Catholic-controlled aparatchiks and megalomaniacs constitute a left-wing party, how in the hell do you expect anyone to care what you think is neutral?

john says:

03:49pm | 16/02/11

@Adam Diver, people like Mal often claim neutrality,  often if you trace the origin of the hand that feeds the gullet, you will discover the reason for the bias that is heavily tilted left from neutral by 500%.

Faz says:

04:02pm | 16/02/11

Puts you in a bit of a bind though doesn’t it Adam?

Do you claim neutrality yourself? If so, show us the kind of proof you require of Farr.

If not, then your assessment reflects your own bias and therefore not reliable.

persephone says:

04:03pm | 16/02/11

Adam

good lord, there were plenty of stories (about Rudd in particular) with anonymous sources that you guys were willing to give full credence to, with even less evidence.

In this case, the article referred was published by the Menzies Intitute (its very name breathes leftist socialist conspiracy) and verified by them as being by a high ranking Liberal staffer.

On far less evidence than this, people here believe that Kevin Rudd bawled out an air hostess and chucked a hissy fit over a hair dryer.

I mean, if you guys can’t trust the Menzies Institute, who can you trust?

I remind you: Latham was further ahead in the polls at times than Abbott has ever been. It all came crashing down very very fast.

Politics is like that.

Adam Diver says:

04:32pm | 16/02/11

@ bobw - (point 1) I am refering to a consistent pattern, hence the crude scorecard. (point 2) Perhaps you can enlighten me how to measure journalistic balance? *(point 3) It is pretty close, no division is 100% accurate. (point 4) You confirm my point

@ Seano - next

@ bobster - nothing left wing about the labor party? Your point is now invalid. What do you think left means and then look at the principles of the party. Which BTW doesn’t make them wrong simply from the left.

@ Faz, fair point. But my bias is backed up by evidence, not great, somewhat subjective, but an attempt to retain logic is there. More then can be said for Farr’s performance on the punch, which if I would remind you comes from a man paid for his neutrality. Do you think he is neutral?

@ Pers - Typical rubbish, “you guys”. Don’t categorise me, I didn’t categorise this attack at all, it was direct, and it was based on Farr’s performance on the punch. But since you have set precedence may I remind you that the “left” were claiming false rumors on the right about a possible leadership challenge. Unthinkable they claimed yet look who is PM now. Where was Farr on his insight to that story? Bolt as Seano loves to smear almost predicted it to the day 3 weeks in advance.

Roja says:

05:07pm | 16/02/11

@Seano - comment of the day. 

It appears some people are unhappy with any left leaning bias on this right leaning forum.  Perhaps the punch is moving closer to the centre.

Bobster says:

06:17pm | 16/02/11

Adam, being left of you does not a left-winger make - and any party controlled by Catholic factions is only ever going tobe slightly left of Mussolini.

You got your politics degree off of the net didn’t you?

I suggest you buy a couple more books, dude. Start with Where Did I Come From and work your way up from there.

Oh, and if you have any sort of private school or tertiary education, call the ACCC because you deserve your money back.

Economist says:

06:24pm | 16/02/11

Oh Adam jounalistic balance in an opinion piece, there’s no such thing. The issue for me is about respect. Mal has kindly posted a article on the Punch for all to view, interpret and comment on. And what does he cop, abuse. Regardless of his perceived bias by you he’s provided a forum for you to express your view, in this case dissent. He hasn’t censored you, but offended your sensibilities and you spit in his face. By all means debate the issue, but stop trying to play the man.  Bobsters right Bias is in the eye of the beholder. If you don’t understand that more fool you.

Seano says:

06:55pm | 16/02/11

Adam, you piss and moan like a school girl who’s had her lolly nicked because Mal is supposedly not impartial but when it is pointed out to you that one of your heroes the (let’s pretend) journalist Bolt NEVER has anything positive of constructive to say about the left the best you can do is “next” weak mate, weak.

Oh and how is it a “smear” to point out that Bolt NEVER has anything positive to say about the left when you’ve created a highly subjective score card for Mal claiming bias? On planet is your comment objective and mine a “smear”?

FFS dude if you think it’s biased then don’t read it (like many of us do with Bolt). Or better yet challenge the ideas presented with better ones if you have them (*cough*). But the constant pissing and moaning of you and the other right wingers screaming “bias” is tedious, pointless and never a winning argument.

PS. There’s been times when I have thought the punch was biased against the left, at no stage did I burst into tears….

john says:

07:38pm | 16/02/11

@Bobster, I doubt that as you state “and any party controlled by Catholic factions is only ever going tobe slightly left of Mussolini.”
-however, some of the ‘hidden’ similarities by extremist like fred nile and the liberal tony abbotts catholic views seem frighteningly similar on occasion! Clearly the cause of some of the micro-fractures of the coalition parties.

MarK says:

09:07pm | 16/02/11

”  Seano says:

  03:19pm | 16/02/11

  You could always read Bolt or Ackerman where the combined total for Left and Neutral bias would be 0.
“

HAHAHAHAHA.

Bolt thought Morrison was out of line and called him on it.

yYou people are so simple. try reading

Well done Roja. Nice comment of the day call given it is disproved today. I love you guys. Live in a bubble.

LAWL

Faz says:

05:46am | 17/02/11

@ adam

Logic built on subjective evidence is not a good basis for truth. ‘In my experience dogs are black, therefore all dogs are black’

I think there are standout examples of journalists who it would be hard to argue are not biased. Insiders last weekend had Andrew Bolt and David Marr, for example.

Beyond those extremes the assessment of bias is often more a reflection of the assessor’s bias.  So bias, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Beyond that, neutrality is a little like perfection: something to aspire to but not really possible.

So, do I think that Farr is neutral? No. But then niether are you and neither am I. On that basis I think it’s better to stick to the argument even for Bolt and Marr!

Seano says:

08:22am | 17/02/11

Oh yes Mark this rather wet comment on Morrison is “calling him on it”.

“I really wouldn’t want to be arguing Morrison’s position, either for self-preservation or self-respect. Let the money go.”

Morrison must be reeling from such a savage attack, Bolt really must be a closet leftie.

“yYou people are so simple. try reading”

You’re not exactly the sharpest knife if you’re suggesting that Bolt is impartial on the basis of that. Try thinking.

And besides not really the point. Like most sensible people I don’t bother reading Bolt’s blog because I think he’s so partisan anything sensible he might have to say isn’t worth wading through the bullshit to find. That’s my opinion and my choice. But when I have gone slumming I have commented on the ideas presented and not whined like a little girl about Bolt’s bias.

Roja says:

09:46am | 17/02/11

Ah MarK - you missed the point again, just because Bolt called Morrison on it doesn’t mean he has ever delivered a story with a left leaning bias.  You know, the throw away comment I gave my ‘comment of the day’ award to. 

Of course things may all change now that Andrew is appearing on the 7 PM Project where he doesn’t want to be so controversial so he can attract a youth audience (and 7PP can attract a conservative audience).

Beryl says:

09:51am | 17/02/11

Seano
I went to the Bolt blog once to see what all the fuss was about.
When I left it, I felt dirty.

Adam Diver says:

10:56am | 17/02/11

Of course bias is subjective. And this is probably a good debate to have.

I guess I should clarify my points. Firstly its absurd to think that I think anyone left of me is left winged. On this point however, it has not been defined nor is there an academic basis for the terms. It is a generalisation that merely helps in communication. If you disagree I will need you define the exact point where beliefs are neutral so that I can solidify my claims for future reference.

My claims of bias against Farr are because of not what he says but the supporting evidence he uses to say it. As well as the fact that his stories and opinions are (personally) on such trivial matters and as my crude table shows (no one yet to attack this directly) following a strong pattern.

So we have a history here from Farr.

- Articles supporting the left (fine)
- Articles with very little basis or evidence (makes it look like his fishing for his story)
- Article subject matter of little importance (whilst excluding more important stories IMO)

To address some of the other points. I am not concerned about bias against the right. In this case I am concerned about journalistic integrity, claiming neutrality when its obvious it doesn’t exist.

“FFS dude if you think it’s biased then don’t read it” I see now why your world view is so warped Seano. How do you get two sides of a story if you don’t read bias you disagree with?

The irony of many of these post is that the bias you claim from me is the exact same as the biased position that you argue from.

Answer the questions, has Farr shown a strong bias to the left on the punch? If not why not? Is an anonymous internet source credible enough information for a political reporter to make bold claims against a political party. If yes why? If not do you agree that this bias unbecoming a “neutral” political reporter.

bobw says:

10:56am | 17/02/11

@Adam:  Specifics aside, you still haven’t explained your assumption that the line taken on a particular issue in an op-ed piece must necessarily be a function of “bias”.  Where does defensible opinion end and bias begin?  It simply doesn’t make sense to say “On balance, this article is more favourable to the ALP than the Libs, therefore the author must be biased”.

Seano says:

11:33am | 17/02/11

@Adam

“I am not concerned about bias against the right. In this case I am concerned about journalistic integrity, claiming neutrality when its obvious it doesn’t exist. “

Then why aren’t you posting the same rants on Bolt’s blog? Your demands for objectivity from those that you disagree with whilst not setting the same standards for those you do is transparently childish.

“I see now why your world view is so warped Seano. How do you get two sides of a story if you don’t read bias you disagree with?”

You haven’t been arguing the story or the facts you’ve been ranting on about bias. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it biased unless your are stupid enough to believe your own default position is balanced.

“The irony of many of these post is that the bias you claim from me is the exact same as the biased position that you argue from.”

Actually I was claiming that screaming about bias whilst ignoring blatant bias on your own side is childishly stupid.

PS. I agree with Economist who says: “jounalistic balance in an opinion piece, there’s no such thing.”

And it’s ridiculous to demand it. Better to challenge the ideas presented…if you can.

I also agree with Beryl when she says:
“I went to the Bolt blog once to see what all the fuss was about.
When I left it, I felt dirty. “

Blot’s blog to quote the Pythons “it’s a silly place”.

Bobster says:

12:11pm | 17/02/11

John,

You’ve actually just nailed my political views at the moment. Labor and Liberal parties are pretty well exactly the same (the 50/50 election results across the country, I think, is evidence of that too), the Greens are still, pardon the pun, a bit green for mine, and Family First and the rest are utter nut cases.

The Greens are undoubtably on the left, but as for Labor and Liberal, they’re both centre-right, deregulationist, free traders. They’re anti-tarrif, very pro-business and both claim to be economic rationalists and fiscal conservatives.

There are some minor differences on social policies, but the main argument at the moment is who is more competent at delivering centre-right economic policies.

Oh, and, especially at a state level, both sides have been locked in a tough-on-crime dick measuring competition for years and I can’t see any major philosophical difference.

They’re both pro-censorship. The both throw red herrings to support their views and neither side is keen to bring the churches into line.

To me, that says they’re both authoritarian centre-right. I consider myself libertarian centre-left, so I don’t like either of them.

nb, the Greens seem to have some promise and they’re not far left, in reality, but they are too far to the left for me.

Hopefully that should flesh things out a bit more if this is still giving Adam a headache.

Adam Diver says:

01:07pm | 17/02/11

Wow this thread is long

@ bobw, I would argue that bias can only occur in a singular piece when it has no basis or evidence supporting it. I understand its an opinion piece but without displaying the basis of the opinion it would be fair to say the individuals bias would come to the fore.

If we accept that an anonymous internet source is sufficient evidence, then my claim refers to quantity of pieces Mal has made with similar themes and poor evidence. I will conced that my own bias may create problems in determining the bias of Mal, but other than personal attacks I have seen nothing to dispell my point. No one has claimed that he is in fact bias towards the left. Until someone addresses that point directly we are arguing semantics.

@Seano - Its hard to argue with you when you keep creating strawman arguments. Its nice to criticize my hypocrisy without ever engaging in my actual debate. Regardless that you refuse to answer any questions that I pose (and I do read the responses because I am genuinly interested to see the other side) I will respond to your points directly.

Lets ignore the fact that I don’t post on every single website I read. I have limited time and stick to the punch. If you want a like for like, let me know which neutral political reporter regurlarly favours the right without proper evidence?

You constantly project things on other people to improve your own arguments. Please stick to what is written. Claiming hypocracy because I only argue against one reporter on one site without repeating this effort on another site (one chosen by you) is a truely weak argument. What do you expect me to do post on every left/right website and spend the same amount of capital as I did here?

Hypocricy occurs when I defend a journalist from the right, who punches here regurlarly from claims of bias. If you have seen me do this then please direct me, otherwise you are quite simply wrong.

Seano says:

04:13pm | 17/02/11

@Adam

“Its hard to argue with you when you keep creating strawman arguments.”

The point of your initial post (to which I was responding) was to claim Mal is biased against the right. So this comment about strawmen is puerile.

“Its nice to criticize my hypocrisy without ever engaging in my actual debate.”

You where ranting about bias, I was responding. Now you want to change tact and engage in debate on the topic, which was my suggestion so I guess I’m getting through. And I see others have taken up that challenge, you should read them, they at least make sense.

“Regardless that you refuse to answer any questions that I pose (and I do read the responses because I am genuinly interested to see the other side) I will respond to your points directly.”

I was debating your claim of bias, now you want to argue the facts of the story, it’s different debate.

“Lets ignore the fact that I don’t post on every single website I read. I have limited time and stick to the punch. If you want a like for like, let me know which neutral political reporter regurlarly favours the right without proper evidence?”

Oh so now it’s only people you choose to favour with your attention that must remain impartial (well at least your version of impartial) how generous.

“You constantly project things on other people to improve your own arguments. Please stick to what is written. Claiming hypocracy because I only argue against one reporter on one site without repeating this effort on another site (one chosen by you) is a truely weak argument. What do you expect me to do post on every left/right website and spend the same amount of capital as I did here?”

I expect you and the other right wing ranters not to piss and moan like spoilt school girls about bias on opinion piece. Just get on with debating the topic if it means that much to you or you think you have something worthwhile to contribute.

Being as you’ve now at least attempting to engage in an on topic debate I guess my work here is done. Well done me.

PS. “Hypocricy occurs….yadda, yadda, yadda.”

Hyporcricy occurs when you set different standards for yourself than you set for others.

Jim says:

02:45pm | 16/02/11

You really shouldn’t mix your moggies with your G&T mary…very unbecoming of a young lady

Faz says:

02:51pm | 16/02/11

In terms of this particular issue MMR, Abbott, often touted by his supporters here for his ‘aussie-bloke-calls-a-spade-a-friggin-shovel’ style said, ‘Curious’. In other words he sat on the fence leaning towards Morrison. Today he’s jumped over the other side and embraced Hockey because he is presumably not so ‘curious’ anymore.

There’s a man of steel for ya!

Morrison’s ‘apology’ had all the sincerity of Luigi Vercotti when ‘e said,‘Sorry, squire, I scratched your record’.

Joan says:

03:50pm | 16/02/11

As Joan says ...... Gillard and Co should resign - the closure of Nauru and Labor deadly asylum seeker policy has encouraged smugglers and lured asylum seekers some to their untimely death .... many who would be still be alive today if they hadn’t been lured by Gillard policy . No it isn’t Scott Morrisons words that are deadly,  but Gillard Labor deadly policy.

Faz says:

04:55pm | 16/02/11

And SIEV X, Joan?

michael j says:

05:04pm | 16/02/11

Yes its almost to much to beleive they came from the same APES as the rest of homo-saipans ??

Roja says:

05:10pm | 16/02/11

Or Joan that the vast majority of refugee’s are coming from wars that Howard got us into? 

Imagine people expecting that we might help out innocent victims from the shit we started.  Bizarre isn’t it.

Joan says:

05:12pm | 16/02/11

Faz…. SIEV-X happened but not because Howard went out of his way to lure and entice asylum seekers,and smugglers as Gillards deadly failed deliberate policy has lured people to an untimely death

Joan says:

05:52pm | 16/02/11

Roja…. Gillard statement on defence said she will keep Australian soldiers in Afghanistan for coming decade…... more troops and asylum seekers dying under Gillard/Rudd command than Howard 11 years.  And Obama talking about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 5 years..  Gillard is the PM and the only thing she has changed is a successful asylum seeker policy to her failed asylum seeker policy which lures people to a possible untimley death

john says:

08:13pm | 16/02/11

@ Joan,wrong- Obama has set the withdrawal start date to START handing over control to Afghan troops on July 2011:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6705332/Afghanistan-Barack-Obama-sets-date-of-July-2011-to-begin-withdrawal.html

Its anyone’s guess when it will complete, however I think it will end quickly because the US will want to hurry up and exploit $1 trillion of lithium and other natural resources that are in abundance and strategically close proximity to India’s emerging industrial economy, Afghanistan is also surrounded by a cheap labor force of other countries that will not doubt be exploited to mine as fast as humanly possible.

No doubt the worlds biggest names in mining will stick their grubby paws for a slice of the action.

Roja says:

08:59pm | 16/02/11

Nice misdirection Joan.  The point was Howard set in motion the two largest drivers of asylum seekers - Iraqis & Afghanis.  Fair enough he did so as we needed terrorists out of those countries, but to the civilians caught in the shit fight (where shit still happens) don’t you think we owe a fair chunk of them safe haven?  Don’t get me started on this blinkered view that he kept boat people out when there were far less boat people to keep out.

As for Julia she is living up to the responsibility of what Howard started, the war and how long it takes is a bipartisan issue that has been left in the hands of our military to get the job done.

Faz says:

05:31am | 17/02/11

@ Joan

So the tragedy at Christmas Island was Gillard’s fault but SIEV X was nobody’s fault?

Brilliant ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ reasoning!

John says:

02:27pm | 16/02/11

Wow.  Can I have my 30 seconds back?

nihonin says:

02:39pm | 16/02/11

Agree with you about ‘shit happening’ weekly with Tony and the Liberals, but they still have a bit of a haul to catch up with Labor, on their almost daily basis of ‘shit happening’.  Amusing!

David C says:

03:08pm | 16/02/11

and yet the majority of Australians would vote them in tomorrow, who would have thought eh?

john says:

05:27pm | 16/02/11

@nosthow, so you think we should give labor a medal of valor? Perhaps we should continue with labors policy and allow more boast to cross during cyclone season as well, so we can give our defence forces something to do and go fish corpses. Dont forget the navy divers to locate ship wrecks out from timor sea, or scrape up flotsam & jetsam from what were once rickety boats and arrest boat smugglers from life rafts. Oh nosthow how gullible you are - even if china was to invade us militarily, even the laborites of your calibre will think its normal immigration!!

nossy says:

06:54pm | 16/02/11

@John - hey Johnny that was funny - you been drinking fella ? Hope your not one of those Liberal bloggers that I heard get paid nothing to work on the blogs !  hahahhhhhhhhh Nossy loves ya Johnny !

john says:

07:46pm | 16/02/11

@nosthow, take it easy nossy your hyperventilating, just for you - only this once I have replied to @Bobster {some replies above yours}, giving what I thought was a fair reply about your mate Tony. It was the Liberals turn, to swing the bat at them, I’m sure you will agree with that reply as being fair comment yeh?

Bob7 says:

02:40pm | 16/02/11

Gilloid will be shak’n in her shoes if they replace Tones darling. It’s dear old Tones that keeps her in her job. The Independents don’t like him, thats obvious. They didn’t back Gilloid because they like the Labor Party. And they don’t dislike the Libs in general just Tones. So not sure what your so excited about.

Penny says:

03:39pm | 16/02/11

Bob7 I think you could be right on the money. Funny watching the Labor supporters so eager to see Abbott go, but it’s also very likely if Abbott goes so will Gillard. The Independents hate Abbott that’s the only reason she is PM.  If anyone else had been Leader of the Libs I’m sure the Independends would have backed the Libs.

meinsydney says:

06:02pm | 16/02/11

Penny & Bob,
Why do you think it’s only Labor supporters that want to see Abbott go?  I think you’d be shocked how many Liberal leaning voters would like to see him go too.

MarK says:

04:50pm | 16/02/11

Hahahahaha.

Exactly.

They get so much mention because they drive the government policies though.

Abbott has been the only politician of substance for the last 2-3 years.

Roja says:

10:15am | 17/02/11

I agree with you MarK, there is not a single politician of substance in federal parliament.

persephone says:

03:59pm | 16/02/11

I always love the double standard in this one.

Bishop castigating her leader demonstrates her ability to speak freely.

Rudd castigating his shows serious disunity within the party.

It equally works the other way around -

Bishop castigating her leader shows serious disunity within the party.

Rudd castigating his demonstrates his ability to speak freely.

Folks, in both parties MPs are given the opportunity to speak their mind and discuss policy issues.

The only difference is that the Liberals say they can cross the floor if they want to. Hardly anyone ever does. No one has for several years (I think Philip Ruddick was the last one to do so, and that was over twenty years ago).

Aitch B says:

04:25pm | 16/02/11

@Persephone

Short memory syndrome, Pers. Turnbull crossed the floor on the ETS vote in February 2010.

How the hell could you forget that??

NicoleG says:

04:43pm | 16/02/11

Damn Aitch B, you beat me to it! Pers, I am lost for words. You forgot that?

persephone says:

04:47pm | 16/02/11

Atich B

because he didn’t.

The vote was carried on the voices. There was no division, so no one crossed the floor.

As there was no division, individual votes were not recorded, so we have no evidence of how MT voted.

luke says:

05:06pm | 16/02/11

persephone, Rudd’s dummy spit about being sacked as PM doesn’t really count.

persephone says:

06:33pm | 16/02/11

luke

I was talking about the recent folder shutting incident, which happened at about the same time JB was monstering Abbott.

On Turnbull crossing the floor: he sat with the government for the vote (so he was prepared to be counted with them for the vote) , but as no division was called, he (technically) did not cross the floor.

I’ll concede that that was his intention and that he would have if one had been, but it’s not recorded as such in Hansard.

Aitch B says:

06:48pm | 16/02/11

@Persephone

Now why did I think you’d come back and dispute the fact?

Maybe you’d like to think that’s the way it was, Pers, but I call bullshit!!

Sure there was no division but did I say there was? No - of course not! He crossed the floor during the debate, Pers. There doesn’t have to be a division for a member to cross the floor. They can do it any time when they are in disagreement with their party’s side of the debate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/malcolm-turnbull-crosses-floor-in-parliament-to-support-rudds-emissions-trading-scheme/story-e6frg6n6-1225829127204

Google it. Reported in the Australian, SMH, the Age and on news.com, and abc.net.

Need some more proof?

Hansard contains an an interview with Joe Hockey on the day:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=13;query=ets division;rec=4;resCount=Default

Down towards the bottom of the interview…....

Get off your high horse, Pers and drop the superior ‘know it all’ attitude you display in your posts….... you aren’t always right!!

persephone says:

06:15am | 17/02/11

AitchB

sometimes the media can’t let a meme go - they had already written a ream of “MT to cross the floor’ articles that day!

And Hansard doesn’t do interviews. It is a record of the proceedings of Parliament, not a news service.

Hockey’s speech was made before the vote was taken.

I know MT intended to cross the floor. The Liberals didn’t call for a division because they didn’t want him to. (They had called for divisions on previous votes on this issue).

I could expand my statement: Liberals only cross the floor when there’s no chance that their vote will make any difference.

Regardless, I think my main point still stands - it’s a right Liberals have in principle but one that they exercise so little in fact that it may as well not exist.

When it comes to speaking out publically, I don’t think there is (in reality) much difference between the two parties.

TimB says:

06:33am | 17/02/11

“The only difference is that the Liberals say they can cross the floor if they want to. Hardly anyone ever does. No one has for several years”

Perse, twist what you claim you meant all you like. But you were wrong. Puure and simple. No amount of technicalities will change that. MT crossed the floor. Period.

Now come on. Admit you were wrong. You can do it, it won’t kill you.

persephone says:

07:54am | 17/02/11

For all the political ignoramuses out there:

‘Crossing the floor’ originated with the Westminster system.

When a division is called, the Ayes move to one side of the chamber and the Noes to the other.

Normally your party all goes to one side (e.g. so all the Libs to the Ayes and Labor to the Noes).

“Crossing the floor’ means you leave the side your party is on to join the other one.

This can only happen if a division is called.

It doesn’t matter where you were sitting when a vote was taken; it is only your vote that counts. If no individual votes are recorded, then there is no record of how you voted, so you haven’t crossed the floor.

I have no doubt that was MT’s intention. I do not dispute that he sat with the Labor party in preparation for it.

But no division was called, no individual votes were recorded, so he didn’t cross the floor.

If ‘crossing the floor’ means something else, please enlighten me.

The G says:

03:44pm | 16/02/11

So this must be a nothing post on a nothing story on a nothing issue? Oh wait, so then THIS must be a nothing reply on a nothing post on a nothing story on a nothing issue! Oh god, I’m trapped in the vortex of stupidity! hhheeellllpppp!!!

PaulB says:

03:06pm | 16/02/11

Should HAVE, Jade.  Not should OF.  Should OF is bogan talk.

Jason Smith says:

03:15pm | 16/02/11

I can deffinately think of 1 person who needs to be shipped out of this country…...

Jade says:

03:48pm | 16/02/11

Oh so sorry PaulB…. will you ever forgive me??

Steve Putnam says:

07:56pm | 16/02/11

Could we just have a break from all this hate talk. A tragedy occurs at sea in which children are orphaned and some grubs are begrudging the deceased a decent burial on Australian soil.
This is Australia, not Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia. We’re supposed to be hospitable and generous….‘with boundless plains to share’ according to our national anthem….yeah right. Give us your poor, your tired masses yearning to break free…..we’ll piss on them!
Good on you Joe Hockey. I know I’ve criticised your maths at times but you’ve stuck up for what’s right. Try and take a few of your colleagues with you on this one.

Christian Real says:

06:44am | 17/02/11

Jade read Barrie Cassidy’s article in ‘The drum”, “The price of politics: The death of compassion” and you will learn that $300,000 that you and others keep throwing about actually works out at two cents per taxpayer to fly family to their children’s funerals.
But hey,have a typical whinge and dummy spit and show that like the rest of the riff raff that associates itself with the Liberal party that you lack compassion, and are inhumane.
Oh, and Jade the proposed ‘Flood Levy” that all you Liberals are having a hissy fit and dummy spit about is around $1 a week that some would have to pay depending on their income bracket.
As well as Liberal party stooges in these blogs, you have also became Liberal party scrooges.

Cameron says:

04:51pm | 17/02/11

@ Christian Real

Can I please have my $0.02 back please?  I don’t want even $0.01 of my taxes to pay any taxes for the funerals of people who arrived here illegally, unwanted, uninvited, unwelcome and…. well you get the picture.  If this is dispassionate well I don’t give a bugger.

Christian Real says:

07:03am | 18/02/11

Cameron
The fact is they didn’t arrive here illegally,perhaps you ought to re-educate yourself instead being continuely drip-fed from the Liberal party diatribe.
Australia is a signed signatory of the UN Refugees Convention Act of 1951 ,and there is nothing illegal or unlawful about asylum seekers, seeking refuge in our Country.

Christian Real says:

07:25am | 18/02/11

$300,000 on Toner Cartridges that the Liberals spent was a waste, $300,000 to allow parents to say goodbye to their children who had died,was humane and justified.
Once the $300,000 of Toner cartridges runs out ,the Liberals can replace them and buy more.
The sad fact is that those parents who were flown to Sydney to say goodbye to their children and loved ones, can’t replace their lost ones, nor can they buy more.
Surely the value of human life outweighs and is a far better investment than the waste of Toner Cartridges, as a comparison

Jedi_T says:

03:16pm | 16/02/11

Rob,
Liability Party? Really?
Tell me, which Govt managed to go from a surplus to the biggest deficit in Australian history?
Who cant control how they spend their money (rorts & waste) regardless of there supposed effects?
Oh wait, I know this one!
The ALP
Liability Party Indeed!

Joan says:

05:22pm | 16/02/11

Lack of morals belongs to backstabbing Gillard who knifed peoples PM Rudd overnight after preaching loyalty to Rudd just days before. Thats a complete lack of morals.  Gillard with her Hammer and Sickle flag hidden under her bed. Gillard trained by ex Communist Party members during her Socialist forum days.

john says:

07:53pm | 16/02/11

@Joan
That statement you made will certainly have all the hard core leftist socialists masturbating on mass tonight. You inadvertently got them excited about Gillards morals.

Christian Real says:

08:32am | 17/02/11

Joan
Have you really looked at yourself in the mirror lately?, do you see yourself as being that perfect that you can judge Julia Gillard ?
I guess that’s what become of people when they run with the sewer rats(Liberal Party),their brains become part of the sewerage.
Maybe that is what Tony Abbott meant, when he said “Shit Happens”

persephone says:

04:07pm | 16/02/11

Losing your wife and your children at sea.

Call that a win?

Rosie, I hope you don’t call yourself a Christian, because you certainly don’t talk like one.

Mayday says:

04:42pm | 16/02/11

Spot on Rosie and I think we have set a dumb precedent here.

Persephone you must be kidding, they paid and choose to get on the boat.

What does religion have to do with it….....athiests, agnostics and non christians don’t have any compassion, is that what you are implying, simplistic tripe!

Rosie says:

03:08pm | 16/02/11

Is the Federal Govt going to fork out for the flood victims that didn’t read their insurance policies very well, more like they didn’t understand it when the insurance companies are going to decline their claim??????

I don’t think these flood victims should be denied any longer as to what will happen next if they can’t get any money from insurance companies.

I think the Opposition should start pressing the govt as what will be done for these Australians.

Hey Mr Farr another topic that you could write about. I as a taxpayer do not mind helping these innocent Australians. I don’t agree to pay a tax for the re-building of QLD’s infrastructure.

Compassion and sincererity for our fellow Australians, don’t you think??????

Chris says:

03:25pm | 16/02/11

The families of some of those who died live in Sydney. They requested they be buried there. It’s the decent thing to do.

bobw says:

03:25pm | 16/02/11

I think all fish hooks should be green, but unfortunately that’s equally irrelevant to the current article.

Randal says:

04:03pm | 16/02/11

I agree Chris, and those families having insisted on a Sydney burial for people not from that city should then also foot the bill of the funerals and travel costs of their relatives, as that would also be the decent thing to do.

Rosie says:

07:26pm | 16/02/11

The families and friends of those that drowned 30 metres off Christmas Island have also requested that those that came for the burial at the taxpayer’s expense should remain in Sydney to visit the graves of the deceased. It is a decent thing to do after all that was the one of the reasons Chris Bowen allowed them to bury their dead in Sydney and not Christmas Island. The govt should now do what they say and allow them to live in Sydney so they can visit the graves of their loved ones whenever they wish.

We can keep going with our compassion and sincererity. Isn’t it our moral obligation to use taxpayer’s money just to show the world that we are a compassionate and sincere bunch??????

Aasq says:

11:15pm | 16/02/11

Yes it is, Rosie. An excellent, and therefore extremely surprising suggestion, coming from you.

And I’ll say this just once. It’s spelt sincerity.

Rosie says:

07:54am | 17/02/11

Ask a Stupid Question

OK so you are not stupid if you can pick up on a blogger’s speed typing who doesn’t want to spend too much time on their counter attack on some of the nonsense on this blog. eg Aasq Big deal but still stupid because you didn’t get the drift of my comments as I was being sarcastic.

Aasq says:

09:39am | 17/02/11

And I wasn’t, Rosie ? Even funnier.

bobw says:

03:23pm | 16/02/11

If they’re just talking amongst themselves, how is it that you came to interject?

The G says:

03:56pm | 16/02/11

Poll numbers change. And its two and a half years to the election. Both parties have plenty of time to stuff things up. However, the Libs are leading that race, regardless of the polls. Gaffes and missteps mount up. People may be willing to let things slide, but sooner or later you hit rock bottom and they stop listening. What is most amusing about the latest poll is that respondents prefer Julia as PM, but also prefer a carbon tax (plurality) and the flood levy (majority). So they want the Libs in power, but Julia to lead and to pursue Labor policies. That’s polls for ya!

Birdman104 says:

05:38pm | 16/02/11

Which lefty media would that be?  Is there anything not owned by Murdoch et al on the right? Oh, the Age, well 12 people in Melbourne will have another perspective.  The Punch? I have news for you this is not mainstream yet, and nor are those who haunt it

The G says:

03:50pm | 16/02/11

Don’t read their articles then? I mean seriously, take some ‘personal responsibility’ and shop your eyeballs around the vast, vast stupidmarket that is the blogosphere. Nobody is making you read, and its nobody else’s responsibility but yours. I thought that was the mantra of conservatives? Or do you only want intervention by the powers that be when it suits you?

Steve Putnam says:

04:54pm | 17/02/11

I suppose you prefer that un-lettered cretin Bronwyn Bishop gets to ghost write her articles. Maybe Smokin’ Sophie’s posts are more on your intellectual level. And lets not forget ole Grecian 2000 Andrews. He’s shown he’s got more strings to his bow than just loading up innocent people on terrorism charges.

Bruce says:

04:32pm | 16/02/11

John: Agree. Had these people NOT sailed to Christmas Island none of this problem would have occurred. They must have known the risks.

Aasq says:

11:25pm | 16/02/11

It’s most inconsiderate of people to go dying when it exposes the Liberal Party, John.

MarK says:

04:51pm | 16/02/11

I see Bobster.

So they bought the toner and then what?.......tipped it out?

Gotcha.

I have seen this a couple of times now…this “excuse”.

Do you really think it is comparable?

Bobster says:

06:19pm | 16/02/11

If it’s a waste to send mourners to a funeral, how exactly is leaping through a bureaucratic loophole to stock up on ink any different?

$300,000 versus $300,000. The only difference is the party spending it and the colour of the skin of those who benefit.

meinsydney says:

04:25pm | 16/02/11

We can dream!  Hard to believe how far backwards we’ve gone since that time…..very sad.

Dave-o says:

04:55pm | 16/02/11

Once upon a time the Liberal party could afford a bit of progressive policy in the name of pragmatism. The day Howard “reached out to the battlers” was really the day they decided to reach for the lowest common denominator.

Viva LaBogan.

meinsydney says:

05:24pm | 16/02/11

Dave-o,  I couldn’t agree more.  I just hope this recent infighting results in a coup in the party, and that one day soon they become a party I’d be happy to see lead this country again.

Steve Smith says:

07:58am | 18/02/11

The Liberal party ended when John Howard took over as Prime Minister,and it become the biggest redneck political party the Australian has ever had.
The fact that Malcolm Fraser resigned from the Liberal party shows that he believed it had wandered too far to the right and had lost its way, and true meaning of what the Liberal party stood for.

Mayday says:

04:47pm | 16/02/11

Lovely piece Randal, a joy to read thank you.

Bobster says:

11:02am | 17/02/11

The problem is though, the ALP hasn’t been forced to defend it’s stance. The only pressure I have seen come to bear on Labor over this going in the opposite direction.

Labor is facing calls to keep the mourners in Sydney for longer. That is not playing into the Liberal Party’s hands.

In fact, what I have seen is further evidence of internal Liberal Party friction and they have been forced to defend their position.

PR 101, (I think when I did it there was even spin in the course title and they called it public communication or some nonsense) would suggest it is never a good thing if you have to spend a full day defending your position and backing away from the original comments.

When your flacks go into crisis management mode, you can be pretty well assured you’ve stuffed up the PR.

And when you’ve got a minister apologising for anything, that’s a pretty good indication the flacks are in crisis management mode.

MarK says:

04:47pm | 16/02/11

The only mistake Morrison made was to offer an apology at all.

he was correct to question this ridiculous expenditure that resulted from yet more failed Labor policy.

Joan says:

05:08pm | 16/02/11

One Nation????  Who listens to what One Nation has to say…... yay Persephone does now a One Nation follower.!!

Birdman104 says:

05:49pm | 16/02/11

I still have yet to see anyone address the obvious remark by Persephone regarding the deaths arising from the [successful] Howard Policies.

Economist says:

11:17pm | 16/02/11

Seriously MarK that is such nonsense I suggest to read Zeta’s comments on the other article on this matter where he talks about responsibility. It’s about more than compassion for affected asylum seekers and their families. It’s about the dignity and civility of Australia.

Bobster says:

10:57am | 17/02/11

MarK, the question is why did Morrison offer the apology.

This is pure speculation because I’m not in Canberra, but there’s a strange chain of events here:
1. Morrison makes his comments.
2. Abbott sort of, a little bit, backs the comments but basically has a buck each way.
3. Hockey, a moderate factional heavy, comes out swinging in the opposite direction.
4. Several hours of silence.
5. Morrison apologises almost a day after his original comments.

Is it entirely unthinkable that Abbott did the numbers during point 4 and found the moderates were in the stronger position, hence Morrison was told he would have to back off of the far right view.

Once again, it’s all speculation, and perhaps Mr Farr can use his access to enlighten us here (although he’s been working on this all week, so he’s probably not far off). I’d like to know the full chain of events, because if Abbott didn’t come out strongly in the first instance, it indicates to me that his position as leader may not be as robust as the Libs are saying right now.

This has been a very interesting little dance, especially in light of some of the tensions Malcolm Farr has highlighted already in the last week or so.

Why did Abbott not have the confidence to take a strong position immediately? Was he worried about what the party would think and if it would cause an unsustainable internal upheaval?

Lindsay says:

10:25pm | 18/02/11

Once again Mark refuses to accept the suggestion that maybe the true cause of those deaths stretches all the way back to John Howard taking as into the two biggest causes of asylum seekers in recent history or at the very least the wars themselves. No. It’s ‘clearly’ labors refugee policies that are to blame! Maybe we should just blow up every boat that comes to Australia now? Sure it’s murder in the short term but if it “stops the boats” it’ll be worth it in the long term.

Regardless of who or what is to blame paying for those funerals was the right thing to do or at the very least it was WRONG to complain about a measly 300K on the day of the funerals if not at all.

meinsydney says:

06:29pm | 16/02/11

Mariyn, great post and I 100% agree with you.  So sad to see what is currently going on in this country.

nossy/nosthow says:

05:21pm | 16/02/11

@MarK - and this is why Tony Abbott will never be PM - boy does he get some basic stuff wrong Marky !

Brian B says:

05:19pm | 16/02/11

Geez Slim, I reckon it cost roughly the same as it did for Ms.Gillard to fly there.

What’s your point?

Birdman104 says:

05:45pm | 16/02/11

Though Prime Minister Gillard would have a legitimate reason to visit the troops she is largely responsible for committing to duty there.  The Hon Mr Abbott MP wanted a visit, fact finding photo op.

That might be one point.

Another might be that Governments support all kinds of things from the public purse and everyone has an opinion about its merits.  I personally don’t like supporting private education, but hey I’m stuck with that one too.

persephone says:

06:37pm | 16/02/11

Geez, Brian, and he could have saved that money by travelling with the PM, as he was invited to do.

But that didn’t suit his political purposes…oh, and he thought he might get jet lagged.

Apparently the PM didn’t have any troubles, but she’s tougher than he is.

MarK says:

09:00pm | 16/02/11

Jeez pers the PM could have told the truth and not politicised a known trip.

More lies and distortion. Gillard knew of the trip. She chose to politicise it.

Seems you go well together.

persephone says:

06:22am | 17/02/11

MarK

if yoiu know a friend has plans to travel to Sydney in a week’s time, and you know that you’re going to go to Sydney yourself a day or two earlier and you have room in the car, wouldn’t you make the offer?

And if your friend’s only reason for refusing your offer was that he didn’t want to be car sick when he got there, wouldn’t you find that a little strange?

Bottom line: if TA was truly in to saving government money, the ‘fact’ that he’d already booked a trip shouldn’t have been a problem.

He refused the offer because of his political motivations for the trip which - I remind you - was to use a soldier’s death for his own political purposes.

Christian Real says:

07:10am | 17/02/11

Our Aboriginal ancestors didn’t vote either to allow the English to take over their country either, and if our Aboriginal ancestors had stopped their boats and turned them back, maybe we wouldn’t have the Liberal riff raff today, that calls themselves Australian, and yet they are so uncompassionate and inhumane towards other human beings.
The only people that I would like to see deported from our Country is people like you,with your liberal hatred,that demonise other human beings because they are different and arrive here in boats, akin to the English 223 years ago.

Heather says:

09:30pm | 17/02/11

Christian Real, you must be REALLY desperate for an argument to hark back to 223 years ago.  Get with the issues of today.  Or is your seething class envy and Labor class hatred more important?

Christian Real says:

06:46am | 18/02/11

Heather
Your comment shows your lack of intelligence,to understand the statement I had made
Like the boat people of today, the English just sailed into our Aboriginal ancestors Country
The only difference was, the English stole our Aboriginal Ancestors lands,their children and their rights, and treated them a second class citizens in their own Country.
Desperate, no I am not desperate, like you claim, nor am I uncompassionate, inhumane, Un-Christian,and I haven’t mastered or would even want to master the vile, ugly, disgusting hatred that manifest in all you Liberals supporters and others that have the audacity to even call yourselves Australians..
As for the ‘Issues of today’, ask yourself, how would you like to be treated, or expected to be treated if you where in these peoples shoes, fleeing from a war torn or grief stricken country, in the hope to find freedom,safety and a new way of life for themselves and their families.
Again heather, put yourselves in their shoes,if you weren’t able to attend the funeral of your loved ones, your little children, as a mother and a parent how would you feel?
To follow in the doctrine of the Liberal party diatribe in demonising these people is wrong, they are human beings just the same as everyone else here on this Earth.
Heather why do you, and others like you, think and believe that these people don’t deserve to enjoy the same freedom that you are all enjoying living in a democratic Country like Ours?

Steve Smith says:

06:50am | 17/02/11

Louisa
I guess the truth is boring for you Liberals to digest, take in and acknowledge.
As for Tony Abbott being our next Prime Minister, I don’t think you are right there, because I feel there will be a leadership spill before too long.

TimB says:

08:10am | 17/02/11

You could be right Steve. There could be a leadership spill. Gillard might be rolled by Shorten, and thus Shorten will be our next PM,  not TA.

Don’t worry though. Tony’ll get the gig soon after that.