I’ve always half-liked the Labor Government’s Malaysian solution on asylum seekers. I like the half that involves bringing an additional 4000 refugees from Malaysia to Australia. It’s a small additional burden that our rich little country is very capable of bearing.

Go Back to Where You Came From was compulsory viewing, but did little to change many people's views. Photo: SBS.

It’s quite a clever strategy, too, in light of new research showing humanitarian arrivals are generally younger and more likely to live in regional areas, thereby helping to counter our rapidly ageing, urbanised population.

But I abhor the other half of the equation – the part that involves sending 800 asylum seekers to Kuala Lumpur, where 90,000 mostly Burmese are already rotting in a refugee quagmire in the hope of a better life they’ll never get.

This week’s SBS documentary Go Back to Where You Came From did nothing to change my views. In fact, I can’t believe a wealthy, proud country like ours is even considering Malaysia as a dumping ground for a tiny number of refugees deemed too politically icky to be cared for on our own shores.

If you didn’t watch the show about six Aussies retracing the journey of asylum seekers who arrive here, you can find it at www.sbs.com.au/shows/goback. It should be compulsory viewing for any Australian with an opinion on the issue (and let’s face it, that’s all of us).

It should be mandatory viewing in high schools, too, so that perhaps the ignorant bigotry many kids hear at home can be diluted by a few simple, compelling facts:
AUSTRALIA opened its doors to 140,610 migrants in 2009-2010. Only 1.5 per cent, or 2156, were refugees who arrived by boat. (Yet only those who come by boat are put in detention – those who arrive by plane can live in the community.)

ON CURRENT rates of resettlement from refugee camps, it would take 188 years for every one of the world’s 15.2 million refugees to be resettled. (Is it any wonder they’re too desperate to wait in line?)

MOST Asian countries, including India, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, are not signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees, so refugees live in poverty outside the law, facing violence and exploitation. It’s illegal to work and their children can’t get an education. (Yet many Aussies believe they should wait in these ‘safe’ countries to be resettled.)

Go Back to Where You Came From was upsetting, confronting viewing. But it was also encouraging, because it showed even the most closed-off, hate-filled Australians gaining compassion when they learned the reality of refugee life overseas.

That is the message we should now relay to politicians across Australia.

Years of political point-scoring have done little but breed intolerance and a misrepresentation of the facts on an incredibly complex issue that requires cool heads and cooperation.

All 23 SA Federal MPs (Liberal, Labor, Green and Independent) signed a pledge this week committing to a River Murray rescue plan that restores enough water to save the system.  Why can’t we have the same level of bipartisanship on refugees? Why can’t Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott agree that this issue is too polarising to be played out in the headlines?

We might stop living in fear that our borders are besieged. In 2010, Australia received just 2.2 per cent of the 358,840 asylum applications received in 44 industrialised nations across the world. Yet we’re made to feel like we’re being swamped with every small leaky boat arrival.

We might stop believing refugees are somehow stealing from the public purse. After gaining permanent residency, refugees are entitled to exactly the same Centrelink benefits as Australian-born residents. Yet I wish I had a dollar for every vile hoax email I’ve received about refugees getting a better deal while ‘real Aussies’ miss out.

Go Back to Where You Came From showed that Australia is a lucky little country in a very scary world. Malaysia is not the solution to our problems. We just need politicians to agree that human dignity is more important than cheap votes.

With Zoos South Australia announcing a $24 million black hole this week, it’s time to make it more affordable to visit the Adelaide Zoo. It’s such a great place, but $85 for family admission means it’s a special occasion destination only.

Make it cheaper (Melbourne, for example, is only $56.80 for a family) and we’ll come more often. Better still – give locals a huge discount whenever they bring visiting friends and relatives along.

It’s been described as everything from an ill-fitting toga to a cut-off wedding dress to a weird pair of curtains. It most definitely is not a functional tennis outfit. I am of course talking about the self-styled “jumper” being worn by Venus Williams this year at Wimbledon. Stick to the tennis, girl.

Did you see Sampson the 85kg pooch this week – he’s believed to be Australia’s most obese pet and has been put on a strict diet to lose half his body weight. When we first got our black Labrador last year, the vet warned that he’d happily keep eating until he blew up. Now I know what she meant.

76 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:12am | 26/06/11

      “This week’s SBS documentary Go Back to Where You Came From did nothing to change my views.”

      Of course not. It was blatant propaganda, designed to persuade others to conform to the same sort of views you hold already. As such, it was pointless in terms of actually bringing any understanding to the issue.

      “It should be compulsory viewing for any Australian with an opinion on the issue”

      Ah yes, the good old totalitarian impulse. If people won’t think correct thoughts, they must be force-fed with propaganda until they do. This is an example of the good intentions that lead to the sort of regimes that genuine refugees are trying to escape from.

      Boat-people advocates are the most closed-minded of Australians. They assume that they alone hold the moral high ground, that they have nothing to learn, that those who disagree are cruel and ignorant, and that everyone should be forced to absorb their views.

      It’s the open-borders types who are truly ignorant, bigoted, and filled with hatred for the majority of Australians who they regard as “bogans”. Everything they say should simply be ignored.

    • Bev says:

      09:44am | 26/06/11

      The drum has an article about boat people and the SBS program.  Try to get a comment which does not agree with the line of this article published?  You have as much chance as a snowball in hell!  It is heavily censored and only PC comments are published.  They do allow a few through so that the PC brigade can ridicule, name call etc. Its called “balance”.  They then claim since most of the comments are favourable that this is the majority and those that disagree are the bigots and racists and that this is the free speech they are in favour of.

    • melle says:

      10:33am | 26/06/11

      @Erick, Agree…..I’m relieved it’s not Compulsory Viewing, as the author advocates.  Six of the “most hate-filled”  have been converted?  How so?  SBS said?

      “I abhor…...” ?
      Well, me too!  -  the “our refugees”, the “leaky boats”  and the busybody P.S. on a tennis player’s “self-styled” jumper.

    • Erick says:

      10:50am | 26/06/11

      @Bev - That’s pretty much my experience with The Drum too. I’ve given up on even reading that shonky site. It’s just hopeless.

      They’ll end up with a circle-jerk audience of people who all think exactly the same way they do - and think it’s a win! Yet they will fail to engage or persuade anyone outside their own little clique.

      The Punch, for all its faults, at least allows people of different viewpoints to mingle and clash. Ultimately, this is a far more valuable enterprise.

    • Bev says:

      11:43am | 26/06/11

      Erick says:10:50am | 26/06/11

      The Punch, for all its faults, at least allows people of different viewpoints to mingle and clash. Ultimately, this is a far more valuable enterprise.
      No argument. If the Punch didn’t exist somebody would have to invent it.

    • Martin says:

      12:01pm | 26/06/11

      I have to disagree, news.com.au seems to publish next to nothing I comment on probally because they see it reaching a wider audience so I’ve pretty much given up commenting or really reading much from that site anyway but the Punch does publish just about everything I comment on and the fact it doesnt have the same tired old writers that news does makes for a refreshing read, its more SBS than 7,9 10 and well now to an extent ABC and doesnt seem to tow the line as much as the other filtered dribble they feed us on the other sites.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      01:02pm | 26/06/11

      The Drum is useless. It takes forever for posts to appear and as a result debate is stifled. I am not sure whether it is due to being PC or just poorly moderated. I have posted comments there that some on this site might consider PC that don’t appear for hours- if at all.

      Often, their pet journalists posty stories that can’t be commented on at all- despite the bogus link to a comments section.

      The Punch is a far better site.

    • Lesley Laurel says:

      02:14pm | 26/06/11

      Are The Drum And the Drum Media listening to the same drum?
      Are The Drum Media ( pop music magazine Sydney)  and The Drum ( ABC TV News 24 item )  listening to the same beat of the drum?

    • Bev says:

      04:13pm | 26/06/11

      Martin says:12:01pm | 26/06/11

      I have to disagree, news.com.au seems to publish next to nothing I comment on
      I have had much commenting more success commenting there and dissenting do get through. At least you can comment their as the do allow comment on many stories unlike the fairfax press which does not on a majority of stories and censors those where comment is allowed.

      I would definitely say the punch is the most open site. While not all agree with comments and it does get personal at times both sides do get their arguments across and I believe most people can see at least some merit in others posts even when their point of view is different.

    • Super D says:

      07:01am | 26/06/11

      We had bipartisanship on refugees.  There was agreement from both major political parties that boat arrivals should be discouraged through mandatory detention to maintain the integrity of the overall migration system.  Labor, listening to its vocal inner city supporters who have now jettisoned it for the Greens anyway walked away from this bipartisanship.  I imagine that after the next election bipartisanship on this issue will be achieved by whichever sap gets to lead the ALP into the political wilderness.  I imagine also that following the election drubbing there will also be a consensus that pricing carbon was a very silly idea.

    • cur says:

      07:39am | 26/06/11

      did i miss something? OK, i know this is a blog, but how do you go from the first 15 or so paragraphs under the title “malaysia’s no dumping ground for our refugees” to “did you hear the one about the fat labrador?” ?

      my tiny brain can’t handle that kind of leap on a sunday morning!

    • Gregg says:

      08:18am | 26/06/11

      I think you had to visit the Zoo too.

    • Lloyd says:

      08:34am | 26/06/11

      No, I concur, I got lost with that too.However, I did like the article.We have the money. Its not a question of not having the money when yesterdays Punch article revealed we’re spending 45 million on a sport stadium upgrade.Its not even that we don’t have space.The Northern Territory has heaps of the stuff! I can’t imagine how anyone who watched the show could fail to be moved by these peoples plights.We are a lucky country.We have the responsiblilty to help others who are less fortunate, which appears to be a LOT of people.

    • melle says:

      09:11am | 26/06/11

      @Lloyd. -  You think the heapa space in the Northern Territory will appeal to the newcomers?  You think that?

    • Gregg says:

      10:10am | 26/06/11

      @Lloyd,
      So how much money have you got that you want to be paying more taxes indefinitely and that will likely increase if there is not some control exercised with immigration, be it skilled, family or humanitarian visas.

      Yep, the NT has a lot of space, just as the rest of Australia does, and so are you going to start dictating where people have to live?
      In what are you going to house them in the NT and how will you employ them?, the cost of living being higher in the NT, just in case you didn’t know and with the majority of refugees typically still on benefits even after five years, all that will just add to the additional taxes necessary for funding.

      Yes, there are many people on the planet far worse off than any Australians, and we or other countries are never going to be able to resettle all of them.
      Unhcr policy is to have refugee camps as close to countries of origin for reasons of similar culture, much cheaper to care for and then it is also found that most refugees first preference is to be able to return to their homeland if possible.
      The family in the Kenyan refugee camp expressed exactly that sentiment in that he was quite emotional about not being able to live without his natural citizenship.
      Would it not be better to rather than spend hundreds of $$$ weekly for one asylum seeker family in Australia to have a hundred families in a refugee camp better cared for.

    • Bev says:

      12:21pm | 26/06/11

      @Lloyd Large parts of northern australia are vacant for a reason.  I think Paul Keating put it in a nutshell “clapped out buffalo country” different context but equally applicable.  In the far north life really does stop for 3 to 4 months due to the rain. You cannot dam it because the country is so flat. Even if you could evaporation is enormous. Else where there is no water except underground.  They tried that in Californa and Arizona. Now their worried aquifers are drying up and in California there is a real worry that the drying of aquifers has/will cause more and stronger earthquakes. It just ain’t that simple.

    • Brian B says:

      02:50pm | 26/06/11

      Lloyd old mate - While I too have empathy for the plight of “these people”, we need to harden up and look at the root causes of them fleeing their country.

      Dictatorship, corruption, spending most of their GDP on arms to sustain said dictator, warring castes and tribes are some that come to mind.

      We are a lucky country, lucky partly because we are generally well governed and are not overly burdened by the above problems.

      And yes, we should fund a 45M sports stadium upgrade because we are a successful nation which cares for it’s citizens.

    • Against the Man says:

      07:56am | 26/06/11

      Laine, the refugee issue is complex, but here is where the problems lie. The Gilltard government have painted themselves into a corner (again!). There have to follow through if they don’t want to be branded as the government of perpetual failures. They really didn’t think this one through. And Juliar Gilltard has as much compassion as a devil possessed cobra! So sadly this Malaysian solution might be pushed through at all costs. Is it wrong? It doesn’t matter because unless the government wakes up and gets competent, nothing will change. And all the ALP supporters on the Punch and Australia need to wake up and admit this Gilltard led government has lost its way beyond all hope. The pressure is on again! Gilltard is cornered and the selfish one needs to do her job.

    • Leopard says:

      10:54am | 26/06/11

      The Contempful One doesn’t consider herself cornered…..if only!  This is a defiant, determined woman.  Get out of my way, she hisses.
      Compulsory viewing of an SBS show?  We’re already being compelled - and it’s not about TV viewing.

    • Davido says:

      07:59am | 26/06/11

      I dislike the idea that Australia is rich thus we must take refugees.

      Both china and India have many many more millionaires and billionaires than Australia. In both absolute and relative terms.

      We are rich because we worked hard, were clever and did not squander our resources like other countries. Why should we suffer for that?

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      08:13am | 26/06/11

      We should separate the boatpeople problem into two clearly distinct issues.

      Firstly we need to make our borders secure from boatpeople and tell the whole World that it is the case. We should not accept anymore boatpeople period. The key reason for this is to destroy the common belief outside Australia that we welcome boatpeople. If we do not destroy this expectation in such a peaceful time like now then we can be in great danger of being conquered by a tsunami of boatpeople later on when there are major wars and food crisis in our Asian neighbours.

      There will be a critical global food crisis before 2060 because of continued global population increases. India just reported its census. It has 1.2 billion people with 180,000,000 people added in the past TEN years. Soon India will have the largest population in the World. Similar rates of population increases are taking place in many other Asian countries. China with its one child policy is the only developing subcontinent which is managing its population growth. Without its one child policy of 30 years China would now have another 400,000,000 people.

      When the critical global food crisis occurs Australia will be at risk of being swarmed by a tsunami of millions of boatpeople from a pool of over 2,000,000,000 hungry Asians. They will head immediately to Australia if we allow this popular conception that we welcome boatpeople fleeing wars and famines anywhere in the World.

      The second issue is whether or not Australia should take in Refugees. I think most Australians would agree that we take in our fair share of refugees. I personally support taking in refugees from other centers.

      In a way the PM Gillard Malaysian solution for boatpeople is correct. It is trying to send a message to the World that we do not take in boatpeople anymore.

    • Erick says:

      09:03am | 26/06/11

      Well said, Dr Goh. It’s good to see someone thinking seriously about the big picture.

    • JAne says:

      12:25pm | 26/06/11

      Where is your evidence? What you are saying is pure speculation.

      The author referred to 1.5% being the percentage of ‘boat people’ who arrivied in Australia in 2009-10. How exactly is this being swamped?

      The issue of asylum seekers is incredibly complex, and what the show did illustrate is that people will take different coures of action based on their circumstance and what they think is best for their family. I do not know what I would do faced with a similar situation, and feel that I have no right to judge.

    • Erick says:

      02:31pm | 26/06/11

      @JAne - Please read the comment before attempting to reply to it. Understanding what Dr Goh is saying would also help.

    • Gregg says:

      08:33am | 26/06/11

      Lainie,
      ” It’s a small additional burden that our rich little country is very capable of bearing. “
      You do so need to Go Back To Where you can get an idea at grass roots level of how people are fairing quite a bit less well than people being housed in nice homes in the Adelaide Hills.
      And just why are all those SA reps concerned about the Murray?
      Yes, they want you to be assured of enough water to go around!

      You live in a country that prospers as much as it does to provide a good life for most people because we have a generally lawful and orderly society.
      That also means we control through immigration policies who comes or should come to Australia.
      Just do a few things like check out what is involved in applying for a skilled or family visa, how long it takes for approval and yes there are queues too, it not being such a marathon effort.
      Of course people with no identity documents nor visas need to be detained.
      Your figures are misleading, Australia’s humanitarian program about 10% of total migration.
      And if you did not know of what conditions are like in refugee camps or overpopulated countries, watch a bit more international news.

      The people smuggling business is causing disruption to our ability to run our humanitarian policies, not to mention the huge costs involved.
      Why not do your own marathon research into how the alleged system might just be working, why the majority of people using people smugglers seem to be reasonably healthy youngish men, some whom it has been alleged may even then attempt to be considered as minors.
      Start checking out the messaging via free internet provided and then look at how a person granted refugee status can have the whole family brought into Australia.
      Strange it may be that the whole family is not also under threat!

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      01:59pm | 26/06/11

      There are no people smugglers, there is no people smuggling business.  How the hell do you people get to be so damn brainwashed?  As we are the only country on earth who jails the last person in the travel chain, or anyone at all for that matter, shows that we are barking mad.

      When a refugee is forced to leave home they get transport because they cannot say “beam me up Scotty” and appear somewhere else.”

      And who they pay and how they travel is nothing to do with us.

      It’s their own free choice.

    • marley says:

      04:06pm | 26/06/11

      @Marilyn - I realize that you have an extremely narrow life-experience, but there are countries in this world other than Australia.  Rather a lot of them have laws against people smuggling.  Take Canada. lt has a pretty good record on refugee issues.  And it has a law which defines people-smuggling as a criminal offence punishable on first conviction to a fine not over $500,000 and/or ten years imprisonment.  Oh, and people who smuggle over 10 persons can get life. 

      So, guess what - there is such a thing as people smuggling.  And it’s a criminal offence in a lot of places.

    • Gregg says:

      04:14pm | 26/06/11

      Well Mazzie dear, we do have a number of people smugglers awaiting processing through the courts and they numbered about a hundred I think it was mentioned when it was reported they and the Indonesians were having a good whinge about it taking too long for their cases to come before a court.
      Personally, I’d just as easy feed them to the sharks.

      And then as for how the asylum seekers’clasims are being processed, it seems the Swiss are giving us an outstanding example of what to do.
      http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/internal_affairs/Deportation_flights_to_resume_to_Africa.html?cid=15351866
      Yep, truss them up like Hanibal Lector and wheel them aboard.
      Sounds like you and SBS need to do a doco between Switzerland and Nigeria.
      But back to your claim ” There are no people smugglers, “
      They have full time searching going on for them, even in Malaysia amongst the mangroves, funded by Australia.

    • Bev says:

      04:55pm | 26/06/11

      @Gregg good link

    • Muzz says:

      08:59am | 26/06/11

      I can’t work out what the last 4 paragraphs have to do with the rest of the article????? Please explain…............

    • Early Reffo says:

      09:09am | 26/06/11

      OK - we sjhould take our fair share of refuigees but let us take the ones that are fair enough assimilate - not the ones who cling to their archaic culture and belief systems.  Let the Muslims be accepted as refugees in Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and other Muslim countries where they would be more at home.  Why come here and whinge ‘racist’ when they are not even able to befriend infidels - it’s in the Koran.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      01:49pm | 26/06/11

      Oh for god’s sake grow up.  Muslims along with jews have been here since the first fleet - they did not bother to assimilate with the aborigines.

      Except the Afghan camel drivers later on who built the centre of the country and married aborigines.

      It makes no difference to us as a secular democracy what religion people are, their right to be that religion is in the constitution.

      Now if you don’t like our laws you piss off back to where you came from.

      The fact is detention and every brutal and disgusting thing we think we can do to these people is illegal and always has been.

      The two major parties are a complete and utter racist bunch of dingbats who need to be condemned.
      The idiot notion that because a few people drowned in an accident that the survivors are not even invited to the inquest for, in December a few hundred utterly random people who did not drown should be illegally traded to the most brutal place on earth for refugees in case some other unknown random people might drown is beyond ridiculous and I am astonished that anyone could swallow such guff.

      The reality whether people like it or not is that the refugee convention endows a large number of rights on refugees and a large number of obligations on those states who willingly sign up to them like we did.

      We do not get to sell off human beings.

    • Mouse says:

      10:12pm | 26/06/11

      Sorry Marilyn, I know I am cherry picking, but your statement “Now if you don’t like our laws you piss off back to where you came from”  says it all.  People that come here, in boats, planes, alien spaceships for all I care, of whatever race or religion , for whatever reason, this should be an imperative rule to their being allowed to stay here. Our country, our laws, our right to enforce them. We welcome all nationalities and religions that wish to settle here and live as Australians. We will not change our laws to suit them and they should come here knowing this. If they can’t live with our laws they will be deported. No question, no more BS. Australia is a tolerant country at the moment but I can see the tolerance eroding if some newcomers continue showing complete disregard for our laws and citizens and keep getting away with it.  Maybe the powers that be should start worrying about Australia and its future and not what some other minor party wants.

    • Realistic Basket says:

      09:11am | 26/06/11

      I wonder when SBS will do a documentary on the bigotry and racism of Muslims - or is that asking too much to expect?

    • Seano says:

      04:18pm | 26/06/11

      Yes because it really is important to focus on a small minority of the 2-3% of the population that are Muslim.

    • Against the Man says:

      06:10pm | 26/06/11

      And Seano’s view are also in the minority so lets give the school teacher some respect now! Got your back Seano smile

    • Seano says:

      07:28pm | 26/06/11

      Troll…

      Seek Help!

    • Against the Man says:

      09:46am | 26/06/11

      Did you guys see the Bob Brown interview on ‘The Insiders’? My oh my! He keeps talking about how ‘we’ (ALP/Greens) will ‘win’ the next election. He was talking as if he was in total control and Gilltard would fall nicely in line. Gilltard has sold the mainstream ALP brand to the Greens for a few gold coins. HaHaHaHaHAhAH

      Looks like a ALP/Greens Australia will be full of tax and little economic competitiveness. Sorry Seano, TChong. Pers etc, today is a dark day as Bob Brown has confirmed your goose is cooked and burned as he leads the ALP down that loopy road. Too funny indeed. Guys - he is in total control of Juliar Gilltard period!

      Keep pounding them at the polls guys! ATM is enjoying how things are unfolding smile

    • Seano says:

      02:44pm | 26/06/11

      Adjust your tinfoil hat, get back on your meds but whatever you do troll…..

      Seek Help!

    • Against the Man says:

      06:08pm | 26/06/11

      Sorry Seano, all your precious anger won’t change the facts. Once again dear Teacher you lose…...........enjoy your repetitive ramblings because dear sir that is all you can do!

      Good Night! smile

    • Seano says:

      07:29pm | 26/06/11

      I’d type a lot more if you made me angry, or even interested…tin foil back on then….

      Seek Help!

    • stephen says:

      10:12am | 26/06/11

      Asylum seekers are burning down the house.
      Put’em out west, near the lantana and the cane-toads and let’em go for their lives.

    • Jane says:

      11:46am | 26/06/11

      The focus on boat people verses those that arrive by plane is that all who arrive by plan come in with papers of identity. Those that attempt it without papers of identity or with fake ones are on the next plane back to where they came from and the airline gets fined for letting them on at the other end.

      Compare that to people who arrive without any forms of identification, (and lets be honest, they are the ones that spend the longest in detention, those who have identification get it verified and then are released.) and we have to 1) check that they are who they say they are, 2) they are the age they say they are or 3) they are not criminals trying to get in to Australia (either to hide or to continue criminal activities and lets be honest we are all shocked when we find out things like Nazi officers have been living undetected in suburbs because they were living under assumed identities).

      I dont know about others but that is one of my main issues with illegal immigrants via boat. The other issue I have is they complain about conditions in detention and yet their “harsh” conditions are better than many Australian citizens have.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      12:06pm | 26/06/11

      I agree with Jane.

      I hate to see Australia being conned by these boatpeople. To get to Indonesia by plane before they get on a boat these people must have traveled to Indonesia with passports and visas.

      We should prima facie take boatpeople without ID and papers as people wanted to commit a fraud against Australia.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      01:56pm | 26/06/11

      That is not true.  People with papers often spend more time in detention because DIAC claim they could have got passports.  Many Iranians for example do carry papers but can’t get passports and traditionally they are christians and many spent 4-10 times longer in detention because they had papers.

      As a matter of law though papers are not required and they never have been so this obsession with papers is s delusion that should have been squashed decades ago.

      As for the last leg being made by sea, so what?  Is there some law somewhere that says people may not sail?

      314 Australian’s drowned last year, 4 or5 have drowned in the last week.

      Have we demanded that all boating, sailing, swimming, surfing and all associated water sports be stopped?

    • Richard says:

      12:25pm | 26/06/11

      I think that to be accurate, the issue of compassion for unfortunate foreigners must be distinctly and decisively separated from the issue of border security when dealing with the boat people/asylum seeker debate.

      Borders are the very definition of Nationhood. Australia is Australia because it has borders, and it can only remain Australia to the extent to which its borders are secure.

      And I believe that this here is the critical distinction between the ‘elite’ and the ‘outsiders’. It has nothing to do with lattes or postcodes or how much compassion one has. It all comes down to agenda.

      The elites would ultimately want to see Nation-states dissolve into a One World Order, and they would like to see National currencies replaced with a One World Currency, sort of like a ‘Globero’.

      Outsiders are more patriotic (even *gasp* nationalistic), and value individual freedoms and liberty (as opposed to the ‘elites’, who value unity and equality over liberty and freedom).

      Both are valid ideological positions, and this is the crux of the new class war that is being waged right now, even here on the punch, pretty much every single day.

      For the ‘elites’, the security of Australia’s borders is a non-issue, because ultimately their agenda is to do away with the entire concept of nation-states totally. But for the ‘outsiders’, Australia’s border security is paramount, because Australia’s borders are the very definition of the concept (Australia) that they love, and are not willing to sacrifice to the ideal of World Wide Unity.

      As I say, to understand the real divisions on this issue you have to realise that its not got to do with compassion for fellow humans from overseas. Both sides want to be compassionate, in their own way, and both sides to an extent actually are motivated by genuinely noble values.

      But I think that compassion needs to be kept separate from the real debate which I outlined above, because its a side effect, and one which the ‘elites’ have hi-jacked to claim the moral high ground with, when in fact the real debate has nothing to do with morality or compassion, and more to do with the conflicting concepts of nationhood vs. a one world community.

    • Erick says:

      02:35pm | 26/06/11

      Richard, that is probably the best summary of the issue that I have seen. Your comment really should be featured as an article, rather than buried among the obscurity of responses.

    • marley says:

      03:41pm | 26/06/11

      Sorry, but I don’t agree that there’s a hidden agenda out there to dissolve borders.  That smacks of New World Order conspiracy theory to me.

      The “elites” as you call them are struggling with the issue of refugees and the mass irregular movements of people everywhere - and I’ve yet to see or read any UN or EU or national document which suggests that countries don’t have a right to restrict movement across their borders.  Every country I know of has passport and visa requirements for some, if not all, foreign nationals - and no one is suggesting the abolition of either. 

      The issue really is trying to make a humanitarian document - the Convention and Protocol - written in a different time, and after a devastating genocide - work in a modern era with mass, inexpensive transportation and consequent mass movements of people, some of whom are refugees and some of whom are not. 

      The mechanisms countries have for sorting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, aren’t especially powerful or effective, and they’re certainly not efficient.  So we end up here in Oz with detention centers full of people we can’t identify or process quickly, or in Canada and the US and parts of Europe, people sitting in processing backlogs for years while they get married, have kids, and become de facto residents. 

      In my mind, there is a moral issue to the refugee situation - but there’s also a hard-headed reality that many of the irregular movements include people who are not refugees, and that we are not doing an effective job of screening out the latter.  And because we’re not, it brings the whole system into disrepute with the general public.

      A former Canadian Minister of Immigration used to say that, if her government wanted to keep the front door open to all forms of immigration, skilled, family and humanitarian, it had to be sure the back door was shut. Otherwise the willingness of society to accept any migrants at all starts to fade.  I think that’s happening here - there’s a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the system is no longer fair to all, and that it is being abused. 

      So, my own feeling is, we need to do a better job on the identification and determination end of things.  The current acceptance rates for boat arrivals in my view reflect not the proportion of genuine refugees, but the difficulty of establishing that someone is not a refugee.  Sort that out, and you will see the numbers drop, as they have in countries which have imposed tougher rules on their refugee boards. 

      My two cents worth.

    • Mayday says:

      03:47pm | 26/06/11

      I second that Erick and thank you Richard, very succinct.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      04:16pm | 26/06/11

      What on earth do borders have to do with anything?  We don’t actually have any borders, just a coastline.

      And we don’t get to be facists about protecting them from phantoms.

      Borders and nation states never come before human rights.

    • marley says:

      04:28pm | 26/06/11

      @Marilyn - quite true, we have a coastline - and it’s our border. Kind of like the UK, actually, or Iceland or Malta or Indonesia or Japan or Sri Lanka.  And countries which have both land and sea borders certainly regard the coastline as a border, and monitor it.  Or do you think the Americans don’t care about boats arriving from Cuba, and the Italians don’t worry about boats arriving from North Africa?

      Countries have borders - defined by coastline, mountains,  rivers, deserts, or those artificial lines drawn up by surveyors centuries ago.  Our borders are as well defined as the border between Canada and the US or between Pakistan and India.  And as worthy of proper management.  That’s not fascist, by the way.

    • Super D says:

      04:48pm | 26/06/11

      Actually Marilyn both borders and nation states existed long before the present fashion of “Human Rights” and I would venture will continue long after the fashion moves on.

    • Bev says:

      05:41pm | 26/06/11

      Marilyn Shepherd says:04:16pm | 26/06/11
      Borders and nation states never come before human rights.
      Whose rights? Agree with the oinks on the farm do we?

    • Richard says:

      06:41pm | 26/06/11

      Thanks Erick (and Mayday btw), I always think that you have an excellent way of summing up the situation succinctly, so I really appreciate your commendation.

      Marley~ I’m not talking about secret hidden agendas and conspiracies, I’m just talking about values and preferences and ideals about how the world should be run. Take the EU and the Euro for example, that’s basically what I’m talking about, with on the one hand the ‘elite’ and the ‘Eurocrats’ pushing for greater integration and dissolution of Nationality, whilst there are still Nationalist movements like UKIP which oppose this. Take a look at this]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyq7WRr_GPg”]this video[/url] to see what I’m talking about. Great post btw, I think you just misinterpreted me a little at the start.

      Marilyn~ yes we all know the way you feel, and you have just reinforced my point, that people of the same mind as you (I have labelled them the ‘elite’, but it doesn’t really encapsulate what I mean fully) DO feel that borders and sovereignty are less important than a UN defined concept of ‘Human Rights’. Because you see the UN is yet another example of the kind of phenomenon I was talking about, sort of like a super structure above and superior to the nation state, which I don’t doubt many people would one hope replaces competing National government altogether once and for all one day.

    • marley says:

      09:13am | 27/06/11

      @Richard - yes, I think maybe I did misinterpret you (maybe I’ve seen one too many conspiracy nut posts!) - I’m still not sure that I entirely agree with you, but yours is certainly a valid take on things.

    • Gav says:

      04:34pm | 27/06/11

      @Marilyn - There is that old saying about an ounce of prevention being better than a pound of cure, since you seem to know everything, how about you travel to the countries that these “refugees” come from, fix the problems there and then they won’t have to leave.  Problem solved.

    • Lesley Laurel says:

      01:37pm | 26/06/11

      Australia is the greatest Liberal Party third world banana republic in the world.
      Australia was settled by old dart jailbirds in 1788 and has remained frozen in time at 1788 ever since.Even Victoria seems to be futuristic and it lives in the Victorian Era.
      Australia is the Peppermint Grove of Europe, The Toorak of Asia, the Upper North Shore of the South Pacific and The Down Under of the United States.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      01:52pm | 26/06/11

      If we have the space to fit in 4000 refugees from some Malaysian hell-hole camp why do we send 800 of ours there? Why not process, withing a 3-month time frame, those 800 right here & then take 3200 extras from Malaysia? Better still, we have 1000s of refugees already here. Gillard is about to build a brand new camp outside Hobart, why don’t we simply process the whole lot immediately. It should not be hard to do if Immigration decided to do some actual work.
      Gillard, Bowen & typically Abbott, twitter on as to how those arriving by leaky, dirty, stinking boats rather than in the luxury of scheduled international flights, have all deliberately destroyed their “Papers”. Now why would they do that? If they do have “papers”, as is claimed, why don’t they take the money, reportedly up to $15,000 per person, they have either accumlated or borrowed from some loan shark, find their way to an airline booking office, travel agent or, indeed, an International Airport, present their “papers”, pay their money, hop on a plane to Sydney,Melbourne etc. & claim asylum when they arrive as, we are told, up to 30,000 others do every year. 30,000 who get processed & accpeted often within weeks or, at most, a couple of months?
      Where is the logic or intelligence - and remember many of these desperate people are very, very intelligent, some with very high qualifications who simply want a decent & safe life for themselves & their children - in paying an exorbitant ” fare” to put their lives at extreme risk, with the possibility that somewhere out in the expanses of the Indian or Pacific Oceans they may lose their lives - unnoticed & uncared about by Australian Politicians?
      Until the advent of the current uncaring, self-engrossed gaggle of ALP & pseudo-Liberal MPs we used to have a reputation for compassion, caring etc.. Since the demise of the White Australia Policy - a policy introduced in the early days of Federation &, to it’s everlasting shame, expanded continually by the ALP - any of you remember that old fool whom, I think, was the Leader of the ALP in the 1950s or 60s & infamously said “Two Wongs don’t make a White”?
      This from the party which professed to be there to protect the under-dogs, the disadvantaged, the deprived, the less fortunate in Society who had no voice within the corridors of Power.
      All this now, sadly, abandoned by the Julia Gillards, Chris Bowens, Wayne Swans & thier ilk.
      They would rather send all of the above to dirty camps in Malaysia where they would all, innocent men, women & children - the latter two were suddenly exempted from being transported - be subject to repeated beatings & other inhumane treatment. They are all Human Beings.
      This ALP Federal Government has lost, or is it dumped, it’s Humanity.
      It’s populisitically driven MPs would rather jump up & down about the appalling ill-treatment of cattle than also jumping up & down about the appalling ill-treament those human beings are & would be subjected to.
      Methinks all of our Federal MPs (& probably State & Territory ones as well) - from all sides - are nothing more than inhumane barbarians of whom Stalin, Hitler, Mao & Idi Amin & other choice beasts would have been proud?

    • Gregg says:

      04:57pm | 26/06/11

      @Robert,
      Mate you need to gather a few true facts before you waste your time on the keyboard so much.
      Start @ http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm and you’ll see your 30,000 is something of an imaginary figure you have collected from somewhere.
      On a couple of your Whys,
      ” why don’t we simply process the whole lot immediately. “
      As if it was so simple for there is a considerable process involved and even someone applying for a skilled or family visa will find that there may be a wait of 12 months or more involved, much much longer for some as yes there is a queue and a priority system and those processing times are for people who have all the appropriate documentation and accept there is a process.
      And then:
      ” Now why would they do that? If they do have “papers”, as is claimed, why don’t they take the money, reportedly up to $15,000 per person, they have either accumlated or borrowed from some loan shark, find their way to an airline booking office, travel agent or, indeed, an International Airport, present their “papers”, pay their money, hop on a plane to Sydney,Melbourne etc. & claim asylum when they arrive “
      Australia does not grant visas to visit and claim asylum just because someone has money and a passport, as simple as that.

      Gillards Malaysia swap plan is just grasping a straw they hope will send a message not to use people smugglers, the 800/4000 scheduled for four years and who knows what they will be doing if arrivals exceed more than 200/year and that is likely as the numbers have been running at about 6000/y for the last few years since Rudd revoked Temporary Protection Visas.
      It is the TPVs that need to be brought back but Labor are too proud or scared, probably both in fact to admit they made a huge mistake for from 2002 - 2007 while we had TPVs there were bugger all boat arrivals.

      If you want to get an idea of what other countries do, have a look at the USA and Europe, even the Swiss leading the way -  http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/internal_affairs/Deportation_flights_to_resume_to_Africa.html?cid=15351866

    • Going Going Gone says:

      02:37pm | 26/06/11

      I agree with Dr Gho.  Let’s go with his realistic approach and rethink the refugee problem and revoke the UNHCR Regulstions which blackmail Australia and other signatories.

    • joe says:

      03:17pm | 26/06/11

      The statement about regugees receiving the same centrelink payments as everyone else may be true..but that’s where it ends… If you are an Australian resident trying to get elective surgery, there is a wait of 3 to 5 years..A refugee has no wait…If you are a dental patient waiting for treatment, an Australian has up to a 3 year wait..The refugees have no wait…plus they get treatment for free, including braces, which costs the rest of us thousands of dollars.  The hospital and dental systems have been under extreme stress for years..A 4 hour wait in a hospital emergency room is considered normal..If I was a refugee, I wouldn’t have to wait any more than half an hour… How on earth is that fair?? I’m all for equal rights for everyone..the operative word is ‘everyone’...not just refugees. The sad reality is that refugees are better off than our aging pensioners..Thats the thanks they get for paying tax all their lives, and going to war to protect our wonderful country..

    • Neil says:

      03:41pm | 26/06/11

      I’m in a bit of a unique situation where I have both lived in Malaysia, and so believe I have some understanding of the horendous conditions people we send to Malaysia will face, but I am also involved in operations to detect suspected iilegal entry vessels.

      The public need to remember that the Malaysian solution has nothing to do with sending refugees back home, or stopping them from entering Australia; Australia can definately handle the additional numbers that arrive by boat. It is about stopping the men who organise these ventures and preventing the senseless killing of many men, women and children during their trip here by sea.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that although the Malaysian solution will almost certainly result in human rights abuses within Malaysian detention centres, it will definately save many lives. I don’t know the exact figure on how many people die per year due to failed ventures, but it’s a lot.

      We need to find something that stops these ventures from being financially viable. Like most other criminal enterprises they use a fairly simple supply and demand model. As the demand for passage to Australia increases, the price for this passage increases until it gets to a point where it becomes viable to start organising additional boats. As the demand decreases, the price of passage decreases until supply needs to lower in order to raise the price again to a viable level. Australia wants the supply level to decrease. Less boats mean less people injured or killed. The only way we can really do this is to lower demand. Sending refugees to Malaysia will definately be an effective way to do this. If you know by hopping on a boat to Australia there’s a good chance you’ll end up in a Malaysian detention centre, you’ll probably find another way.

      What we are currently doing, definately isn’t working. We need to make a change. So instead of just complaining about the plan the government has come up with, lets ask a few more questions. Is there a middle ground? Perhaps detention by Malaysia, but processing done by Australia. Has anyone even questioned if we want to accept refugees that have been processed by Malaysia only?

      Beforen we start abusing the government for the Malaysian solution, lets please consider the question they are asking themselves. The question isn’t, “Are refugees going to be treating to a standard in Malaysia that we would expect in Australia?” The big question is, “Are we willing to accept the possible abuse of a few, so that in the long term we will save the lives of many?”

      Ask that question of yourself, and see if it changes you opinion.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      04:27pm | 26/06/11

      That is not true, people are allowed to pay whomever they want and the bullshit that we can stop anyone paying for transport is deranged.

      Let’s stop this nonsense that we can trade away the lives of some random refugees in the vain hope that some other refugees in some other country will be safer - are you completely stupid?

      And Malaysia does not recognise refugees, they have no process to process them and the process is an application form that can only be filed in Australia.

      Once again, there is no people smuggling, there has never been any people smuggling, we have not sent a single person to prison for people smuggling and our own courts state “this is not people smuggling”.

      The people smuggling protocol was done by the world in 2000 in response to Ruddock jailing Indonesian fishermen and calling it people smuggling, that protocol absolutely forbids punishing those who have to pay to get across borders because they might be sent home and it forbids punishing those who provide the transport.

      Is there truly something missing in people’s brains when they come up with the pap that we can torture and abuse innocent people in the delusion that we can influence the behaviour of someone else?

      And trading humans is flat out illegal, our own courts have said the law applies on Christmas Island and we cannot subvert that law on the basis of this sort of absolute crap.

      Let me ask you Neil - should be torture 1 child in the hope that 9 million other kids won’t die of hunger every year?  Go on.  And what if someone said “I will torture your child in the hope that some child somewhere in the world will not die trying to be safe” would you agree to that?

      Because the High court now has before it the case of the attempted deliberate torture of a 4 year old refugee boy whose dad is here.

      When refugees flee it is their absolute right to use any means they can so long as they don’t break any laws and for prats like you to come up with this sort of mindless drivel it shows how low and degraded we have become as a nation.

    • Bev says:

      07:16pm | 26/06/11

      I presume your are the same person as this item was about:

      Adelaide busybody Marilyn Shepherd’s hysterical emails to editors also point the finger at The Australian. Her brand of reasoning claims that “people are dead, people are injured, more might die because the Australian Government and media would not stop whining”. Forget the tragic fire on the boat off Ashmore Reef. The deaths are “on our heads”, she shrills, for ignoring her “increasing alarm about illegals and so on”. She asks: “Are you journalists hard of reading and hearing?” No, we value mature, reasoned debate over reems of drivel.

      Seems to fit with your rants here. It seems you have form. Do tell me if I’m wrong though.

    • Gregg says:

      09:38am | 27/06/11

      Yes Neil, best to ignore the rantings of Mazza, something she is making a career of it seems but you do need to also review some of your own views, ie.
      ” The public need to remember that the Malaysian solution has nothing to do with sending refugees back home, or stopping them from entering Australia; Australia can definately handle the additional numbers that arrive by boat. It is about stopping the men who organise these ventures and preventing the senseless killing of many men, women and children during their trip here by sea.  “

      Certainly, no humane person wishes to see people dying at sea in an attempt to make a trip to Australia just as humane people would want to see a better life for the millions of refugees living under canvas and in other rather dire circumstances, not to mention the even more millions classed as Internally Displaced Persons, all this likely to be with us forever as population pressures are not likely to be subsiding anytime soon unless some massive world plague is about to break out.

      Ironically, it is such a thing that Australia ought to have a secure border control in place.

      But as for ” Australia can definitely handle the additional numbers ” , perhaps that may be so for most detections of boats, the Xmas Island tragedy aside and even for those intercepted, you ought to be aware that some contagious diseases have been identified.

      There is also a lot more to the issue than just detection and initial processing at Xmas Island, for the whole process of asylum seeker assessment is going to clog courts with appeals and then it all becomes so difficult, near impossible to have claims verified, it is no small wonder of many eventually getting the nod and then giving the nod to family members to also come on over, the family members surprisingly in a safe enough situation that it is possible!

      And you only have to look at the extremes that are necessary to house all these people, the costs involved and ongoing welfare benefits whilst many Australians are suffering hardships to really question how well Australia is able to handle the ongoing ramifications.

      ” We need to find something that stops these ventures from being financially viable. “
      We indeed already had something and it was called Temporary Protection Visas, something the Rudd government revoked in 2008 and haven’t we seen the numbers accelerate from then.

      With the Xmas Island boat smash, it seems many people already in detention knew of particular people aboard that boat and it does not take too much in the way of an enquiring mind to wonder ” how would they have known!”
      There must be contact being made!, a system in place.

      With TPVs and putting up tents for accommodation, just as with the standard for UNHCR refugee camps and having the people relying on selection and sponsorship just as applies to others under the humanitarian policies, the product and demand for people smugglers would quickly dry up.
      Meanwhile, Australia is being scammed and Gillards Malaysia solution is not just horrific but with a 800/4000 swap scheduled over four years, it is laughable if you consider the numbers annually you are detecting.

      Many of us know how Asia and Malaysia are and if you did not become aware of how the $$ talks and the corruption that goes with it, you missed some of Malaysia, and if you do not think that will not infiltrate into the who is swapped scene, you are very misguided.

      If as a detection person, you’ll also be involved in the transfer and think it will all be done peacefully, you might just have a rude awakening or is Gillard training up the Gilligans Island Gulag Gorillas Gang for the manhandling and violence to come, probably drugging those to be transferred.

    • Bazza says:

      05:27pm | 26/06/11

      I didn’t watch the series because I was concerned it would have an asylum seeker activist slant.  Seems I was right.  Good piece.

    • Gazza says:

      07:51am | 27/06/11

      How can anyone say the people who come by boat have more rights to be accepted into Australia than the family whose brother is already here or the mother left by herself just because these people CAN’T afford to pay a smuggler.
      The boat people are taking the place of refugees in greater need because they have MONEY. Is that fair to all?

    • Mark says:

      10:23am | 27/06/11

      “Should be compulsory viewing” Should be mandatory viewing in schools” “Ignorant Bigotory many kids hear at home”

      So anybody who does not agree with you is an ignorant bigot, who should be brain washed by propaganda to think the correct way. Well you have made it clear what sort of person you are.

      As you say there are 15.2M refugees in the world, we cannot take them all. Australia has a refugee intake, and Australia should decide on how many & whom take & in what manner they arrive in our home.

    • Chippy says:

      10:55am | 27/06/11

      I suspect if children ARE meant to watch the show, then if the parents ARE bigots, they are going to have some uncomfortable explaining to do.
      Kids are pretty smart about things like human or even animal suffering and generally know bullshit when they hear it.
      There might be hope for the children of bigots so this hideous trait is not passed on through further generations.

    • Harquebus says:

      10:28am | 27/06/11

      Your refugees. Not mine.

      Censorship sucks. ThePunch moderators suck almost as hard as the ABC moderators.

    • marley says:

      11:44am | 27/06/11

      Oh, I dunno. I’ve never been censored on the Punch (well, maybe once) but I’ve been censored on the Drum dozens of times, even though my posts do not violate their code.  I finally got one comment posted on the Drum on the third attempt after I wrote directly to the moderators and told them if they didn’t post it, I’d be writing to the managing director to complain.  From what I can tell, the Punch posts most stuff so long as it isn’t directly abusive (and quite a lot that is) while the Drum censors stuff for political angle as well as for offensiveness.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:38pm | 27/06/11

      I’d have to say the Punch lets through almost anything, one or two comments I’ve seen the let through could have probably had them in the crapper legally if anyone complained and I’ve seent he occasional not “read between the lines” but pure racist slur get through - which simply wouldn’t happen on any other site.

      If anything they are too easy on moderation - as we’ve seen many good posters leave this place because of the low standards.

      Much more likely what you said didn’t get through because of a technical glitch.

    • marley says:

      01:16pm | 27/06/11

      @hot tub - I expect it’s something to do with that Flash crap, don’t you?  smile

    • hot tub political machine says:

      02:39pm | 27/06/11

      probably - in any case, it wouldn’t have improved things

    • Legal Eagle says:

      11:39am | 27/06/11

      Why don’t the Muslims stay in Malayasia and the others can be welcomed into Australia - they at least try and assimilate whereas Islamists don’t, can’t, because of what the Qur’an tell them - do not befriend an infidel and keep; the Sharia Law.

    • ABC Spook says:

      11:44am | 27/06/11

      I wonder if Marylin knows some of the behind the scenes on the Tamp.  That Muslims made Mandeans (a small Islam sect) eat off the floor rather than let them eat at the table with them - the ‘true’ Muslims threw food to them as they treat them as dogs.  And the faeces thowiong and smearing in the ‘heads’ of the Tampa?  Do we really want people like that to be accepted as refugees?  Well, they were and the above news was well hidden for fear of being called racists, bigots or xenophobic. Forget the truth, that’s one of the casaulties these days.  Check the ABC radio archives for the proof.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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