Playing this asylum seeker card doesn’t stack up

Wizard says:

12:44pm | 30/10/12

I’m confused….
um Bob, are your for the affirmative or the negative?  Would help me to dig through this?
I think you are say that you don’t like Labor, but you also don’t like Abbott..
sigh, another day in paradise.

Meg says:

12:46pm | 30/10/12

Abbott protected by the media? When was that? I see and hear nothing but trash and smear written and said about him.
Don’t worry though Bob, Abbott will be replaced by Turnbull soon and Turnbull will make a few needed changes in the Coalitions front bench.
Labor returned with a majority in 2013? Only a die hard Labor supporter would have such faith.

nihonin says:

12:53pm | 30/10/12

lol, very poor attempt.

Gregg says:

12:59pm | 30/10/12

Somehow Bob, seeing as you’ve used an article hardly about anything Tony Abbott is saying or doing, or Julia Gillard either for that matter, I sense you are no liberal party member at all and just another Labor hack.

TimB says:

01:03pm | 30/10/12

There is no way this person is a Liberal member.

Obvious troll is obvious.

PJ says:

01:20pm | 30/10/12

A 1600 strong PR army corp costing $150 Million per year. A stacked 6 Federal PR Specialists for every Journo in the Canberra Press office should tell you the Gillard Government has full and near absolute control of the Australian media.

A further $10 million is spent of Federal agents to watch the Internet.

Never has an Australian Government made such a concerted effort to control and monitor the written and spoken word.

Care to revise your assertion that Abbott is protected by the media machine?

Bailey says:

01:41pm | 30/10/12

babble-on
Last time you said it was a 16,000 man PR army costing 1.5 billion.
If you’re gonna tell porkies, try to stick to the same numbers.

Greg in Chengdu says:

02:12pm | 30/10/12

I’m with you Meg the media have ben to work overtime on Abbott. Julia and Swan on the other hand seem to escape their disasters untouched and unquestioned. Everyone can believe the anti women campaign against Abbott it went on for months yet the LAbor Party stuff up the budget royally and all we see is couple stories most written by either Labor party members or Labor sympathizers justifying why they couldn’t get their figures right.
And now they have effectively committed another coup in their own ranks ignoring the democratic vote to head up the SA senate in which senator Farrel won and replacing him with Penny Wong. ANd all we see are stories about how Senator Farrel is a great guy putting the party first.
I suppose I must be one of those crack pot mysoginists because all I can se is Julia playing doll House with our country putting her childrens tea party friends in charge. Governor General, female, Speaker of the house, Female, Attorney general, Female, now head of SA senate female.
Julia’s feminist dream team, oh but its Tony who hates women, not julia that hates men and overturns an election when one is voted in.

Carol says:

03:12pm | 30/10/12

Greg in Chengdu,
You obviously don’t read much of watch TV!  To suggest Julia and Swann have been given a free ride by the media suggests you have little knowledge of the media, I’d suggest they both have been persued by the media.
Yes, you are correct in my view, you are “one of those crackpot mysoginists”, who distorts the facts to make your own case. Biased, not you.

Esteban says:

03:33pm | 30/10/12

Bob Hockey.If you want a good example of ALP spin then look at the front page announcement of the Asian century white paper. Bold plans to intergrate Australia within Asia.

Meanwhile because of budget cuts funding for their National Asian Languages in Schools program has not been extended beyond 30/6/2012.

Also as part of budget cuts to DFAT diplomatic posts have been slashed in Asian countries.

Massive media coverage of the white paper but in reality doing the exact opposite where it counts which is allocation of funding.

In other words the actual budget cuts are in direct conflict with the white paper announcement.

Not one half arsed decent journalist has picked up on the hypocracy

PJ says:

03:37pm | 30/10/12

TAXPAYERS are spending about $150 million a year on an army of spin doctors to sell the Gillard government’s policies to voters.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/pms-150m-spin-doctor-brigade/story-e6frg996-1226448739077

Leigh says:

03:50pm | 30/10/12

Abbot protected by the media? That’s the daftest thing ever heard! Most of the media is pro-Labor; even “The Australian” is neutral at best.

Abbott is a politician,and not to be trusted. But anything would be better than Gillard - except the millioniare socialist, Turnbull, of course.

paul says:

04:28pm | 30/10/12

Bob did you notice the article today about Jones getting more viewers then before the Gilard comment?
I am surprised labor has not learned trolls turn people of, and you sir are an obvious troll.

Terry2 says:

05:18pm | 30/10/12

Abbott isn’t protected BY the media he is protected FROM the media by his minders. That’s why he only ever appears on soft TV like Channel Nine breakfast show on Fridays and friendly commercial radio shock jocks in Sydney.
It’s a strategy to keep him away from serious questioning; look what happened when he appeard on the 7.30 report. The man has no substance.

paulh says:

05:27pm | 30/10/12

Protected by the media ?? what a crock, I would love to know which media that is. The guy is attacked with spite and bile, he is constantly badgered as being negative when all he is doing is his JOB, yes OPPOSING poor policy and labor gov waste. Or announcing boat people policies without even discussing them with the countries involved, or complaining about the THREAT to tow back boats when the actual policy is to ESCORT if seaworthy, yet labor makes border control ESCORT boats less than 60klms from Indonesia to christmas island 300KLMS, the hypocracy stinks.What about the media compliant with Labor who said another boat another policy failure and whose dropping of policies that worked have caused the debacle we now have. Wake up man

Shane From Melbourne says:

05:51pm | 30/10/12

@Paulh- Actually Tony Abbott’s job is to present his party’s alternative policies, but since his party has crap policies like Direct Action and a Rolls Royce Maternity Leave Scheme he is probably better to stick to just opposing everything that Gillard puts up. For the record I don’t think much of Gillard or ALP policies either…..

acotrel says:

01:10pm | 30/10/12

Six months to go to see that ! People w ill be so relieved that Abbott is gone that they will migrate towards the LNP in droves. It is just another version of the old ‘good cop, bad cop’.  The LNP are so desperate to regain their birthright

A Concerned Citizen says:

02:22pm | 30/10/12

This was sarcasm right?
Expecting Malcolm Turnbull to take a stance on a tough issue is like expecting Bob Carr to be decent, honest person.

Let me tell you how Turnbull works; he says something that gullible viewers want to hear, so long as it is vague enough that people of opposing opinions don’t hold it against him; and when it comes down to the vote he abstains because it’s convenient for his popularity.

So expect some short speech about ‘maybe there is a better way’ without any follow up.

But then again, as most Australian voters prefer the most effective deterrent, and both parties know that this is the only way they will get votes (remember that the Liberals only kept getting in because they supported it- and Labor only got in later because they started doing it too, and didn’t endorse workchoices), I imagine he will keep quiet about it.

Leigh says:

03:57pm | 30/10/12

Turnbull thinks much the same way as the government thinks. He shouldn’t be in the Liberal Party at all.

Daz says:

12:46pm | 30/10/12

It just shows that the Australian position on asylum seekers is cynical, political and opportunist; not a skerrick of principle in sight.

Does it read true without the political bias?

Ian1 says:

01:18pm | 30/10/12

I don’t know anyone that considers Labor a party of principle.  The only way that attribute is even loosely related to the Labor party is via the claims made that they are a progressive party.  Claims mind you.

As far as the constitution of the party goes, it seems it applies to everyone until it doesn’t .  Take Wong for example, the democratic vote put her second (SA Senate ticket).  Even if he gave the top spot over (no duress to be sure), is that his right?  What was the vote for to begin with.  Rules can be bent for Wong?  At the bequest of Albo on a high horse - pestilence be it’s name perhaps?

Who am I to comment, but let me call out an abuse of process where I see it.  Party of principles indeed.

Esteban says:

01:22pm | 30/10/12

The last defence for the ALP is “Yes we are crap but the coalition might be worse”

I am prepared to live on the edge and give the coalition a go.

Maybe that Scottish spin master the ALP have engaged could re think the strategy. The one he used for the Labour party in the UK was “Yes we created this financial mess so we think that makes us best placed to fix it”

TC says:

01:54pm | 30/10/12

Its amazing how clear a sitiutaion can become once you are in government and privy to reports on the actualities and facts of a situation. Two years the ALP commissioned a report on the refugee situation by an international group (can’t think of the name but they are well known.) The report siad most “refugees” coming by boat are economic migrants and claiming asylum is the only chance they have of migration. They come by boat because it is next to impossible to prove who they are and their canhces of being acceoted as refugees are way higher. Basically, it is a scam. If it continues, Australia will be overrun. So, the ALP have decided to do something about it. Of course, Labor is a political spin machine always seeking an advantage so they demonised Howard for years for protecting Australia’s borders and now they seek to do the same. Hypocrisy is the ALP’s middle name.

PJ says:

01:26pm | 30/10/12

The England and Wales has a problem in that 1 in every 5 crimes is committed by a foreign national in the community on a temporary visa, awaiting processing or processed. They are a tiny proportion of the population too.

I suggest you get yourself over to Calais and have a walk around there. Huge eye opener! Against the popular opinion, I would say most would not wish to live in a community with these blokes.

JoniM says:

04:07pm | 30/10/12

” Contrary to some people’s imagining, boat people are, indeed, people. And, like other people, they do respond rationally to government policy changes. Eventually>”

And like all other people, they will lie and connive to seek more benefits for themselves where possible ! Not sure we can afford too much more of this whilst the entry numbers remain totally unchecked !

Bailey says:

04:34pm | 30/10/12

@ john u R
“And like all other people, they will lie and connive to seek more benefits for themselves where possible !”
Do judge everyone based on what you would do.

note to babble-on - We don’t live in Europe and you’re not in the east end of London anymore.
This is Australia, we’re half a world away.
Go incite racial hatred in Holland or France.

Gratuitous Adviser says:

06:54pm | 30/10/12

@Bailey
What the above are stating is the “bleedin obvious” when you travel through the UK and Europe, or better still, ask a local.  It’s a time bomb over there.

Back home in nirvana, it has not helped that we have been cursed with an incompetent government during this difficult time in our history, with regards to illegal immigration.  Because of the comparable success of the West there are massive amounts of people, from less successful countries, that want a better life and I can understand that.  The trouble is that if you have a Government that is incapable of controlling their immigration, because of forced liberal foolish ideals, then they will be in trouble and leave a legacy that is impossible to reverse out of without violence.  E.g. Europe.

Because the Opposition and Greens are taking turns holding them under, the ALP are drowning because of this issue.

By the by:  Ian Thorpe has depression and a new book out.  Sheeez

marley says:

12:22pm | 30/10/12

Okay, first, they’re not illegal arrivals. It’s not illegal to arrive here without a visa if you’re making a refugee claim.  Second, you can’t deport a person making a refugee claim back to his home country until his claim has been determined.  Not only is it absolutely contrary to the UN Convention and Protocol on Refugees, but it is also contrary to broader international law and the principle of “non-refoulement.”  Third, a refugee, by definition, is someone outside his country of nationality. An Afghan in Afghanistan is, by definition, not a refugee.

Ian1 says:

01:22pm | 30/10/12

@marley -  Mouse confirmed that it is illegal to arrive without a visa last time we went over this.  I am so glad I was reading this to call you up on it.

From memory, article 31 of the Refugee Convention went into the illegal entry of refugees…

Without a visa or alternate diplomatic arrangement, any arrival is unlawful and illegal.  An illegal entry of a legitimate refugee perhaps, but their passage is in fact illegal.  Hence the charge of people smuggling and all the government advertising on the illegality of the attempted voyage.

Mahhrat says:

01:44pm | 30/10/12

@Ian:  Nothing like quoting the facts, eh? 

Article 31. - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

I don’t think it’s being suggested that they are not advertising their arrival, otherwise we’d have much more evidence of abandoned boats or boats trying to leave Australia, not just arrive here.

I don’t suggest either that all these arrivals are genuine - I believe the current figures are in the order that 15% are bogus, or cannot satisfy the requirements to be declared refugees.

If they flee here, and are genuine refugees, we will not punish them for seeking asylum.  If you combine that with the presumption of innocence, how we treat those most vulnerable people is an absolute fucking disgrace.

marley says:

01:50pm | 30/10/12

@Ian1 - no, it is “unlawful” to arrive without a visa, and asylum seekers are “unlawful non-citizens.”  That is not quite the same as saying they are illegal immigrants, because Australian law gives them the “right” to make an asylum claim, with or without a visa.  These people are exercising a right specifically granted to them under the Migration Act, and recognised by the courts - so how can they be “illegal?”

Ian1 says:

03:31pm | 30/10/12

@marley - “it is “unlawful” to arrive without a visa…”
Exactly.

“the “right” to make an asylum claim, with or without a visa.  These people are exercising a right specifically granted to them under the Migration Act, and recognised by the courts - so how can they be “illegal?””

Reciprocal responsibilities?  That is how they can be “illegal”.

Associating with a known criminal (the people smuggler).  Crime.
Endangering the life of a child.  Crime.
Providing material support for human trafficking.  Crime.

Australia reserves the right to refuse refugee status to people of character such as these.

Different entirely to those languishing in legitimate refugee camps,  those awaiting placement.  The same who didn’t spend a veritable fortune (US $10,000 approx) enriching those behind the criminal human trafficking trade.

@Mahrat - “on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization”...

Exactly, illegal entry.  Penalties aside, granted, but their entry remains illegal.  Now if they are refused refugee status due to their partaking in the criminal activities associated with their arrival, as discussed, then Australia has a solid border protection policy. 

The term illegal immigrant holds water for those seeking refugee status, or seeking asylum, when coming by unauthorized marine transit.

PJ says:

03:34pm | 30/10/12

Has Julia Gillard spent the promised and vowed surplus on illegal immigrants?

JULIA GILLARD: “Well the better economic plan for the future is about bringing the budget to surplus in 2013. We’ll do that….  I’m going to get the budget to surplus…. I’ll get the budget back to surplus in 2013.”
August 2010

Mouse says:

03:38pm | 30/10/12

Sorry Marley, but
“People smuggling involves the illegal movement of people across international borders, usually for payment. This implies a voluntary agreement between the organiser and the person being smuggled”
http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/irregular-entry/
The whole point is that they have” arrived” here illegally. I know the wording has since been watered down, maybe so as not to upset anybody, but the fact doesn’t change, they are breaking the law arriving without the proper paperwork. While it is not illegal or unlawful to claim asylum, and nobody is stating that, it is still illegal to arrive without a visa or appropriate paperwork.  Call it what you will, unlawful (which the dictionary defines as not legal, illegal) if that works for you but it does not change that they are arriving here against Australian law. That, in my book, is illegal entry. If it was like in the USA, they would be sent back to where the boat left from, no questions asked, no apologies given, end of story.  :o)

Mouse says:

04:10pm | 30/10/12

Mahhrat, you have quoted yourself that the people who are coming by boats are not covered under the Convention because they are not coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. 
The law is usually black and white with emotion removed, as it has to be to allow the law to work.  The asylum seeker issue has somehow become a very grey area and emotions are running rife. I don’t think anyone wants to punish people who are genuinely seeking asylum. It is just that recent events have proven that not all seekers are genuine and their lies and deceit have been accepted by an overworked Immigration Dept, allowing them residency here.  It is certainly doing nothing positive for asylum seekers that have arrived and for the ones that will arrive and many see that destruction of ID is because they have something to hide.

Sure, feel disgusted with the few that stuff it up for the many, but you cannot demonise people who feel threatened, in their own country, of arrivals that prove to be deceitful.

Ian1 says:

04:42pm | 30/10/12

Ah,  Mouse.  Without your sense I’d be lessened.

Mouse says:

05:04pm | 30/10/12

Ian1 , lol, I’m here to help buddy!  ;o)

nihonin says:

12:57pm | 30/10/12

Yet another example of an ALP that has no idea how to run a chook raffle, let alone a country.

Oh I don’t know about that lostinperth, Labor are paying double, what Gina apparently wants to pay workers if you believe the acolytes.  So she must know how to run something:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/locals-paid-4-an-hour-at-nauruan-detention-centre/story-fn9hm1gu-1226505683189

nihonin says:

12:49pm | 30/10/12

Papers, Shane From Melbourne, papers, they make all the difference.

Gregg says:

01:04pm | 30/10/12

It’s just not papers alone nihonin and aside from a lot of asylum seekers who may not have papers, this type of legislation will definitely disadvantage those such as Papuans who likely did not have the opportunity for getting things like a passport.

The Badger says:

01:15pm | 30/10/12

Steve of QBN says:
“They are indeed illegal arrivals however, the UNHCR requests the “host” country to overlook that illegal arrival if the person is seeking refuge from war, persecution etc. :
This is correct.
Article 31 exempts refugees coming directly from a country of persecution from being punished on account of their illegal entry or presence, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Steve of QBN says:
“However, this ONLY applies to the first port of call.  Once you elect to leave that place of refuge, you become an illegal arrival and remain so despite your protestations of refugee status.”
1st - We already agreed that they are illegal arrivals regardless of whether this is the first second or nth country this illegal arrival thing is redundant. They are not any more illegal than anyone else entering without a visa.
2nd – This has nothing to do with the first port of call.
“The expression “coming directly” in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. “

Achmed says:

01:49pm | 30/10/12

Abbott is quite happy to tow the boats back to a country that is not a signatory to the UN Convention.
He was quite happy for them to be sent Nauru under Howards Pacific Solution, Nauru did not sign the convention until July 2011.
He only has a problem with anything that is not his idea. Arrogant

glenm says:

05:18pm | 30/10/12

@ Achmed,  In fact Abbott never had a problem with Nauru not being a signatory to the UN Convention, it was the labor party that continued to use that fact to claim that the LIB policy would not work and Nauru was not a suitable location.  It was Labor that then decided Malaysia was a suitable location for resettlement and so the refugee convention requirement was thrown in the bin.  The problem that Gillard has is that she has a problem that anything that is not her idea, Hypocrite

A Concerned Citizen says:

02:48pm | 30/10/12

I’d be inclined to agree that the UN convention IS outdated. So long as the UN refuses to expand upon just grounds to make an exception against taking an asylum seeker as a criminal, social or security risk, there would be no ‘legal’ difference between general incarceration as a detriment to more discriminant filtering asylum seekers on character grounds.
I find it strange that when faced with riots or negative security assessments, the onus is still on us to make justifications to reject on a case-by-case basis. Certainly we, the host country deserves the right to do this on suspicion alone. We certainly hold these standards for allowing people into our houses.

What I don’t understand is that although this would be the second time the UN would reform this declaration- this time it insists nothing is wrong and refuses to acknowledge its flaws.

Leigh says:

04:06pm | 30/10/12

Georgio is a malcontent backbencher. He’s not good enough to be anything but a backbencher, and that makes sound off the way he does.

A Concerned Citizen says:

02:38pm | 30/10/12

No Achmed, the idea that Australians voted for Labor based on their opposition to the Asylum policy is outright false.
The Liberals enjoyed a 12 year reign that could easily correspond to their harsh border policy and Labor’s stubborn refusal to endorse it.
The only thing that changed in the term Liberals got voted out is that the Liberals wanted to push through Workchoices and Labor opposed it.

If anything, it teaches us that people vote FOR strict border control, but AGAINST workchoices. In the absence of Workchoices between either side, the most border-protective party wins. To say that people vote for a party because they happen to agree with every single policy, rather than a few key policies and compromise on the rest, is simply silly.
Unless you can explain why people kept voting for the Liberals so many times in a row when the Asylum seeker debate was just as relevant.

Greg says:

03:04pm | 30/10/12

Illegal immigrants were not an issue in the 2007 election because the Coalition had fixed the problem, and illegal entries were negligible. It was the Workchoices election, remember?

The last election where people voted based on illegal immigration policies was the 2001 Tampa election. Remember, the one where the Coalition came from certain defeat to huge victory as a result of the Tampa issue?

The ALP did not win the 2010 election either. They retained government because of the support of two so-called independents who represented conservative constituencies. Indepenedents who had previously supported Coalition policy on illegal immigrants.

The fact is that anybody with an IQ above room temperature knows that the ALP have created a huge disaster from a problem that had been fixed. That’s why they are back-tracking, and re-introducing Coaltion policies.

But until they re-introduce TPVs, they will not have fixed their mess, and they will not have fully restored the Coalition policy.

The ALP loses millions of votes on their illegal immigration policies. Everybody knows this, even the ALP politicians, which is why they avoid the issue whenever they can.

An Observation says:

03:11pm | 30/10/12

I don’t think Labor have introduced the Pacific Solution, didn’t that include TPV’s?
Also go to your local Centrelink office and see how much money is being spent on an hourly basis.  We need to help the 2.2 million who are living under the poverty line first and that includes the 600,000 children who are already in Australia.  Are they not important?
I was told (someone may be able to confirm this) that a motel complex in NOrth Brisbane called the Palms is used for housing Asylum Seekers?  What about our homeless, or are they not important?

Gregg says:

03:32pm | 30/10/12

Nothing like your own view of events hey Achmed for the full Pacific Solution has not been re-introduced and yes there’s every justification for anyone to heap muck on Labor for even with it staring them in the face that something drastic was needed, what did they do other than to vote down a bill by the LNP to return to the PS.
Then Gillard had Labor sit on their hands whilst she appointed a supposed expert committee which came up with some of the PS, the flood gates still open and opening even wider throughout that period.

It is always going to be difficult to stop a flood when the rain does not stop and you have pulled down the levees and even harder to reap any success if you attempt half rebuilding while it keeps raining.
Labor brought this upon us and until they decide to go full hog and bring back TPVs along with returning boats when possible, the chances of stopping this fiasco are still remote.

It’s time for you to face some reality Achmed.

Achmed says:

04:13pm | 30/10/12

@Greg - you mean the election where Howard and his Minsters, including Abbott, lied about the children overboard

Achmed says:

04:18pm | 30/10/12

An Observation…TPV saw asylum seekers being permitted to reside/work etc in Aust.  It stopped family reunions and hence the number of women and children who died trying to get to Aust by boat, there was no other way to re-unite.
The current policy is that you will “stand in line” until your turn would have come up if you had applied through the recognised process. 
I would think that that is tougher than giving out TPV’s.

If people are silly enough to look at one policy when they vote then thats their problem…you have to cop the good with the bad