The power of the Roman Empire can be traced back to one key factor: The Romans did not fear death. This was not so much a state of mind or philosophical outlook on life. It was, simply, the law.

Maybe Labor can just leave all the crap behind… Photo: AP

This was a society in which making a good speech in the Senate, winning a major victory on the battlefield or even just being Emperor, were all grounds for a swift and unexpected execution.

If the leading men of Rome had permitted themselves to have even the slightest fear of dying no one would have gotten anything done, since the consequence of doing pretty much anything was to be stabbed in the neck by an old friend.

Being nothing if not a realistic and practical people - and one with an almost sensual love of bureaucracy - the Romans therefore decided to make it a rule that they were unafraid to die.

This enabled politicians to argue fearlessly against their enemies, even if they might find their grapes poisoned that night; generals to win battles, even if it meant later execution by jealous emperors; and soldiers to stand fast in the face of a barbarian onslaught, sacrificing themselves but saving the legion.

Thus undarkened by humankind’s greatest shadow, they went on to create the most extraordinarily sophisticated political system and most powerful empire the world had ever seen.

The impending death of the Labor Government is now an absolute certainty. There is no way on earth that the ALP will win the next election, if indeed it is able to make it that far in the first place.

A Roman soldier in such a position would wade into the enemy lines and take down as many of them as he could with him. A Roman politician would wander off into his bedroom with a nice glass of hemlock. In the first case you would at least accomplish something before being cut down; in the second you would at least maintain your dignity.

But this Government, naturally, has chosen neither course of action. In typical fashion it has been presented with two solid and achievable options and decided to go with Option C.

In the face of annihilation it has attempted to bargain for its life.

This, for any Roman, would be an indignity far worse than death, and for any Australian citizen it’s pretty embarrassing too. Rather than offering up one last defiant “@#$% you” to the heavens and going out with a bang, the ALP is still desperately looking for an escape route even as it’s walking the Green Mile.

What if we change leaders? What if we send boat people to Nauru? Please, we’ll do anything…

Quite frankly, the whole scene is unbecoming. If this Labor government directed the movie Braveheart it would have ended with Mel Gibson painting a Union Jack on his face and then getting killed anyway.

The fact is Labor is not going to win any upcoming election, nor is it going to save enough seats to be able to win the one after that and nor – given the party’s complete abandonment of its values – would there be much point in winning it even if it could.

But as the Romans knew, death does not have to be terrifying. In fact, it can be liberating.

Unburdened by the need to actually win an election, now is a golden opportunity for Labor to show some coconuts and start standing up for things the party supposedly believes in.

No.1 on this to-do list is a decent asylum-seeker policy, and the ALP’s recent policies on this issue have been far from decent in either sense of the word.

If a party is going to take the morally psychopathic step of using human beings as live political pawns then you’d think it could at least do it with a remote degree of competence - but the ALP has failed even at that. Not only has it exploited the trauma of women and children for its own political gain but it has failed to make any political gain from it. What a cruel and pointless waste.

It’s about time Labor did what it always should have done and process asylum seekers onshore. The genuine ones stay, the bogus ones get sent back. Simple as that. This does, of course, run the risk of more people making the dangerous journey by sea, and that is a powerful consideration.

It is easy to be tempted by the argument that making examples of a few asylum seekers might ultimately save the lives of many who end up avoiding the perilous voyage.

However, this argument falls apart on two levels. One is that these people are, it needs to be remembered, fleeing persecution and possible death, and – unlike in Ancient Rome – sudden execution is not something Australians tend to accept as being part of a human being’s daily life.

In other words yes, asylum seekers might be taking a risk by getting on a boat, but it’s not like they’d be a hell of a lot safer at home. That is why, after all, they are seeking asylum in the first place.

But there is another far more powerful reason that the Malaysia Solution is so offensive. It is a simple reason, indeed one so fundamental that it took me a long time to put my finger on what it was.

It all started when I overheard a snippet on the radio mentioning in passing that the Immigration Minister was the legal guardian of the 57 unaccompanied children locked up in limbo on Christmas Island.

This has always been the technical relationship between the minister and unaccompanied minors - it was nothing new in and of itself. But now I heard the term again as the minister was trying to deport them to Malaysia and what is at best a frightening and uncertain future.

And I thought to myself: “What sort of parent would do that to their kids?”

So there it is, the most powerful argument I can muster against shunting women and children around South-East Asian lock-ups: It’s just not right.

It’s perhaps fitting that Labor’s latest disaster, and the one that will most crushingly cost the party its existence, has also offered it the opportunity to save its soul.

This and other measures, such as setting up the National Disability Insurance Scheme now and not in a decade, signing off on gay marriage so it doesn’t continue to distract and divide the party (and at least keeps 10 per cent of the population happy, a healthy number for Labor these days) and delivering some serious transport infrastructure funding might not save Labor’s life, but it would at least give people some nice things to say at the funeral.

At least, like the Romans, they would leave something to be remembered by.

247 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:12am | 05/09/11

      “Not only has it exploited the trauma of women and children for its own political gain” - Even by the shoddy standards of this article, that’s a sexist statement. . The majority of boat people are men, but you ignore their alleged “trauma” in favour of women and children.

      As for the whole boat people argument - it’s been done to death. Australians don’t want asylum parasites, and constant banging on the drum won’t convince us otherwise. That’s because your side of the argument is simply morally wrong.

    • Nilbog says:

      07:59am | 05/09/11

      Real men don’t experience trauma… they just shrug it off and get back to getting things done.

    • Chris_D says:

      08:18am | 05/09/11

      “As for the whole boat people argument - it’s been done to death.”
      +1. 

      I was really enjoying the article, up until about the half way mark.  It started off funny and actually quite advisory.  Maybe The Punch can just write an article that is not about ayslum seekers for a few days?

    • Steve says:

      10:02am | 05/09/11

      I put the welfare of children ahead of men.  Children are for the most Gary accompanied by women. Ergo ... do I really have to spell it out?  Does Joe?

      This reverse squealing of sexism from some middle class boofhead is exactly why we have trouble getting decent leadership.

      This article is about as sexist as a woman wearing culottes. Grow up and focus on ethereal issue here.

    • James In Footscray says:

      10:04am | 05/09/11

      Erick’s law - “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Erick mentioning women approaches 1 (100%)”.

    • andye says:

      10:11am | 05/09/11

      @Erick “That’s because your side of the argument is simply morally wrong.”

      So… how? You always make these leaps and never explain them.

    • Erick says:

      10:24am | 05/09/11

      @Steve - Not only is the article sexist, but your denial of its sexism is also sexist.

      Are women to be considered equal to men, or not? If they are equal, then they should not receive any special consideration. If they are to receive special consideration on the level of children, as you apparently desire, then they should not be regarded as fully responsible adults.

      I choose to regard women as fully responsible adults and the equals of men. What do you choose?

    • marley says:

      10:45am | 05/09/11

      @Erick - two questions.  If the author had talked about shunting children around the Pacific, instead of women and children, would the article still be sexist?  I think not.  He was careless in that one sentence, but the thrust of his article is certainly not about protecting women at the expense of men.

      Second, irrespective of that, how do you regard the suggestion that we change the system for processing asylum seekers to be “morally wrong.”  I can understand objecting to it for all sorts of reasons, but on moral grounds?  That, I don’t get at all.

    • Erick says:

      11:01am | 05/09/11

      @andye & marley - Advocating for the boat people is ethically wrong, because weakening our ability to control our own borders harms the whole community in the long term.

      The boat people advocates are selling out Australia’s future for the sake of being able to feel morally superior to their fellows.

    • Erick says:

      11:07am | 05/09/11

      @marley - It would not have been sexist if the author had simply mentioned children. However, he included women and excluded men not once, but twice. This isn’t an error.

      The sexism of this attitude is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of boat people are in fact men. The author shows special concern for a minority simply because they are female. This attitude is not compatible with the idea of equality of the sexes.

      You can have equality, or you can have special consideration. You can’t have both at the same time.

    • Tom says:

      11:32am | 05/09/11

      Joe, I wonder about the generalisation that boat people are “fleeing persecution”. in their own homeland. In their own homeland maybe but, how many countries do they pass thru without persecution, in order to fork out wads of their money in order to get on a boat to get to good old Oz. How many are economic refugees rather than asylum seekers looking at the soft touch Aussies down under?  On the morals issue, you don’t mention anything about parents that pay to put their kids on boats to get here so they can be used as bargaining chips for the parents to be “reunited” with them later in good old Oz. It appears to me that the pull factors far outweigh the push factors.

    • Joe Hildebrand says:

      11:40am | 05/09/11

      Are you a viking by any chance Erick?

    • dovif says:

      12:01pm | 05/09/11

      Hi Joe

      You are a panties burning extreme feminist! Just admit it

      (sarcasm attached)

    • D says:

      12:16pm | 05/09/11

      @ Erick

      there’s good odds at least some of the children are male.  Or does that count for nothing?  Concern for male children is meaningless?  Your issues only come into play once a child reaches majority?  Gender is irrelevant prior to that point?

      As the majority of the boat people are men, and you support a hard line border policy, does that make you sexist in some way?

    • Bruno says:

      12:23pm | 05/09/11

      Erick - for someone who says they love this country so much you sure waste a lot of time. Get back to work you’re harming our economy. Bloody descendants of bloody boat people.

    • Erick says:

      12:42pm | 05/09/11

      @Joe Hildebrand - It’s very likely that some of my ancestors were Vikings. However, I am not currently employed in the Viking profession.

      @D - My position is not sexist, because I support turning back all the boat people, regardless of age or sex. The only exceptions would be genuine refugees who took the shortest route to a safe place to get here - which are few and far between.

    • gra gra says:

      03:22pm | 05/09/11

      @ Erick. You tell ‘em Bozo. I’m with you, (yeah, I know, I’m a dickhead), but you should have taken your stance a step further and advocated that women and children should be in the front line in Iraq, etc.
      Or is that not a suitable example of your ‘man support’.
      I mean, we don’t want anybody to say that men and women aren’t equal, do we.
      I suggest that the women and children be suitably cared for here in Australia, and the men scrutinised ASAP. Or perhaps the men should be charged for exposing the children to danger. On the basis of the male being the head of, and protector of his family.
      Still no good? Bit like you really, Eh?

    • Fred Phillips says:

      03:50pm | 05/09/11

      “Advocating for the boat people is ethically wrong, because weakening our ability to control our own borders harms the whole community in the long term.

      The boat people advocates are selling out Australia’s future for the sake of being able to feel morally superior to their fellows.”

      How will our whole community be harmed in the long run or our future “sold out” by treating asylum seekers in a humane way? Please be specific in your answer. Thanks.

    • Matt says:

      03:59pm | 05/09/11

      My sister’s friend works on Christmas Island and witnessed the boat tragedy. He was shocked when he saw two separate incidents of men taking life jackets from women. One of the women was trying to hold onto a small child. Both women and the child drowned as he watched helplessly. He didn’t see if the two men involved made it to shore.

      If the Government doesn’t reintroduce TPVs that prevent access to family reunion I fear we will soon see boatloads of women and children.

    • egg says:

      04:10pm | 05/09/11

      *sits down patiently*

      yes, erick, please do answer fred phillips. don’t be afraid to use a lot of details, either. i think we’d all like to hear an actual response to what was written, as opposed to trying to divert the attention to ridiculous, childish arguments (ie, OMG, sexism! he didn’t specifically mention men, what a PIG!)

      *whips out the popcorn and waits*

    • Erick says:

      04:20pm | 05/09/11

      @Fred Phillips - Your question is, unsurprisingly, slanted. However, I will try to answer as best I can without falling into your obvious rhetorical trap.

      Australia is a country with a small population and vast natural resources. It is a wealthy country as well, supporting a far better than average lifestyle for its citizens.

      There are many hundreds of millions of poor people who would take any risk for a chance to live in Australia, the land of plenty. Currently, a very small portion of those people are taking advantage of legal loopholes provided by the Refugee Convention and other factors to invade Australia by boat.

      This in itself is not a major problem. However, the loss of control over immigration that it demonstrates, is a huge threat. If anyone can get into Australia merely by rocking up on a boat and claiming to be a refugee, then we have no control over immigration through our borders.

      Inevitably, in the long term, this would mean that our small population would be flooded and overwhelmed by vast numbers of poor, uneducated people with no concern for us. Our fate would be that of the Aborigines - many killed, our culture destroyed, survivors reduced to a broken rump.

      As an Australian, I find that idea repugnant. Therefore, I rightly regard those who support it as immoral and unethical - as well as ignorant and stupid.

    • Interloper says:

      04:40pm | 05/09/11

      Erick, there is more to achieving refugee status than rocking up in a boat and asking for it. Refugee has a definite meaning, and claims to refugee status are investigated. If your argument is that non-refugees are granted this status, then please present some evidence of that.
      The vast majority of poor people who might like to live in Australia (such a lucky accident of birth that we do!) do not satisfy the refugee test. Where an asylum seeker stays while the assessment is made is hardly going to change that.

    • fml says:

      04:51pm | 05/09/11

      You are quite angry erick.

      ” If anyone can get into Australia merely by rocking up on a boat and claiming to be a refugee, then we have no control over immigration through our borders.”

      but they don’t and they cant, they have to be processed.

    • AdamC says:

      04:55pm | 05/09/11

      Erick, your 4.20pm comment is just bang on the money. The entitlement to seek asylum predates the age of mass immigration. As the European experience shows, the asylum channel can easily become little more than an immigration loophole. While current numbers may be (relatively) small, it is absurd to think they won’t increase as knowledge spreads and government policy weakens.

      This language of emotional blackmail is used to obscure the simple reality that allowing people to force resettlement outcomes by fronting up in boats is irrational and ridiculous.

    • Erick says:

      05:07pm | 05/09/11

      @Interloper - I believe that the Refugee Tribunal is a politically appointed body. I have no confidence in its decisions.

      @Yetanothertom - I have explained, many times, why those numbers are meaningless. Please try to keep up.

    • James In Footscray says:

      06:19pm | 05/09/11

      Erick, you say: ‘I believe that the Refugee Tribunal is a politically appointed body. I have no confidence in its decisions’.

      But even if refugees are processed offshore it’s still the same body. Or are you saying we shouldn’t take any refugees at all?

    • Fred Phillips says:

      06:20pm | 05/09/11

      “@Interloper - I believe that the Refugee Tribunal is a politically appointed body. I have no confidence in its decisions.”

      Can you give us a specific example of the tribunal getting it wrong in your view, or is this just your gut feeling based on numbers of applications succeeding being higher than you’d like? I’m assuming you can’t detail the facts of many (if any) specific cases, much less explain how any particular decision(s) of the tribunal are wrong. That coupled with your demonstrated ignorance of the law - “anyone can get into Australia merely by rocking up on a boat and claiming to be a refugee” - makes your lack of confidence in the tribunal worthless.

      Without intending too much disrespect, you literally don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • Emma says:

      08:06pm | 05/09/11

      When the men have abandoned their families to jump on a boat to come here then no, they don’t deserve the same treatment and consideration as women and children.  AND Erick, equality is very different to equity. You should be treating gender issues under the equity banner.

    • acotrel says:

      10:52pm | 05/09/11

      @Fred Phillips
      ‘How will our whole community be harmed in the long run or our future “sold out” by treating asylum seekers in a humane way? Please be specific in your answer. Thanks. ‘

      Don’t be a smart arse ! Everybody else knows the answer to that question.  We’re just keeping it a secret from you !

    • Erick says:

      11:48pm | 05/09/11

      @ James in Footscray - “But even if refugees are processed offshore it’s still the same body. Or are you saying we shouldn’t take any refugees at all?”

      You wouldn’t need to ask that if you’d actually read my earlier reply to D:

      “My position is not sexist, because I support turning back all the boat people, regardless of age or sex. The only exceptions would be genuine refugees who took the shortest route to a safe place to get here - which are few and far between. ”

    • Gubbaboy says:

      08:07am | 10/09/11

      I usually like your stuff Joe.
      But this is a bit wet and non sensical.
      You forget we have certain limitations in processing the queue jumpers.
      Gay marriage? Why not polygamy then? Why not incest?
      After all we are in the age of trashing traditions that have served us well.
      Your not seeing any female Labor MPs are you Joe?
      Don’t do it. It will turn your brain to mush.

    • Super D says:

      06:24am | 05/09/11

      The voters of NSW decided within 12 months of re-electing Labor that they had made a great mistake and wanted them gone.  What followed was 3 more years of an unwanted government that had no respect whatsoever.  This is the situation that the Federal ALP now finds itself.  If they were to learn from the NSW debacle they would be off to the polls immediately to take their medicine and get on with rebuilding.  This seems unlikely however and the result is an entirely predictable slow motion train wreck.  The ALP vote will be lower at an election in 2 years than it will be today.  The passage of the carbon tax will seal a decade in opposition.  With concrete evidence the “You can’t trust Labor” message will resonate for a very long, long, long time.

    • BobM says:

      10:15am | 05/09/11

      The support for Labor may continue to hover around 25% - 27%. this is because this support consists of bureaucrats who want to keep their paper-shuffling jobs and assorted welfare recipients who hang off the teat of taxpayers. Once the NSW government sacks 20,000 of these parasites and Qld does the same, the support will drop further. We may have to put up with this inept government for another 2 years however - unless some Fed Labor minister grows some balls and actually does what their constituents want. And they want our borders secured and they don’t want a carbon tax.

    • Steve Douglas says:

      12:20pm | 05/09/11

      But BobM just because they get the sack doesn’t mean they stop voting as your comments implies.  So they will still vote Labor…???

    • TCheech says:

      06:31am | 05/09/11

      But there will be nothing dignifying about the DEATH of Labor. Actually, it is one funeral I will be smiling at.

    • joe says:

      11:51pm | 05/09/11

      and Abbott will smile and of course JESUS too
      whilst others vomit at the resurrection of the Libs

    • Bruce says:

      12:21am | 06/09/11

      TCheech: There is certainly no dignity with our PM at the moment. Truely the walking dead. What we have is a corpse for a PM who mouth moves, but no one is listening. At one time I would listen to what she had to say, I usually disagreed, sometimes agreed, sometimes got angry, but now I just change tv chanels or walk out of the room.

    • thatmosis says:

      07:04am | 05/09/11

      “Unburdened by the need to actually win an election, now is a golden opportunity for Labor to show some coconuts and start standing up for things the party supposedly believes in.”
      This is where your whole arguement falls apart as we have seen that this rabble that we now call a government hasnt got one once of intestinal fortitude and wont ever be able to grow a set. The Labor party at the moment stands for staying in power no matter what they do to this country and its people. It doesnt matter that people are hurting because of the failures of this Government as long as they stay in powwer and heap further hurt on the people. Their so called leader is a Prime example of what I mean, failure after failure, debt heaped upon debt, lives , businesses and homes lost and still she thinks she is the one to lead the country. She has done more damage to this country than the last 4 Labor PM’s and thats saying something, she is arrogant, submissive and completely wrong 99.9% of the time and has set back women in politics decades.

    • JenB says:

      09:57am | 05/09/11

      I agree that this has damaged the view that women can be competent leaders. I’ve heard comments like our first female PM is a joke etc but idiots who make these comments forget she is NOT like the rest of us. She does have balls, just the wrong kind and she does not possess ANY of the attributes that real women have. She believes in nothing ; she’s quite open that she’s an atheist and she doesn’t have a family so what does she have in common with the rest of us? Thats the whole problem with her and labor, they seem like they’re atheistic in that they don’t believe anything until they see it. No imagination.

    • Mark says:

      10:55am | 05/09/11

      Julia has indeed damaged the women in politics impression, just like Lara Giddings (Tas Premier) has done for Tasmania. Both are so grossly unpopular yet fail to see it, dragging down their state/nation with them “because they can”. I am no sexist but between these two leaders they have pushed the women in politics case back twenty years. (worse luck) I was hoping when Julia came to office she’d show some compassion but no she just wants to wreck every thing in her path. Every thing she touches turns to shit!

    • jasperjen says:

      11:05am | 05/09/11

      Have to agree I think the failure of our first woman PM has done a lot of harm to the election of another woman PM for a long time.Her arrogance and self belief that she is the only person who can set this country on the correct path for the future is unbelievable. If she is “the best person” within the Labor Party to lead us then God help us no wonder all the Caucus is behind her they need to be, to avoid all the missiles people want to throw at them.To have a Policy that says 50% of candidates for election should be women, is ridiculous it should always be the best person regardless of sex.So many of the women in politics like the Greens are there on their own agenda’s.This is a big country with a lot of diverse issues sometimes you have to sit on the fence and consider all sides of a problem , but the flock of sheep that is the Labor Party is frightning like a pack of lemmings heading for a cliff.The determination to lock in legislation that the majority of the population is against, so it becomes too costly to the economy for a new Government to undo is unforgivable in the face of the current global financial situation. I think that the Nation will forgive the Liberals if they then have to spend billions to unravel the mess we are now in.

    • Rebecca says:

      01:04pm | 05/09/11

      Having kids, being religious - that doesn’t matter for whether she’d make a good PM or not. 

      I agree - she’s proven to be very ordinary - and I agree that it doesn’t reflect well on the ‘rest of us’, or that it could have damaged another womans chance - but not for the reasons you suggest.

      You don’t need a belief in a deity, nor a husband and kids to be able to ‘lead’.  Nor does she need anything in common with the ‘rest of us’ - what she (and any other PM - male or female) needs is a clear ‘vision’, and a path to make it happen.

      Ethics/Morals in doing so might be nice too - but thats difficult in a neo-liberal capitalist system.  Gone too far in the classic liberal sense that its starting to pervade into our society.

      Oh, and @ Erick - equality is one thing - but you certainly can ‘have equality’ while having ‘special treatment’ - its about (relatively) short term boosts to put women on a level playing field - and we’re still a way from that.

    • Mattb says:

      01:21pm | 05/09/11

      @Jenb

      ‘She believes in nothing ; she’s quite open that she’s an atheist and she doesn’t have a family so what does she have in common with the rest of us?’
       
      What an incredibly arrogant, self absorbed and childish statement. I disagree with a lot of Julia gillard’s ideology but it’s got absolutely nothing to do with her being an atheist or childless. So your saying she doesn’t believe in anything?, climate change, better broadband for Australia, education, do any of these ring a bell you dill?. Agree with these or not, stating that Julia doesn’t believe in anything is nothing short of an ignorant lie. And judging someone on their non belief in a fucking sky fairy, well, let’s not get into that on here again but i’d rather my political representatives were not weak, god fearing idiots. How can you make rational decisions if you live your life guided by one of the most irrational decisions there is?
      And as as for being childless, really??? So I guess that the next PM we have that has children isn’t going to be able to ‘relate’ to those of us that don’t have children?. Grow up, you idiot…

    • Emma says:

      10:20pm | 06/09/11

      All this nonsense about Julia putting women backwards in politics… Geez! How come when men completely screw up in politics you don’t hear people saying ‘gee, he has really put men backwards in politics. It will be a deterrent to elect another man now’. C’mon people. GET REAL.

    • Bris Jack says:

      07:18am | 05/09/11

      There are even few similarities.
      The Romans had a complex system of sewers, however, it was not uncommon for Romans to throw waste out of windows into the streets.

    • stephen says:

      07:37am | 05/09/11

      They also used to clean their teeth with urine.
      (But Labor’s been pissin in the wind since about last July.)

    • Rob G says:

      08:55am | 05/09/11

      “Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit”. Or more precisely, a wise man doesnt piss into the wind!

    • Bris Jack says:

      09:04am | 05/09/11

      Is that the problem with the minister of no consequence.
      Pity it wasn’t him who said the rally of incontinence instead of Kelvin Thompson.

    • Brenda says:

      07:33am | 05/09/11

      Erick is on the money. Just wait until the boatloads resume their border-busting activities. Maybe Labor is now so dysfunctional that they can’t even foresee the coming juggernaut with a renewed conga line of boat arrivals. Their catastrophic dysfunction will be highlighted every day and night, so the undignified Gillard will be run out of the Lodge like a bat out of hell instead of stepping down graciously.

      Australians made their position very clear to Kevin Rudd about people smugglers. His fiddling with border policy was the beginning of his demise.  While using the dangerous journey as feigned logic for protecting our borders from people “fleeing Indonesian persecution”, (who exactly is persecuting them in Indonesia?)  the truth is that Australians didn’t and don’t want our country looking more and more like Britain with its unworkable, anti-social multi-cultural mess. British politicians also followed do-gooder instructions until they sacrificed their once-peaceful, harmonious country to what it has become, all on forced false humanitarian pretences.  While Britain’s borders were flung open against their population’s better judgment, there was also no expectation “when in Rome do as the Romans do”. 

      I’m betting all hell is going to break loose here when the free-loaders re-take advantage of Labor’s latest policy failure. 
      Just like the powerful few who turned a blind eye to English citizenry who merely wanted to maintain an orderly immigration process alongside their country’s traditions and values, the Labor hacks who see the writing on the wall will defiantly turn their backs on the wishes of similarly thinking Australians who loathed Rudd for all the same reasons. Their melt-down is going to be so ugly that even the decent few among them will be permanently tarnished and unelectable.

    • Sir Codrington says:

      09:50am | 05/09/11

      Absolutely spot on! Cosign! *Nail - head - smack!*

    • Reschs Monkey says:

      10:35am | 05/09/11

      To those whinging about the numbers of ‘boat people’ arriving in Australia, I suggest that they look at the Dept of Immigration’s statistics, which can be viewed over the net. The following statistics are for the 2009/10 financial year, the 2010/11 stats not having been released to date.

      Long-term immigrants included: family reunion: 59,453; skilled immigration: 108,300; non-program immigrants (New Zealand/Pacific Island) 25,961; and humanitarian 14,453.

      Short-term immigrants included: student visa: 193,173; working holiday (backpacker 417) visa: 114,158; and temporary business (457) visa: 116,012, as well as 5.7 million visiting tourists.

      The total over-stayers in Australia as of the 30th June 2010 were 53,900, whereas only 5609 ‘boat-people’ arrived in Australia, even less in 2010/11.

      Of a total net immigration for 2009/10 of 631,510, ‘boat people’ accounted for 0.89% of all immigrants, whereas over-stayers accounted for 8.54%, almost ten times the number of boat people.

      During 2009/10, 86,277 Australians emigrated to other countries resulting in a net increase in population of 545,233 through immigration. When you add births and deaths, you get an overall net increase of around 330,000 permanent residents plus a further 423,000 temporary migrants, all of whom require housing..

      Which brings me to some other interesting figures: ABS statistics show that during 2009/10, national building approvals for 114,818 houses and 53,582 other dwellings, a total of 168,400 dwellings.

      We whinge about a trickle of boat people yet we ignore the fact that ten times the number of illegal immigrants fly into our capital cities. In the mean time we cannot keep up with housing demand with rents reaching such exorbitant levels, that most students these days are forced to live with their parents.

    • marley says:

      11:00am | 05/09/11

      @Resch Monkey - the basic thrust of your argument is right, but you’re wrong about overstayers.  That figure for overstayers is all the overstayers currently in Australia - we’re not getting 53,000 overstayers a year.

    • Erick says:

      11:11am | 05/09/11

      @Reschs Monkey - Your comment is irrelevant.

      The concern is not with absolute numbers of boat people today, but with Australia’s right to control its own borders.

      Furthermore, the numbers can change - and they will, if the boat people advocates have their way.

    • Sarah says:

      11:25am | 05/09/11

      Excellent post Brenda.

    • dd says:

      11:38am | 05/09/11

      All very well but while the ALP is getting their face rubbed in it, hundreds if not thousands of unwanted opportunists will still be flooding into the country. And throwing expensive hissy fits if their demands are not met.
      Most of them appear to be muslim and we all know what sort of ‘assimilation ’ they accept. Australia is going to pay for a long,long time for the ambitions of those misfits in the ALP.

    • Reschs Monkey says:

      12:34pm | 05/09/11

      @Marley, apart from the 5000 or so staying in detention centres, that still leaves almost 50,000 over-stayers adding to pressure on our housing, public transport, and education and employment opportunities. Should they get away with it just because they happen to have paperwork?

      @ Erick, you say that Australia should have the right to control its borders, then we should also have the right to control over-stayers, who are putting greater pressure on our infrastructure than the 5000 odd boat people.

      Australia also needs to control those overseas interests currently buying up our housing stock, and then leaving premises empty, as well as those overseas companies and governments (China) that are buying up our quality farming land so they can either mine it or grow food on it that will never make it to a shop in Australia.

    • marley says:

      12:35pm | 05/09/11

      @Erick - but we do control our borders when it comes to asylum seekers.  We hold them, we demand that they establish that they meet the definition of a refugee, we clear them for medical and security, and then we issue them with visas.  Sure, our assessment process is fraught with flaws - but if you think the assessment processes for skilled workers, 457 visa holders, students and visitors aren’t also fraught with flaws, you’re seriously mistaken.

      The fact is, we have rules for who and what will be allowed to enter this country.  True, we have difficulty in properly applying the rules - in my opinion, we need to improve our assessment procedures in all areas, not just boat arrivals.  But I think it is fallacious to argue that letting asylum seekers in is a threat to our borders, while letting millions of others in on the scantiest of evidence that they qualify for visas isn’t at least an equal concern.

      And I’m not saying here, that we should become xenophobes who don’t let anyone in. I"m saying a little more rigour in assessing before we grant visas, and some effective risk management, would provide more than adequate border control.

    • marley says:

      04:18pm | 05/09/11

      @Resch - I can see that some of the illegals might be adding to the pressure on housing - not so sure about anything else, though, since they need documents to go to school or get any health or social services - and the unemployment rate is very low.

      I’m not saying they shouldn’t be removed, I’m just saying I think you’re overrating the impact.

    • Rick says:

      05:06pm | 05/09/11

      The Monkey on the money…never let the figures get in the way of a good scare campain.Children overboard? Oh and Eric if the world goes up in flames Australia will have no chance in controlling it’s boarders because it can’t control the trickle it certainly won’t stop a flood.

    • dovif says:

      07:43am | 05/09/11

      The one policy that led to the death of the ALP is Brown forcing Gillard to backflip and introduce a Carbon tax to Australia.

      Brown did this with the full knowledge that it will destroy the ALP in the electorate and hopes his Greens can cash in on the end of the ALP

      If Gillard has any guts, she would expose the Greens for the hypocrites that they are and reclaim the Left from the extremists (Gillard’s words)

      I do not think Gillard is capable

    • Michael says:

      08:23am | 05/09/11

      Yawn.  Spoken like a died in the wool conservative voter who has never voted labor in your life.  That is one reason labor got a chance to govern at all.

      The greens got 15% of the vote, and if that doesn’t give them a legitimate voice in our parliament then there is something seriously wrong with our system.

      One reason they had so much of the vote is that Labor continues to attempt in vain to appeal to far-right in order to increase their base.  Neglecting the whole left-of-centre entirely in the process.

      They are doomed and deserve it, I will not shed a tear, although at least if the other side is going to have a turn on the swing: for the sake of the children, at least get Big Mal leading the henhouse.

    • dovif says:

      09:31am | 05/09/11

      I voted for Rudd and Keating before him

      But I do not expect a Green to understand about thre real world. Afterall as Gillard said, they are just extremists

    • Luke says:

      09:48am | 05/09/11

      15% may allow the Greens a legitimate voice in parliament but it doesn’t give them the right to impose their minority views on the 85% majority of people who cast votes at the last election for parties who supposedly (until Julia’s treachery) promised not to lump a carbon tax on us during this term of government.  Majority rules ... that’s democracy!

    • JenB says:

      10:03am | 05/09/11

      Michael: you need to wake up to yourself. How is 15% of a vote make you legitimate? Also even though Bob is up there, why aren’t they doing anyhting about Chinese companies buying our farms to do whatever they want to the land or the coal-seam gas companies ripping the land apart. For a GREEN he is certainly very quiet at the moment. I’ve only heard him bleat about a media inquiry. I love and want to protect the environment, but will NEVER vote “GREEN” as I think they’re actually RED

    • Michael says:

      11:11am | 05/09/11

      @JenB. Actually the Greens have proposed legislation banning coal-seam gas, but Tony refuses to co-operate (because of his love affair with miners).

      And why does the far-right think 15% is not legitimate? You certainly think 400 convoy people had the right to be heard!

    • Wayne says:

      11:46am | 05/09/11

      I have to agree there. Bob Brown has been almost invisible letting the ALP take the brunt of the public’s anger over the carbon tax. A tax the greens forced the ALP to adopt rather than an ETS.

      Whether you voted for Labor or the Liberals you cannot deny that ALP wanted an ETS - not the carbon tax that the greens have forced the ALP to adopt. This is unfortunately what happens when the nation is divided over which party they want and it results in a minority government.

      I am not sure a government with mandate power is a better option…it is not that long ago we had something called “Work Choices” implemented because the government had a mandate. 

      I hope during the next election there is not a knee jerk reaction and we go back to “Work Choice” days. Remember TA never did promise not to bring something similar to Work Choices back. Only recently he has been alluding to introducing something similar most people have not caught it because they have been focused on the offshore processing issue.

    • Adam says:

      11:58am | 05/09/11

      Michael - I think you’re ignoring the fact that the convoy people represent the 60% majority view that the government is useless and should call a new election.

    • Engineer says:

      04:04pm | 05/09/11

      Michael - look at it this way. 85% of people do not support the Greens. The Greens can have a voice, but in a democracy 15% of the vote does not give you any right to call the shots. Australia should implement a first past the post voting system.

    • Against the Man says:

      07:11pm | 05/09/11

      Gillard sold out Australia, simple as that.

    • gobsmack says:

      07:44am | 05/09/11

      I agree with the thrust of this article.  I think the prospect of a one sided election liberates both parties.
      However, the author’s statement that “If a party is going to take the morally psychopathic step of using human beings as live political pawns then you’d think it could at least do it with a remote degree of competence” is a bit unfair.  It was Howard that made refugee processing a political issue and Labor have been wedged on the issue since Tampa.

    • Signofthetimes says:

      01:55pm | 05/09/11

      How true. J.H did anything to hold onto power. Tampa damned him to history. The problem we now face and have faced for some time is our parliamentary system. Disproportional representation is the enduring problem. Bob would not have as much power if he needed to have a proportional amount of voters in Aus to be elected. As for those morons who suggest that we have a double dissolution election…spare me. they obviously were absent from skewl the day History Subject or whatever HSIE subject covers that was taught. As for those “Labour” (sic) voters they are neo-conservatives without a spelling dictionary or possibly with one commenting without full knowledge. I have ever only voted Labour once. I was in the UK at the time….Meanwhile I wonder who Brutus will be and when he will emerge or wake from sleep. We need a change in leadership now. Gillard had the job thrust upon her but has now reached her “Peter” principle. She should step down and recontest the deputy position and caucus should elect someone competent like Smith.

    • Signofthetimes says:

      01:55pm | 05/09/11

      How true. J.H did anything to hold onto power. Tampa damned him to history. The problem we now face and have faced for some time is our parliamentary system. Disproportional representation is the enduring problem. Bob would not have as much power if he needed to have a proportional amount of voters in Aus to be elected. As for those morons who suggest that we have a double dissolution election…spare me. they obviously were absent from skewl the day History Subject or whatever HSIE subject covers that was taught. As for those “Labour” (sic) voters they are neo-conservatives without a spelling dictionary or possibly with one commenting without full knowledge. I have ever only voted Labour once. I was in the UK at the time….Meanwhile I wonder who Brutus will be and when he will emerge or wake from sleep. We need a change in leadership now. Gillard had the job thrust upon her but has now reached her “Peter” principle. She should step down and recontest the deputy position and caucus should elect someone competent like Smith.

    • John Jones says:

      08:06am | 05/09/11

      This is all due to the pigheadedness of one person the PM. Will she swallow her pride and accept help from the Opposition? In all probability No, because despite all the Degrees in Law and other Qualifications the Labor Party and its leader are fundamentally Unionist,  slaves to its socialist beliefs and philosophies. They believe that they know best despite any contrary beliefs and will stick to their idea at the expense of common sense or better ideas. Their way is the only way wheather it be to the detriment of a non unionist member, a union member, a company or the Country or not. Even when they negotiate they make a mess, a glaring example of which is this minority government held hostage by the ultra socialist Greens and Independents. Go and see the GG, Julia and call an election.

    • Matt says:

      11:10am | 05/09/11

      Unfortunately the ALP wouldnt do what is best for their country. Only what is best for them. So no, dont expect the ALP to work with the opposition

    • HOK says:

      11:53am | 05/09/11

      There’s no way Gillard will accept Abbott’s proposal.  There have been too many policy backflips in the last four years for Labor to accept they have it wrong. They must continue with their arrogance, even though it will destroy them.

    • Helen Urth says:

      05:31pm | 05/09/11

      Waste of time and effort, Mr Jones.  Julia Gillard is about as likely to call an early election as the ALP’s National President, Anna Bligh is.  And how we’ve tried to get rid of Bligh in Queensland.  Every time one of her half-witted money-grubbing schemes falls over, the howls for her resignation go off the top end of the decibel meter. We in Queensland have tried getting up petitions, writing to the State Governor, Ms Wensley, writing to local MPs - all to no avail.  Captain Bligh sails on with no regard for the mutiny brewing around her. Stretching a metaphor perhaps, but with Julia and Anna at the helm of the ALP, we’re all up that well-known creek without a paddle.

    • Ian1 says:

      08:08am | 05/09/11

      All those poor employees and businesses the ALP Ceasars have given the thumbs down to…  Now a pool of our collective economic blood laps at their feet. 

      Hail Abbotticus Maximus, deliver us from these clowns.

    • dd says:

      12:49pm | 05/09/11

      Yes Please!

    • Fiddler says:

      08:08am | 05/09/11

      What should happen is someone in the party with some balls (If they exist, I don’t mind Martin Ferguson) should yes threaten to leave on the grounds that buying themselves another two years of government will buy them another two to three terms in opposition. If they had any guts they would elect that person leader and maybe have a shot at the next election.
      And they could try listening to what Australians want, rather than telling them, then using lies to sell it and then blaming us for being to stupid to see their brilliance.

    • Brian says:

      08:11am | 05/09/11

      Personally I like offshore processing under certain circumstances for reasons of diplomacy, rather than deterrence. I think it’s a way that we, as a large nation, can assist smaller nations with little economic ability (Nauru just happens to be one such nation, although I’m not really trying to push that way).

      If we build the facility, have our immigration staff still doing the processing (and keep the detainees according to our standards, as we would in a mainland facility) but use local staff where possible for things such as catering, cleaning, transportation, logistics and so on we can make a significant contribution to their economy which will have more of an impact than simply giving aid money, and still get something out of it ourselves.

      The trick of it is making sure that the people doing the processing and the standards of treatment we set are up to the level we demand onshore.

    • Dan says:

      08:11am | 05/09/11

      Please please please..If people and the media actually read and reported on the independant audits and investigations that have been conducted into the BER, and Insulation schemes (over 90% successful according to at least 2 independant investigations) and Labor had successfully defended its record then it wouldn’t have come to this point. Add this to most leading economists stating the Carbon Tax is better than the Liberals Direct Action Plan and all of a sudden Labor doesnt look so bad. Its a shame they communicate so poorly.

    • Fiddler says:

      09:01am | 05/09/11

      you mean the economists who will be controlling the money when carbon trading comes into effect in 2015? Billions have been rorted in the EU from it.
      As for the BER, success didn’t take into account needs, only how much was rorted. As a result there are plenty of schools who now have two halls right next to each other, glad my taxpayer dollars went into paying tradies the ridiculous amounts they charge (I have mates who do 30 hours a week and pull nearly a hundred and fifty grand). The terms of reference into the BER inquiry were not wide enough to look for this stuff

    • Trent says:

      09:14am | 05/09/11

      It’s not that they don’t communicate well.  It’s that Murdoch does not like them.  If he did, half the people who currently hate Gillard would love her.  If she wants to win another election she needs to get him to like her.  He runs this country.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      09:36am | 05/09/11

      Dan - “most leading economists” - looking at how economists think they measure plans by what’s the best fit for the economy and not what’s the best plan for the environment. They are not environmentalists and so can’t measure the effects themselves. And any way how do you know that they are LEADING economists - from Labor’s spin ? And what were the BER’s benchmarks for success -

    • David says:

      09:54am | 05/09/11

      Dan, the independent reports were not so independent and the scope was limited.  The reality was that what was done cost 2 to 3 times more than it should.  We have high Schools that are falling down with concrete cancer that could have used that money instead of ego halls and libraries for Gillard.  Remember the economists also brought us the GFC, the most have never run a business in their life and really have no idea how the real world works

    • Sunlover says:

      10:10am | 05/09/11

      Poor Communication??? Oh Pleeaase!!! Labor’s actions have spoken far louder than any of their words! How ignorant can you be? This country is in a worse mess now than when Krudd threw us down the sewer, & we all thought it was bad THEN! If Gillard manages to stay in power for the full tern - and even Graham Richardson has been quoted as saying if she lasts another 3months he’d be EXTREMELY SURPRISED - it will take many years to get this country back on track & IN THE BLACK where the Coalition left us. Just look at NSW, the mess that was left behind after years of Labor mismanagement will not go away overnight, the same will happen in Federal Parliament & to use ‘a lack of communication skills’ as the reason for being so inept & dysfuntional, so intolerably rotten in Politics, is the poorest excuse any fool could come up with! Give me a break!

    • Andrew says:

      10:14am | 05/09/11

      Same tiresome rubbish from the loony left blaming Murdoch. Some facts:
      - Daily Telegraph endorsed Kevin07
      - Murdoch is a warmist - his papers went carbon neutral and were pushing the warmist line for years
      - Murdoch’s papers have ALWAYS criticised govts for dishonest, incompetent or even unpopular policies - Howard copped it from the media the whole time
      - If Murdoch was some closet Liberal, then people only started listening to him in 2011 (at the age of 84) because when he was 80 Kevin07 had the highest approval rating event seen.

      If anything, the blame for the inept Gillard govt lies with the leftist media. The cheerleaders who so hated Howard that they convinced Rudd-Gillard to differentiate themselves from the Libs on 100% of policies, not the 10% where the differences really lie. Hence the failed stimulus (the Libs backed $35bn, so we have to have $60bn; the Libs wanted it to end when the GFC ended, so we have to add 2 years of BER like Europe). Hence the failed border protection (Libs want Nauru, so we have to find the world’s biggest hellhole and send them to Malaysia). And so on.

    • Chris L says:

      04:25pm | 05/09/11

      Don’t bother Dan. You should know that reports, investigations and economic opinions are all lies unless the results support the conservative line.

    • persephone says:

      08:16am | 05/09/11

      Which, Joe, is exactly why Labor is proceeding with so many big ticket items - carbon pricing, the NBN, health reform, etc etc.

      And looking for a regional solution to the asylum seeker issue is still a sensible idea; why should our neighbours be treated as a holding pen for people whose preferred destination is Australia? And why shouldn’t some of the people in that ‘pen’ be settled in those countries?

      And why shouldn’t we try and come up with a more humane option than encouraging people to drown themselves and their children?

      Malaysia wasn’t a perfect solution (and neither was any of the options available under the LIberals) but the basic idea was sound.

      Still, it will be interesting to see what happens from here, given that basically all the options on the table up to now have been ruled out by the High Court.

    • Dash says:

      09:09am | 05/09/11

      Malaysia was a hypocritical joke Perse! Gillard and the ALP announced on the eve of last election, the East Timor Solution which never existed. That was a political stunt! They didn’t even have the common decency to discuss it with the East Timorese. Epic fail.

      Where’s the coast guard that the ALP promised us during the 2007 election campaign Perse? Has that gone the same way as the 260 childcare centres, the root and branch tax reform, the cheaper groceries and the cheaper fuel they promised us?

      Then Gillard stands up and tells us that being a signatory to the UN convention was a fundamental requirement. But then organises this “swap” deal with Malaysia who are not a signatory to the very treaty Gillard and the ALP hold up as being fundamental. Hypocrites.

      The Malaysians forced the entire cost of relocation onto Australia. At $50,000 per person to relocate to Australia, the ALP signed the Australian taxpayer up for $200m! They can strip $2billion away from Australian families in the last budget yet still waste this kind of money on dodgy asylum seeker deals. Epic waste.

      Now we are in a situation, where the ALP has increased our intake by 4,000 for nothing. And that has happened because of the ALPs incomeptence yet again. The Australian taxpayer has to foot the bill once more for the ALPs inability to get anything right.

      And now you are pushing the desperate party line, that “all options” have been ruled out when in fact the High Court ruled exclusively on the Malaysian deal.

      The ALP are is crisis. They are a joke. They cannot get anything right. They are a pack of incompetent morons. The list of failure keeps getting longer and longer. They want to burden the nation with a carbon tax which is designed to redistribute wealth and descriminates against families on the basis of income alone. Yet they will compensate the big polluters of the steel and coal industries. Then they have plans for an ETS which will see Australian wealth sent overseas to shonky carbon credit merchants living in Europe, Asia and America. And for nil net gain to the environment. How stupid are they.

      What we need is someone to turn the lights on Perse! Because no one is home in the Australian Labor party.

    • John Smythe says:

      09:48am | 05/09/11

      ......for people whose preferred destination is Australia?

      I know it’s nit-picking…..but this sounds more like economic refugee than someone fleeing persecution given the distance, danger, and number of countries en route to said “preferred destination”.

    • embracedmadness says:

      09:52am | 05/09/11

      could not have said it better Dash. HERE HERE!!

    • Mouse says:

      10:36am | 05/09/11

      “Preferred destination” Why would it be? Australia is not a Muslim country and the majority of Australians do not embrace Muslim culture or laws. Seems silly to me that a person would flee a country because of persecution and then struggle to get to a particular country that’s religion and laws are so different.  If it was purely a personal safety issue, why would Australia be their preferred option?

      What was wrong with Liberal’s options for illegal entries?  Seems that is exactly what the Malaysian solution is. The difference being, of course, is that Nauru was run in accordance with Australian laws and Malaysia isn’t, giving Australia no authority in what happened to the asylum seekers. Now Nauru is a signatory of the UHCR and will be using laws that comply with the High Court ruling. The Coalition has offered bipartisan support to the government to reopen Nauru to deal with asylum seekers. What is gillard’s problem? Maybe working with the Opposition on this is the only way gillard will save any small bit of integrity she has left!

    • hermes says:

      10:36am | 05/09/11

      Brilliant, Dash…but logic, reason and facts are wasted on somone as blinkered as Persephone.

    • persephone says:

      10:37am | 05/09/11

      John Smythe

      which is partly my point.

      A refugee may have a good reason to flee their country of origin.

      When they then decide to come to Australia - instead of staying at one of the other countries along the way - then something else is happening.

      They’re still a ‘real’ refugee but they’re no longer making decisions on the basis of real and present danger, but on wanting to improve their lifestyle.

      If we had a regional solution - so that anyone who arrives anywhere in our region is treated the same way - this incentive would be removed.

    • nihonin says:

      12:20pm | 05/09/11

      persephone has unintentionally given the reason as to why people keep questioning why the ‘refugees’ want to come here:

      They’re still a ‘real’ refugee but they’re no longer making decisions on the basis of real and present danger, but on wanting to improve their lifestyle.

      It’s in the last line, me thinks if pers knows this so too do the government and the rest of the sycophants.

    • scaper... says:

      12:46pm | 05/09/11

      Oh no, the village idiot is back!

      And this place was an interesting read…bye.

    • John Smythe says:

      02:16pm | 05/09/11

      ......but on wanting to improve their lifestyle….


      Now do you see where the term, “economic refugee” comes from?

      No thanks to these people. Get off our shores and and get processed like everyone else has to at NO expense to the Australian tax payer.

      I’m all for letting people come in…but you know the good ol’ Aussie “fair go” the bleeding hearts keep throwing around…yeah well the “fair go” door swings both ways….how about giving the people doing the right thing a fair go!

    • Your name:Joe says:

      06:26pm | 05/09/11

      Persephone,
      If you are so sure that Gillard and Labor have it right and that the Australian people are behind her, why do I never hear you demanding that a referendum be held on the carbon tax. Could it be that Gillard and Labor do not have the support which they claim and that you are just another Labor stooge?

    • Bob says:

      02:22pm | 06/09/11

      persephone: Being poor and wanting more cash does not make someone a refugee.

      You can read up on what does here:
      http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61asylum.htm
      But the things that DON’T make someone a refugee include (from the above link)

      “The Refugees Convention does not oblige signatory countries to provide protection to people who do not fear persecution and have left their country of nationality or residence on the basis of war, famine, environmental collapse or in order to seek economic opportunities.

      Protection obligations may also not be owed to a person who already has effective protection in another country, through citizenship or some other right to enter and remain safe in that country.

      International law recognises that people at risk of persecution have a right to flee their country and seek refuge elsewhere, but does not give them a right to enter a country of which they are not a national. Nor do refugees have a right to choose their preferred country of protection. “

      Please pay special attention to the first paragraph and the last sentence. But really, do try to read and comprehend the whole thing.

      You can also find what DOES make someone a refugee above. But by the time they are in this situation
      “They’re still a ‘real’ refugee but they’re no longer making decisions on the basis of real and present danger, but on wanting to improve their lifestyle.”

      They’ve not refugees. They’re (illegal) economic migrants.

    • jodie says:

      08:17am | 05/09/11

      What needs to happen is the media needs to get this issue off the front pages and actually let a decision be made. Medusa interference has done more to inflame the ugly ‘re-whitening of australia’  through this issue. Don’t just blame the politicians - they do reflect the public hypocrisy over this and many other issues.

    • Erick says:

      10:32am | 05/09/11

      @jodie - “Medusa interference”?

      Blaming ancient mythical monsters for the ALP’s downfall? That’s really grasping at straws.

    • Roderick Sexton says:

      08:18am | 05/09/11

      Will the Labor Party get a state funeral?

    • Sunlover says:

      10:18am | 05/09/11

      Don’t you think we taxpayers have forked out enough already Roderick??

    • BobM says:

      10:41am | 05/09/11

      Hopefully just an unmarked grave somewhere…..

      Who’d want to visit it anyway?

    • Bomb78 says:

      01:04pm | 05/09/11

      BombM - Kevin will want to visit, so he can dance all over Julia and the others that knifed him.

    • Jamie says:

      03:39pm | 05/09/11

      Grave needs to be marked as I will need to know where I can go pee on it.

    • Iain Hall says:

      08:35am | 05/09/11

      Where the boat arrivals are processed is less important than making sure that they can not ever get permanent residency or the right to sponsor family members.
      Making it easier to deport those found not to be genuine would help as well.

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      01:29pm | 05/09/11

      Temporary protection visas were designed to do just that.  BUT Labor Left has come out very strongly against reintroduction.

      Seems proven ways to get things done is against the thinking of Labor.

      No wonder they in such a mess.  8-)

    • John Smythe says:

      08:36am | 05/09/11

      Good read there Joe. Keep it up!

    • Anna C says:

      08:38am | 05/09/11

      “Unburdened by the need to actually win an election, now is a golden opportunity for Labor to show some coconuts and start standing up for things the party supposedly believes in.”

      The only problem here Joe is that the Labor Party no longer believes in anything a part from maintaining power for power’s sake. They stopped standing for something long ago. The Labor party is now full of rank opportunists and apparatchiks who only care about furthering their careers.

    • persephone says:

      08:49am | 05/09/11

      ‘The only problem here Joe is that the LIBERAL Party no longer believes in anything a part from maintaining power for power’s sake. They stopped standing for something long ago. The LIBERAL party is now full of rank opportunists and apparatchiks who only care about furthering their careers. ‘

      There you go, Anna - fixed it for you.

    • nihonin says:

      09:29am | 05/09/11

      No prizes for second persephone.

    • We'redoomed says:

      09:41am | 05/09/11

      Anna C and persephone, you are both right. That is the tragedy that we are now paying for being so stupidly apathetic.

    • Bob says:

      09:59am | 05/09/11

      Persephone: Wipe the foam from your mouth then have a look at which was more willing to act on promises to sell his/her (her) integrity to get the top job.

      I can only imagine that the “Real” Julia Gillard is unelectable, as they’ve spent so much time hiding her from us, and presenting an integrity-free puppet as the better alternative.

    • marley says:

      10:01am | 05/09/11

      @persephone - the ALP stopped believing in anything the day it came up with the Malaysian solution.

    • Anna C says:

      10:06am | 05/09/11

      Persephone while all parties (including the Liberal Party) may have their fair share of rank opportunists and self-serving apparatchiks, the Labor Party has turned it into an art form.

      Everyone can see that the Gillard Government has been infected by the same disease which destroyed the Labor Government in NSW. What’s that smell?  It is the stick of arrogance, incompetence and corruption.

    • Aitch B says:

      10:13am | 05/09/11

      @Persephone

      Oh Pers you are so funny!!

      Does “whatever it takes” ring a bell?

      Does the fact that after the High Court decision last week a senior ALP MP stated “Staying in power and ensuring that Tony Abbot doesn’t become PM must remain our number one priority” not mean that the ALP cares about anybody’s future but their own?

      I see you haven’t invested in any rust remover during your recent absence!! smile

    • Christopher Martin says:

      10:14am | 05/09/11

      rarely do i comment on here but often do i read. although i do not agree with you most of the time persephone, i always enjoy reading your comments and banter with others and regularly find your arguments well structured and with a reasonable level of intelligence. this last comment has exposed you for what you are - nothing more.

    • persephone says:

      10:43am | 05/09/11

      Bob

      the evidence is that it was Abbott.

      He was willing to do anything to become PM. Julia had limits.

      All the indies have said something along those lines.

      marley

      what an absurd comment.

      Even if the Malaysian solution was ‘against Labor values” (and why trying to stop people from drowning is against Labor values is beyond me) that’s only one policy.

      Abbott, meanwhile, trashes everything connected to the Liberal brand on an almost daily basis.

      AitchB

      and so it should be, for anyone who cares about the future of Australia.

      That one’s a no brainer.

    • marley says:

      10:58am | 05/09/11

      @persephone - shipping people to third countries (and non-signatory countries at that) without allowing them access to the Australian refugee determination process is a fundamental violation of the UN Convention.  It’s been possible in the past because the legal mechanisms have been in place to allow successive governments to ignore or manipulate the Convention.  But it has always been wrong morally.  And the ALP should be ashamed of itself.

    • Bob says:

      12:07pm | 05/09/11

      >>Bob

      the evidence is that it was Abbott.

      He was willing to do anything to become PM. Julia had limits.<<

      Really? So THAT’S why Abbott is PM right now and Gillard is an incredibly successful opposition leader.

      Oh wait…

      >>All the indies have said something along those lines.<<

      You mean the Indies that have now tied their stars to a rock that’s heading to the bottom of the ocean and are trying to justify an amazingly bad decision?

      >>Even if the Malaysian solution was ‘against Labor values” (and why trying to stop people from drowning is against Labor values is beyond me) that’s only one policy.

      Abbott, meanwhile, trashes everything connected to the Liberal brand on an almost daily basis.<<

      Polls suggest otherwise. With a 27% primary vote, any brand trashing that has been done has been directed at Labor. These numbers are pre-Thomson and high court debacle. I look forward to tomorrow’s results.

      If you’re going to be worried about anyone causing damage, you should be worried about the Labor party’s talent at destroying itself.

    • nossy says:

      08:42am | 05/09/11

      Ohh bugger , another day and no election, no-on charged ! Strewth and all that effort by the right wing bloggers too!  hahahah Keeep trying girls!

    • nihoninn says:

      09:37am | 05/09/11

      It’s great sport watching the crusties of both parties in pitch eritten battle, supporting their teams each day, isn’t it nossy.

    • nihonin says:

      09:43am | 05/09/11

      Bugger, that should have been ‘written’ or at least typed, not eritten, gotta love temporary illiteracy.

    • nossy says:

      11:23am | 05/09/11

      @nihoninn that it is nihoninn - both duds plus in my opinion. Mate dont worry about the odd typo - I do heaps myself.

    • Ben C says:

      12:45pm | 05/09/11

      @ nossy

      As a Labor voter, who would you like to see replace Julia in the event of a leadership spill? Who do you see as the person that could restore some pride and dignity in the Labor brand?

      Personally, I can’t see Rudd or Swan taking over - Rudd’s had his turn, and Swan is absolutely useless in my view. Shorten maybe, but the baggage he carries in his personal life is ammunition for the Coalition. Combet - Labor’s Mr Fix-it, could do the job, but I think he’d be more of a temporary fix.

    • Northern Steve says:

      04:52pm | 05/09/11

      Don’t ask nossy who he wants.  Apparently he’s a Katter man, through and through.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:44am | 05/09/11

      Great piece, and whilst I disagree, with some of the policy there is a fundamental truth that Labor must understand.

      It has to have purpose and direction, and it must deliver on it. If we do not agree we will vote them out, but they will at least garner some respect. The only thing Labor has stuck to, has to be the worse policy of the lot, the carbon tax. It benefits no-one, hurts everyone and achieves nothing and thats the policy they will go down with.

      Plus it doesn’t hurt not to brazenly lie before an election, the damage they have done to this party will take a decade to repair, and if the LNP have any level of competence it will be a long wait on the opposition benches.

    • Slave1345387664 says:

      08:46am | 05/09/11

      This is spot on the money.
      If a kingdom is ruled by a king, an empire is ruled by an emporer what a country run by?
      And that pretty much explains the lot of them.

    • miner says:

      08:51am | 05/09/11

      Strated off well but then went downhill when it said that “asylum seekers” should be processed in Australia.

      While that is not a problem logistically it does become a problem because it sets up more incentive. What is needed is a deterrent to come here.

      The article also makes that easy assumption that all people on boats are “fleeing persecution” and so on.  Some of them are just wanting a better life. Nothing wrong with that but where do we stop?  Look at what happened in Britain when it opened its borders to the EU.

    • OMG says:

      08:54am | 05/09/11

      “This does, of course, run the risk of more people making the dangerous journey by sea…”

      It’s a no-win situation.  The government can get all compassionate and caring - but they will be flayed by the electorate when a wooden bridge of boats appears between here and Java.  Numbers are irrelevant.  people want to see the government in control of our borders, not throwing the door open.

      Oh.  And why is it that illegal immigrant men deserve less consideration than illegal immigrant women and children?  Isn’t this the age of equality?

    • F.W.G. says:

      08:58am | 05/09/11

      There’s no doubt gillard signed her soul away whith the greens and indipendent’s to gain power and be prime minister and to hell whith the consequence,  You need a long spoon to supp whith the devil, she should have remembered that.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:04am | 05/09/11

      You choose the non-issue of asylum seekers as Labor’s last stand? In the words of that annoying kid on that car polish ad: “aww fail”.

      How about reforming our 19th century education system for the 21st century. Take on the States, Federalise it, and stop producing drones for factories and work environments that don’t exist. Create a first world modern entrepreneurial “employee” mindset.

    • Anthony says:

      09:08am | 05/09/11

      OK - lets adapt a new approach to the Boats - they are leaving Indonesia to get here - we provide Indonesia with $459 Million in foreign Aid - lets stop providing foreign aid whilst they keep letting boats leave . . . That $459 Million could offset our costs for processing refugees.

    • Mouse says:

      10:06am | 05/09/11

      No. Why? Because that makes too much sense and there is no-one in Labor that has the balls to stand up to Indonesia.

    • fml says:

      05:31pm | 05/09/11

      Or both of you have no idea what you are talking about and that $459 million in foreign aid could affect the $4.5 Billion dollar trade to Indonesia we do every year..

    • C1 says:

      09:09am | 05/09/11

      Jo,

      I wonder if the Romans had their version of ‘The Lindsay Test’?
      ‘Ceasar great news!!!-Our polling indicates that your crossing the Rubicon will go down very well with the Gallic tribes but not too well well with those trendy inner city citizens north of the Tiber. Brutus is saying that you should go for it and as he is your trusted deputy if you cannot trust him, then who can you trust. By the way he is asking if you are free to catch up with the lads around the Ides of March?

    • Dementer says:

      09:13am | 05/09/11

      The ALP is far from annihilation.

      The ALP as we know it today almost certainly is, while moving to the centre right to grab the swinging voter they have spead themselves to thinly. While understandably they had to pander to the Greens they left the centre right exposed,  I can certainly see 2 parties being formed,  the ALP as have known it which wall mainly union based support and the GetUp type party that will be more focused on social issues instead of the worker. What the ALP cannot do is have the Greens beat the policy drum as they are to far left and extreme in it policy ideas, they are often never get costed social or economically and accident waiting to happen.

      Do what you are good at, stop trying to be all things to all people. And stop trying to tinker with things they are not broken.

    • Damocles says:

      10:35am | 05/09/11

      @ Dementer…..“The ALP is far from annihilation.”......as far as the next Federal election, then…........ANNIHILATION!!!!!!

    • Dementer says:

      11:55am | 05/09/11

      I really dont think so, sure they will cop a schlaking at the poles and power brokers are going to have to answer some questions. But they are hardly gone, it would be bad for Australia if the other main party were the Greens. We really need to ditch the far left.

    • Simon says:

      03:02pm | 05/09/11

      Your fooling yourself, where are you going to get new recruits for a party of totally corrupt losers from?  The unions are now seen as criminal organisations waiting to be busted, the ALP is full of vain irrelevant alternative types and kooks.  As an entity only the most sociopathic and blinkered fools would consider running under it’s banner ala Rudd.  It’s turned it’self into a bad cult with GetUp choiring it’s hymns.  How do you sell this to people?  It’s old, it’s all used up, it’s pointless and can’t find policies that aren’t detrimental to modern living.  It’s very existence is an embarrassment in the 21st century. Freemasonry has a lot in common but they are trying to modernise, the ALP would rather just try to take us all back to the steam age.

    • Graham The Great says:

      09:14am | 05/09/11

      Whatever, however the Australian people voted the labor/green/independent minority/majority government into power at the last federal election!  Get over it people, you collectively did it you gave them power, they are by whatever means ‘an elected government’ enjoy the fruits of your ‘labor’.  So therefore all of you who voted this ‘federal government’ in are all as culpable as they are for the mess Australia is in at present!  Our only hope, our only hope is that something happens that forces an early federal election, whether you like Tony Abbott or the Liberals in the foreseeable future they are our only hope!

    • sunlover says:

      10:31am | 05/09/11

      Graham….WE, the voters, DID NOT vote this government in…..Gillard & her cronies well & truly knifed Rudd - who WAS voted in - in the back, then spread her legs for the Greens & Independants so that SHE could become the worst Prime Minister that this country has ever had, & drag us all into the sewers. We need to get rid of her & her socialist party now, if this country has any chance at all.

    • Rupert Murdoch says:

      11:03am | 05/09/11

      Do you honestly think the Liberal Party will allow Tony Abbott to be Prime Minister?  His job was and always has been to discredit Labor and run a scare campaign until it’s time to put someone who knows what they are doing in his place.  Kevin Andrews, Joe Hockey and of course Turnbull are all waiting for this to happen.  It will happen within the next few months.

    • Michael says:

      11:25am | 05/09/11

      @Sunlover: “spreading her legs” is a disgusting thing to say about a woman. Disgusting. Especially as Abott offers to sell is backside to be PM.

      Really, keep going. I think the majority of Australians will catch on over the nxt two years that conservatives are sexist, have altered perceptions of reality and the facts, and although they claim they are not racist they have issues with brown people.

    • Damocles says:

      12:02pm | 05/09/11

      @ Michael…...I agree with you that “sunlover” was way out of line using the term “spreading her legs”..........it was a disgusting thing to say, but to then imply that “conservatives are sexist, have altered perceptions of reality and the facts and then, the icing on the cake, they are racist (yes, the good old “racist” slur wheeled out yet again to undermine any free discussion or debate).....I find that equally disgusting! You then say, after claiming disgust at “sunlover’s” comments, that Abbott offered to sell his backside to be PM!!!! WTF? This outrageous slur on Tony Abbott’s character was made by Tony Windsor, a rogue independent who sold his constituents out by making a pact with Gillard! I would give zero credence to any slanderous statements from such a character. Windsor would say ANYTHING to undermine the integrity of Tony Abbott, because Windsor has no integrity himself, he sold it for a few sheckles of power…...........THAT is deplorable and DISGUSTING!!

    • Ali K says:

      01:23pm | 05/09/11

      @Michael says:11:25am | 05/09/11

      After your commnent you and Sunlover are in the same boat just different ends.

    • MD says:

      09:18am | 05/09/11

      Et tu, Julia?

    • jonesy says:

      09:22am | 05/09/11

      Labor followed Howard down the path of demonising asylum seekers. The lies told about the children overboard affair and the lack of retribution by the voters has seen the race to the bottom.  The Pacific Solution was never a real solution, if it was, how do people account for the 1700 processed there and the $1 billion cost?

    • Kipling says:

      09:29am | 05/09/11

      Maybe I missed your point, there was a point of course.

      Drawing from Roman culture though, I think they had the right idea in how to demonstrate their displeasure with a senators actions (even if the senator became dictator). Democracy at knife point. It won’t so much vote you in, but you will surely get the point when voted out…

    • rob says:

      09:30am | 05/09/11

      Two thoughts on this- first that the statement that these people are asylum seekers instead of queue jumpers is wrong, they cease being asylum seekers once they leave the country of first refuge where the UN has staff to process refugees, which is obvious in virtually all the cases that have arrived by boat so far ( I don’t imagine too many Afghani’s leapt on the boat in Kabul and set out to sea); and second, Australia per capita has the 3rd highest intake of genuine refugees of all the countries in the world, so we are doing better than 193 other nations! So the elements of the media and the bleeding-heart left who keep flagellating us for not doing our bit can take a running jump.

    • marley says:

      10:50am | 05/09/11

      @Rob - two thoughts.  The statement that these people are not asylum seekers is wrong.  By definition, someone who seeks asylum, and has the legal right to do so, is an asylum seeker.  The UN, by the way, doesn’t process refugees in places like Pakistan.  They register them, but if no country wants to take them, they sit there, or try to get to a country which will take them.  You know, they seek asylum.

      Second, Australia has the third highest intake of offshore resettlement cases - but it ranks about 15th or 20th when you look at the total number of refugees, onshore and offshore, granted residence.  We’re well down the middle of the table for wealthy nations.

    • Adam says:

      01:36pm | 05/09/11

      Your comment:Marley, you are wrong. The illegal immigrants have found asylum in the first country of refuge they arrive in.

      They are supposed to stay there, in that refuge, until it is safe to return home. Once they leave the first country, they are no longer seeking refuge, but a new home.

      That makes them immigrants, not refugees. Thus they are illegal immigrants if they arrive without permission.

    • marley says:

      02:28pm | 05/09/11

      @Adam - asylum in international terminology is the grant of protection by a state signatory to the UN Convention. It is the right to live in a country, to have access to education, social services and employment on an equal footing with the locals.  In which of the countries you mention does this definition apply?  Nary a one.  An Afghan might have temporary safety in Pakistan or Indonesia, but he does not have asylum.

    • mick says:

      09:38am | 05/09/11

      This post sounds like an asylum seeker post.  What the author wants looks more like a bridge between Australia and the third world.  What is not stated is that the trickle will become a flood once it is understood in the third world that Australia is open to all comers.  The real issue is do we as a nation allow unrestricted access to our nation from the third world or not?  As with all do gooders never a thought as to long term consequences.  Helping those in need is a very Christian behaviour and I do not disagree with this.  What I do disagree with is turning this beautiful nation into another India where poverty will become the norm.  This is what is being overlooked or ignored.

      As for the Labor Party….....yes, it has become gutless and I agree that it should go for broke and do some good before the next election.  But then Tony Abbott has stated that he will undo whatever Labor does after the next election.  Big business has made it clear that it does not want to pay and that wage and salary earners should pick up the tab and Abbott will ensure that he complies.  Perhaps if we had a Liberal Party which could act in the interests of the nation we would get a bipartisan approach to government and have some good come out of the parliament.  Bring back the Romans.

    • iansand says:

      09:47am | 05/09/11

      The electorate sees the current ALP as faction ridden power seekers, bereft of principles.  And the electorate is correct.  We do not want those whom we permit to govern us to be more concerned with personal aggrandisement and the accumulation of power and personal benefit instead of governing for the good of the country.  The ALP has been in the grip of a terminal malaise for quite a while and the structure is unravelling.

      They wil not be re-elected, but the electorate will soon discover that the Coalition is equally impoverished.  The ALP should use their time in the wilderness to re-evaluate what they stand for and to find a spine and some principles.

    • No Carbon Tax. says:

      09:59am | 05/09/11

      It take balls to run a country and Julia Gillard doesnt have any. In factI dont know of any true woman who do have them.

    • Rob says:

      12:50pm | 05/09/11

      Maggie Thatcher… dont believe that you couldnt think of her. Just because Julia failed does not mean that there are not other women out there with the ability to do it. Never underestimate the fairer sex my friend.

    • Steve on the coast says:

      10:04am | 05/09/11

      If Gillard had the good of this country at heart and for that matter, the Labor party, she would call an election now. The longer she waits the worse things will get for both the country and Labor. If Gillard waits until an election is due in 2013 then Labor are looking at a NSW Labor type hiding, perhaps even worse. I can see an election result in 2013 something like Liberals/Nationals 130 seats, Labor 15 seats with the rest taken up by Greens (God forbid) and maybe, just maybe and Independent or two. Labor in limbo for the next 10 to 15 years or perhaps longer. I won’t be disappointed with that.

    • Mitchell Meek says:

      10:11am | 05/09/11

      I completely agree-Labor should be attempting to make their Death Rattle one that will be remembered, and (hopefully) slightly redeeming. They’re going as soon as an election is held… and despite being a dyed-in-the-wool Labor supporter, they deserve to go. Not even arguments of “better the devil you know” or “the lesser of two evils” are enough to keep the current Government in power, no matter how terrifying the prospect of Tony Abbott being my Prime Minister may be. Labor should use their dying breaths to develop a platform, strengthen their leadership and build towards their next chance in power, whenever that ends up being.

      As for the asylum seeker debate - it sure has been done to death. The problem is that, as a country, we are acting in a completely deplorable and despicable fashion. As a sovereign nation, we have every right to control our borders, and processing centres can accomplish this. Offshore processing, however, is so grossly offensive that we should be embarrassed of ourselves as a nation. Policy built around this approach panders to the extreme, self-interested and ignorant sectors of Australian society, to people who want to ignore international problems in favour of a bigger garage and another interest-free television. If we suddenly lived in fear of our government or our police, every single person in this country would sure as hell expect New Zealand to let us in.

      It’s really quite simple - it’s human decency, it’s a respect for human rights, and it’s a commitment to acting as global citizens which does not involve waging war. There are 4400 people sitting in processing centres at the moment. That’s it. The current policy for processing and settlement needs to be completely redeveloped - processing needs to be speed up and we need to have strict criteria for who we accept and reject. Offshore processing cannot and should not be a part of this process. We have a RESPONSIBILITY to contribute to international efforts addressing human rights issues (which true asylum seekers are fleeing) and, more importantly, we have the ABILITY to do contribute significantly. Labor should make this a priority before they are condemned to the political wasteland for a yet-to-be-determined period of time.

    • Stephen says:

      12:23pm | 05/09/11

      What exactly has the governemnt not done? This has been a good government bar a few screw ups.

      People are whingers. Abbott will be a horrible PM and wreck all the good work of this government

    • Rob says:

      01:56pm | 05/09/11

      @ Stephen… like what good work this govt has done? Sending Cattle farmers broke? that was a good one! Preventing the boats from coming - yeah that was a disaster (twice they had a go at that one), Frying a few in the insulation debacle (dont tell me that this is not the “same” govt - it just has a different figure head) Fuel Watch, Grocery Watch, Cash for Clunkers, Homeland Security department, Indig. health, Japanese whaling, 2020 talkfest, etcetera..

      Anybody can pass legislation supported by both major parties, but it is their inept handling of so many issues that is the problem. If there were only one or two disasters people would have more patience. The dice seems to be loaded for the ALP and the wrong numbers keep coming up for them.

    • John Oh says:

      10:43am | 05/09/11

      Intensely simple for neither party. The asylum debate. Hidden: the thousands who arrive by plane. So who is going to sort that out? They cant either. So why the window dressing? Illegal immigrants are every where. They either cant deal with it or wont, as it will look bad either way! One seems to deal with it, the other worse…We appear to have a UN problem…

    • Bob says:

      10:55am | 05/09/11

      One group has been at least partially checked and approved before coming here, one hasn’t. Plus, just because one bit is difficult to deal with doesn’t mean that an easy to deal with bit should be ignored. That’s the logic that says “Why stop crime anyway? It’ll always happen”

    • lets deal with it properly says:

      11:38am | 05/09/11

      The ones that arrive by plane have the necessary paperwork to leave the country of departure and arrive in Australia legally, in other words, their bona fides have been checked. We know who they are just not where there are. The ones arriving by boat have destroyed their paperwork, therefore, have no paperwork to enter this country legally, in other words their bona fides have not been checked. We know where they are just not who they are. The UN is as useless as a cigarette ashtray on a motorbike , they appear to be doing something when in fact they are doing nothing, they are all huff and puff.

    • sunlover says:

      11:01am | 05/09/11

      I don’t have balls, but I’ve got a lot of guts! Pity the same can’t be sai of our PM

    • C. says:

      12:59pm | 05/09/11

      She is one of the toughest negotiators in parliament and has more guts than the toadies and weather vanes in opposition. It would be good to get Kev back for another round though if he can keep a lid on his ego. Her worst mistake was to not let him know earlier that there were agitators after his scalp. I believe that it was possibly a surprise to her too - she was too busy trying to fill in the gaps left in education after the Libs went through with a carving knife - after all, we are the lowly, unwashed masses and useless eaters that are only good for labouring and catering to the Liberals need for servants and cannon fodder so education is not really a priority. Neither was health. Neither were Aboriginal issues. God help us all if the Liberals get back in and start talking about ‘mandates’ like old Howie used to. Born to rule, elite etc. Now they are spruiking ‘Hope and Opportunity’. Sound familiar? Empty rhetoric from people who ‘hope’ they get an ‘opportunity’ to take us back to the 1950’s. Get back into that kitchen Mum and bake me some pie!

    • jonesy says:

      11:03am | 05/09/11

      The Liberals have been yelping for an election from the day they realised they had lost and then couldn’t get three Conservative Independents to support a Conservative Govt lead by Abbott. A born to rule of the lower classes mentality.

    • iansand says:

      11:04am | 05/09/11

      Maybe we could decimate the House of Reps.  That would focus the mind.

    • TrujilloRaquel35 says:

      11:07am | 05/09/11

      Don’t you acknowledge that it’s high time to get the personal loans, which will help you.

    • RyaN says:

      01:12pm | 05/09/11

      Only if total scammers have such dodgy personal loans that they need to spam them onto forums to try and scam people.

    • Matt says:

      11:07am | 05/09/11

      Everyone knew Labor was going to the political wasteland after it took power in a hung parliament, effectively reducuing its ability to govern and provide a clear direction for Australia. It was on the cards ever since t he last election, and in my eyes, Gilliard will go down as the worst Prime Minister ever.  - also I was in the US last week for business meetings and the subject turned to politics. Lets just say there were a few laughs. 

      As a prior long time labor supporter, I never would have thought id be so keen on the coalition to get power.. atleast they will take actions and ‘do’ something

    • Terexdex says:

      11:12am | 05/09/11

      It’s pathetic that the Labor party have the balls and fortitude to slug us with a massive unessesary tax, but doesnt seem to have the balls to take the reins and run the Country in a responsible way without the Greens and Independants telling them in what direction to run.

      Therein lies the problem, and it will not get fixed till the next election, because they are so desperate to hang on to power at any cost. When you have a patchwork policy of Labor/Green and Independant getting in the way of party values and committment? you will always get a caning at the next election.

    • Charles says:

      11:17am | 05/09/11

      There is a really simple solution to all this! Process on-shore until such times a better solution is found. There is merit in the Government propsal if it is thought through with all the checks and balances. What they are trying to do is break the people smugglers and the unsafe journeys to Australia.  Naru or any other off-shore processes does not stop the boats. Liberals in their time of office issued temporary visas and made it look like it did. It is about time this Governement was given a fair go. They have had everything thrown at them from day one and have not been given any credit for what they have achieved.

    • Rob says:

      11:49am | 05/09/11

      Charles, Im sick of this government. How many times should we give them a fair go? I think I have been patient with them, but this is turning into a farce. Everything they touch turns to custard. It is likely that factions, greens and independants push their barrows which means they are going in 5 different directions and are not united. This government is not in the best interests of this nation and is not the best we can do. We deserve better representation and we deserve better outcomes. Enough of these amateurs. Im hoping and praying that Mr Thomson will be charged and that there will be a speedy trial.

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      02:03pm | 05/09/11

      @Rob

      You can be sure there will not be a speedy end to the Thomson affair.

      By the time the case goes to court, the verdict appealed against, resolved and a further verdict brought down the election will be on the way or over.

      Our only salvation is if independents or Labor backbenchers get enough flak from their constituents to do something about the worst government since Federation. 

      Whitlam must be fairly cacking himself every time Gillard stuffs up again.  He no longer is the worst PM, and it took a woman to do it.

    • Super D says:

      11:31am | 05/09/11

      There seems to be a view amongst the progressive commentariat that seeing as Labor is going to lose anyway they might as well continue down the path they are on for example by legislating and introducing the carbon tax.

      This is simply moronic. 

      Without some significant policy reversals Labor is only locking itself into a longer time in the wilderness and increasing the likelihood of the Coalition of regaining control of the senate, if not at the next election then the one after.

      There seems to be a view that once the carbon tax is in it won’t be repealed.  It will.  Any resulting damage to the economy will be pinned on Labor and will only add to their time of power.

      The only long term option for Labor is rip up the alliance with the Greens, shelve the Carbon tax and sort out the refugee debacle that they created.

    • dave says:

      11:31am | 05/09/11

      Why does every one want to slam this Labor Government?  They are not totally incompetent, why even just recently they have discovered one within thier ranks who actually can organize a root in a brothel.  Cheer up!!!

    • Rob says:

      01:06pm | 05/09/11

      yeah.. Harden up Comrades!!

    • Coop says:

      05:04pm | 05/09/11

      Wrong! He couldnt. Used other people’s money so couldnt organise his own

    • Ruth Ostrow says:

      11:32am | 05/09/11

      Hi Joe, this column is a beautifully-crafted witty and poignant piece of rhetoric that would have befitted any Greek or Roman Senate. And then you would have been stabbed to death. But what a glorious ending having said what finally needed to have been said.

    • Brizben says:

      11:32am | 05/09/11

      “the morally psychopathic step of using human beings as live political pawns”
      You’re right Joe, Tony Abbott’s offer to turn the boats around is nothing short of morally psychopathic. And Abbott’s plan in today’s paper to exploit legal loopholes in order to trick international bodies and pretend Australia is a good international citizen is fooling no one. Abbott is ethically bankrupt.

      “the Immigration Minister was the legal guardian of the 57 unaccompanied children locked up in limbo on Christmas Island ... What sort of parent would do that to their kids?”
      What sort of parent was Ruddock that people had to protest to get him to remove “his children” from detention?

      Ultimately I think there is a lot to be said for Julia Gillard doing the humane thing and processing the asylum seekers on Australian soil. She has no more ground to lose in the polls and I think she might as well do the right thing and treat these poor people with dignity and respect.

      Ahh Joe - I hope you hold your own heros to account the way you try and hold Labor to account. You need to open you eyes and see.

    • David Fletcher says:

      11:43am | 05/09/11

      I disagree with the premise that these people coming to our shores are “asylum seekers.” They’re not, they’re illegal immigrants.

    • Bob says:

      12:10pm | 05/09/11

      By our own definition of what an Asylum seeker is….

      They’re illegal immigrants. Being poor and coming from a war-torn country isn’t enough reason. Someone has to be actually trying to kill you personally or make you suffer.

      http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61asylum.htm

      The Refugees Convention

      Australia is one of 147 signatory countries to the Refugees Convention.

      The Refugees Convention defines a refugee as a person who:

        is outside their country of nationality or their usual country of residence
        is unable or unwilling to return or to seek the protection of that country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion
        is not a war criminal and has not committed any serious non-political crimes or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

      The Refugees Convention does not oblige signatory countries to provide protection to people who do not fear persecution and have left their country of nationality or residence on the basis of war, famine, environmental collapse or in order to seek economic opportunities.

      Protection obligations may also not be owed to a person who already has effective protection in another country, through citizenship or some other right to enter and remain safe in that country.

      International law recognises that people at risk of persecution have a right to flee their country and seek refuge elsewhere, but does not give them a right to enter a country of which they are not a national. Nor do refugees have a right to choose their preferred country of protection.

    • Meg says:

      01:03pm | 05/09/11

      I agree David, the people coming to Australia are not asylum seekers they are merely illegal immigrants and as such to do need to be processed but immediately deported back to their place of origin. The irony about all this is that the boat people are not happy in their country of origin which, for most part is Muslim, but come to a non Muslim country where they can be happy. They do not blame Islam for their unhappiness, they do not blame their leaders or themselves for being afraid to live in a Muslim country, they blame the non Muslim countries they escape to and try to change it to another Muslim country that they can hate living in.
      That aside, the journalist asks “what sort of parent would do that to their kids” in regard to sending the 57 children currently on Christmas Island to Malaysia, he should have thought it through and asked “what sort of parent would stick their unaccompanied terrified children on a rickety old boat to endure a perilous trip by sea to a non Muslim country in the first place.” It seems to me the answer is two fold; the bio logical parents of the children in question hold little or no value to human life or they are desperate for their children to be brought up in a non Muslim country.

    • 14th Man says:

      12:30pm | 05/09/11

      Thats fine Joe. But even while the Romans ripped into each other with gusto, they were still brilliant in the area of infrastructure eg aquaducts and dunnies etc .. So they still got things done while the power struggles continued. Labor just wont and cant do any of that,  unless it involves borrowing then rushing things and ruining them as a result. i;e GFC and the BER and Batts . So any thought of a Roman resurrection, so to speak, is just unachievable by these no hopers and their hangers on, the Rainbow Coalition. The best they could possibly do is beat us all around the head with a feather.  Ooooo.  That tickles ! lol

    • Scotty says:

      12:36pm | 05/09/11

      The Roman Empire is alive and well today - it’s had abrand name change of course - it’s now called the Catholic Church (i.e the Holy Roman Empire).
      And most asylum seekers aren’t fleeing persecution they are seeking material wealth from governments with handouts - check the immigration figures worldwide for yourself and you’ll see this is true.

    • Genuine says:

      12:43pm | 05/09/11

      “The genuine ones stay, the bogus ones get sent back.”

      You fail to realise that its the ones that get refused that are burning down detention centres and protesting through the courts. And because they don’t have any documentation, the countries we’d send them back to refuse to accept them.

      “these people are, it needs to be remembered, [are] fleeing persecution and possible death”

      And yet when they’re given safe and free accomodation, medical check-ups and food and are asked to wait politely while we process their claims, they kick up a fuss? Apparently it’s inhumane to ask someone to wait patiently while we verify their claims (through an already over-worked ASIO that has to run the increasing number of security checks on them).

      “What sort of parent would do that to their kids?”

      Precisely. What sort of parent would send their child, alone, on a dangerous boat journey to Australia - in the hopes to take advantage of Australian Law so that they can come over later? What sort of parent does that? Not one that cares about their kids obviously.

    • Steve says:

      02:09pm | 05/09/11

      Exactly Genuine. Joe should realise it is not actually ‘as simple as that’ to return unsuccessful asylum seekers - you need a country’s permission before you send someone anywhere. The lack of papers being a ploy to thwart any attempt of being returned. As I understand it most asylum seekers have papers when they fly out of their homeland only to lose them in Indonesia.

    • Neville says:

      12:49pm | 05/09/11

      If the Murdoch gutter press and their shock jock allies stopped sensationalising the complex issues of carbon pricing and refugees and whipping up redneck hysteria, maybe the government and Prime Minister Gillard (yes that is how she should be addressed),  would have a better opportunity of getting their message across. We went to the polls god bless us, just on a year ago and we elected a minority government so people, stop your whingeing and get over it. I do recall there was a massive swing to the Greens at that election. Does this mean that ever time those beloved polls indicate a massive swing away from the elected government of the day, that we should go to another election? Is that what people are suggesting here? The job of leading a minority government in coalition with the minor parties and independents must be a very difficult one , made all the more difficult by the constant barrage of abuse (and even death treats)  from the extreme right -  how dare Alan Jones and his redneck supporters suggest that the Prime MInister of our country be dumped at sea. (I do not think Mr Jones has a clean track record that is for certain- is that the people in glass houses scenario?). I think so much damage has been done by the media,  that I agree the government is in a very poor position AT THIS TIME to get re-elected. With that in in mind I think the Federal Government should go for broke - bring on the carbon tax, mining super profits tax and process the refugees in Australia whilst at the same time continuing to work on a regional solution to this particular problem.  In regard to people smugglers, I also ask what the Indonesian Government is doing to stop these leaky boats from leaving their shores or do they just turn a blind eye…or are we not bothered that they are harboring the people smugglers…..

    • Dodge says:

      01:07pm | 05/09/11

      Reading the Tele (inc Joe) You would think we’re on the verge of Greek style economic collapse and civil unrest that would make despotic African nations look like the height of Civilization.

    • James In Footscray says:

      01:18pm | 05/09/11

      Redneck hysteria whipped up by shock jocks! What, both of them?

    • RyaN says:

      12:50pm | 05/09/11

      “At least, like the Romans, they would leave something to be remembered by. ” VD? Or is that just Craig Thompson?

    • James In Footscray says:

      12:55pm | 05/09/11

      All this talk about Julia. Does anyone agree Wayne is the weak link? We need a strong and compelling treasurer to back the PM. It might make the leadership question irrelevant.

    • Dodge says:

      12:57pm | 05/09/11

      The cycle of politics will continue as it is internationally (Canada and UK newly elected conservative governments). And that’s easy to understand given the effects of the GFC on the fiscal abilities of the various forms of Government.

      I look forward to the ‘Tony will fix it’ approach so many look to be throwing their weight behind (lol, literally can’t wait). As someone who will benefit financially, it’s all pretty good news personally. I’ll just wait for the crumbling of the Australian Social structure similar to what was seen during the end of Bush’s term. Good times.

    • Gerry Sinclair says:

      01:17pm | 05/09/11

      Reschs Monkey says:.....‘overstayers”....

      I despair of rational debate in this country when people like Resch’s cannot see the difference between people who arrive in this country with paperwork and those who arrive with none.

      Overstayers have been given permission to come here, it is simply departmental inepitude and inefficiency that leads to them still being here after the time limlit for that permission has expired.

      In legal terms boat people are illegal immigrants in that they arrive unannounced without any paperwork or permission to enter this country.

      How hard is it to recognise the actual and legal difference bewtween the two?

      One of the worst results of this current Government is a general lessening of standards of all types in all areas of Australia, as insitutions and individuals think if its OK for the Government to forgo accountability and rely on spin its OK for us - this is a glaring example of intellectual rigor and analysis being shoved aside for spin on illegal immigrants, just as quoting the meangingless emissions per head statistic is used to spin the need for a carbon tax.
      Unfortunately they are not the only two cases - we seem to being led into our modern day version of ‘the dark ages’ - something is indeed rotten in the state of the Australia.

    • Fred Phillips says:

      04:00pm | 05/09/11

      “In legal terms boat people are illegal immigrants in that they arrive unannounced without any paperwork or permission to enter this country.”

      If an asylum seeker arrives by boat without paperwork and claims asylum, which provision of which law is he/she breaking? Please be specific. Why aren’t asylum seekers ever charged with committing the crime you say they’re committing? Ever wonder about that?

    • Glen says:

      01:17pm | 05/09/11

      Complete bollocks.

      When I read Lucrecius saying “Death is nothing to us, nor should it worry us a bit; we can’t suffer after death…” I hear someone promoting an ideal, not an actuality. And let’s not forget the most notorious example of Roman military discipline—decimation—was very much about Roman commanders harnessing their troops fear of death. Fight the enemy and some may die, but if you run away then a tenth will die.

      You’re also being misled by who writes history. I wouldn’t think a woman in the Roman provinces or a slave led a life free of fear. Far from it.

    • John says:

      03:08pm | 05/09/11

      I agree!  Historically quite inaccurate.  Hemlock was used by the Greeks; typically to carry out executions (who said lethal injection was new?), with the classic example being the execution of Socrates for impiety.

      Romans, being much more men of action and generally with military backgrounds (especially during the republic, but still somewhat so during the early empire) suicide was generally effected with one’s own sword.  Failing that one could retire to one’s bath and open a vein.

      Mind you, I think the general views of the Author in regard to the moral bankruptcy of the present government are true.  It’s not quite the Year of the Four Emperors but the rapid transition of Latham, Rudd and Gillard begs the question of who will emerge as the modern Vespasian and bring some (albeit temporary) stability.

    • JR says:

      01:19pm | 05/09/11

      Lots to comment on here. Julia Gillard has been, regardless of her gender, a failure as prime minister. Don’t forget, Kevin Rudd as a male was also a failure, a fact recognised even by his admirers & colleagues. I wonder whether this is more of a generational issue than a gender one. When the US president was going to be either a black man or a woman, I was impressed with their grasp of a “meritocrasy” where the best candidate as judged by the electors gets the job. I was proud that the US was mature enough to not elect a middle aged Southern man, even if one was VP. John Howard is from a generation before Clinton, Obama, Rudd & Gillard. Could it be that the current political leaders have been brought up in an unreal environment where they become perplexed when things don’t go according to plan (after all it’s not 730 report land Kerry, and government is hard; you don’t say…) as things have in their lives to date.
      Then it comes to values, where it looks as though (as infamously stated by Peter Garrett at the time of the Ruddslide) Labor are prepared to say anything and then “change it all anyway” dependant on Newspoll. The ALPs overarching value at a state (esp. NSW) and now Federal level is to stay in power. This would appear to trump all other traditional Labor values.
      As a parent, when I heard the news that Bowen was planning to send unaccompanied children to Malaysia, I felt physically sick, it was the wrong thing to do, and any parent or even decent human being with any empathy would never contemplate that, it isn’t decent.
      It might have seemed a good idea at the time to promote your best parliamentary performer to the prime ministership, but Gillard has experienced serious over reach and is clearly not suited to her role.
      Often promotion brings with it growth (think Howard’s first term) but occasionally you are found out (think Rudd & now Gillard).
      An honourable person would go out swinging, but methinks that this government will die in a ditch with a whimper…... The only question is what will finally end the suffering, carbon, irregular boat arrivals, Craig Thompson, Rudd’s white-anting, Wilkie….

    • Over it says:

      01:46pm | 05/09/11

      LOL at the Festival of BOGANS on this thread!

    • Jamesh says:

      01:53pm | 05/09/11

      I’ve said it before children, and I’ll say it again.  The Emperor has no clothes!  Both our leader and would-be leader lack the spine to stand up for OUR country.  Labor is trying to get Krudd a seat at the UN, and Abbott sees Chinese money.  Both sides willingly fawn over the US President like he’s our leader, and genuflect before the royal sponge who sucks up British taxpayer’s hard earned Pounds.  When will this country take the stand it should have over 100 years ago?  If we had had a revolution and chucked the Poms out, we’d be in a much stronger position today.  Boat arrivals, bullying Chinese businesses and dictatorial foreigners in general should be taken in hand and shown we’re not pushovers.

    • revo says:

      06:32pm | 05/09/11

      the only problem with your great solution is that we actually ARE pushovers… we show it every single day as we bend over and take it up the karzhi for some other minority group or UN decision that is totally clueless about this country.  Australians are unbelievably apathetic, the media tells you what you think and conveniently leaves out many facts and the pollies are on television watching every syllable that comes out of their mouths so they don’t offend anyone… and they manage after 10 minutes of dribbling to actually say nothing.

    • James A says:

      02:17pm | 05/09/11

      The elephant in the room is (another) spectacular failure of a woman as a leader in Australian politics.  Women are simply not cut out to lead, provide logical decision making, hard decisions, or separate work from personal.

      Yet all we hear is moaning about how there are not enough women at the top and they are paid less.  There is totally good reason for this!

      Let’s put the nightmare of the Gillard experiment behind us hope that it another 100 generations before an electorate is dumb enough to vote in a female to role that is simply above their capabilities in every possible sense.

    • marley says:

      02:33pm | 05/09/11

      Well, I dunno, I kind of thought that the likes of Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher were perfectly capable of leading, making hard and logical decisions, and separating work from personal issues.  And guys like Silvio Berlusconi, Nicholas Sarkozy, and Muammar Gaddafi, not so much.

    • AdamC says:

      03:05pm | 05/09/11

      What complete nonsense. There have been effective female political leaders in the past, and there will be more in the future. Julia Gillard’s extraordinary incompetence cannot be blamed on her gender, it’s all down to her.

    • Simon says:

      03:29pm | 05/09/11

      Thats just sexist BS, the list of successful female leaders is almost endless from Catherine the Great to Elizabeth Ist and so on to democracy.  The public adversarial system we’ve incorporated inot our democracy effectively puts women at a serious disadvantage as they can’t be “scrappers” without losing their public dignity, whats seen as ballsy for a male is seen as undignified for a woman. It’s only society’s precast 19th century model of a civilised woman that’s reinforced the notion of women being 2nd best leaders when politics becomes ugly.  There are so many derogatory names for traits perceived as uniquely female problems that it appears they have more issues (slutty, catty etc.) to get over than male counterparts.  Gillard has set women in politics back decades but only because they now see it as a crap job done by crap heads.

    • Rick says:

      04:47pm | 05/09/11

      Are you blonde by any chance?....remember ....breath in ....breath out

    • bananabender says:

      02:25pm | 05/09/11

      You have managed to repeat just about every common myth about the Romans.

      Facts:
      The Romans relied very heavily on mercenaries. They were defeated many, many times in battle.  Rome was unable to conquer any of the major Germanic tribes or the Picts.
      The Romans mostly resorted to bribery and diplomacy to get things done. They were generally indecisive and totally corrupt.

      The Romans bribed the Goths so they wouldn’t invade Rome.

      Most powerful empire - Britain. 

      Largest area conquered by military means - Mongols.

      Longest lasting Empire - China 221BC-1912

    • Simon says:

      03:14pm | 05/09/11

      Beautifully said and damned accurate too. Though a bit pedantic considering the context.  I’d just like to add that Roman IR laws were pretty well precursors to ALP policy.  It was cheaper to buy foreign slaves than hire citizens and state factories were the only ones allowed to produce anything of value for domestic sale as exports of almost everything were banned in case the barbarians found out how easy it was to replicate them.

    • John Graham says:

      06:03pm | 05/09/11

      Interesting list.  I would propose some different answers.

      Most powerful empire - United States of America from 1945 to 1990 (if you accept that the President’s position was designed by the Founding Fathers to be an elective kingship).  I hold this both in terms of relative power in the world of the time and more obviously in power in absolute terms.

      Largest area conquered by military means - USSR from 1917 to May 1945.  Much of the Mongolian conquests were subsequently either promptly lost back to the locals or fell only within a weak sphere of influence.  The USSR in May 1945 had more extensive real control of surface area than any empire has had at one time, with a further sphere of influence extending into China, having started with only control of limited areas around a few major Russian cities.

      Longest lasting empire - Roman cum Byzantine - control of the now region of Turkey and Greece continuously from circa 100 BC to 1204CE (with sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade) - thus 1300 years under the same sequence of rulers if you lived in Athens or Constantinople.  The Chinese Empire was subject to major disruptions, collapse and reconstruction (and likewise ancient Egypt) whereas the Roman Empire maintained a continuous series of emperors in the East.

      Unfortunately there are some real parallels between the later days of the Roman Republic and the present, and likewise with the later Third Republic of France and the Weimar Republic.  Crises in these three political systems had different outcomes, but none were pretty.  All were characterised by a loss of legitimacy of the political system, policy paralysis, and ultimately national disaster followed by renewal.

      I would hope that we can work our way through to national renewal without the intervening social and political disaster,but the level of passion being invested in trivial political differences and the reluctance to give way on anything being demonstrated by the political elite are worrying features of the situation.  Strangely features of weak and precarious government are that it is unable to compromise or admit any failing, and this in turn weakens it and ultimately leads to its total collapse. 

      As Winston Churchill observed, a two party system produces the best representative democracy.  While theorists may prefer more or fewer, the results in practice have not been good in the longer term.  Either the Labor Party or the Greens need to wither into insignificance for the good of the nation.  At present this fate may well await Labor who seem to be tracking the progress of the British Liberal Party in the early part of the 20th C, when it collapsed from holding a massive one-party majority in the Commons to a peripheral party not even invited into ruling Coalitions.

    • Foof says:

      02:57pm | 05/09/11

      Julia, memento mori. Tempus fugit.

    • Jamie says:

      03:05pm | 05/09/11

      Quote: “One is that these people are, it needs to be remembered, fleeing persecution and possible death”

      These invaders have not just jumped in a boat in the country they are fleeing. They have travelled to other countries first and are makeing their way to Australia out of a desire to invade us not to escape from persecution in their homeland. They are not refugee’s but invaders and que jumpers.

      Sink the boats.

    • Rick says:

      04:08pm | 05/09/11

      Thats what the abo’s should have done with ( the first fleet) you lot.

    • fml says:

      04:40pm | 05/09/11

      But those countries are not signatories to the UN convention. Also Iran and pakistan take in many, many more refugees than any western countries.

    • Brisvegas says:

      03:21pm | 05/09/11

      If all these boat people fear for there lives from where they came from, why do they burn the accomodation they have been given to live in. Surely the places they have been given as a safe haven must be better than where they came from…..including 3 meals a day that some of our own people cant afford….......I would vote for all boat people to be sent to Alice Springs and live in harmony in camps with our own indigenous people. Now wouldnt that attract some attention from the human rights fraternity

    • fml says:

      04:39pm | 05/09/11

      Its funny,

      I watch banged up abroad, and on that show you have entitled foreigners smuggling drugs into a country which obviously has strict drug laws. Not one of them say, well this is nice atleast i didnt get the death penalty. They whinge about the conditions, Then they try to escape. Its got nothing to do with a shelter over their head, its being put into a prison they are upset about, anyone would be, whether you deserved to be there or not.

    • jim morris says:

      03:23pm | 05/09/11

      Australia’s’ First Female Prime Minister has proven the point that gender is not as important as competency. Not that the feminist obsession with gender is likely to change. I’m fairly sure that a lot of the incompetence demonstrated by various government departments may be due to nepotism or tokenism.

    • JustMEinT says:

      03:50pm | 05/09/11

      Who do you suggest serves Julia the hemlock?  Volunteers form here——->
      And will there be any left over for Wayne and Bob?

    • Chris L says:

      04:26pm | 05/09/11

      Excellent point Joe, and well put. If only Gillard took the time to read your article.

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      04:36pm | 05/09/11

      So much written but so little said.

      The PUNCH needs a ‘worm’ as with election countings. We might get some idea of what the majority feel.

      173 have written and, well I have seen nothing new or innovative.

      Perhaps the government, seeing this ‘WORM’ might start to give us what we want.

      But then again, they surely know from the surveys that they are not acting as their employers desire.

      I think it is time for cacausians to stop back peddling, apologising and being made to feel guilty for all of the worlds problems.

      I have a house, I have no objection to everyone in the world having a house. but I will not burn my home down so I can be an equal of the majority. And I am most reluctant to give up half my house to anyone who chooses to wander in.

      I have a house because my society has evolved and progressed. Most of the so called refos claim to be from ancient civilisations that had arithmatic, writting and building skills while the Brits were still painting theit faces with wode. Where has all they had gone?

      Now those same people but now without skills or enterprise, having discovered that the bleeding hearts will fall over themselves to give bludgers everything, are playing the sympathy line. AND WINNING.

      Our grandchildren will reap the pain we are sowing.

    • K Goodfare says:

      05:15pm | 05/09/11

      “Oh my god, they’re gunna overrun us and take over our houses! I didn’t realize this before, now I am so very very frightened!”
      The real issue that no one seems to want to explore is that if lovely Tony wins the next election he will, the day after the party, find himself probably having to form a very mixed coalition government with even more independents than Julia has and then also deal with a hostile senate. By his own tedious “Stop the boats” hardball he has also probably made Howard’s Nauru solution completely unavailable to his party ought he form a government. It would seem to me that none in Canberra any longer have or take any in depth advice from their own political strategists. Are they all gen Y now or something?

    • Bob says:

      05:35pm | 05/09/11

      K Goodfare: At the current rate, the only thing that’ll prevent Abbott from having a double majority (and therefore, no reason to give a stuff about any independents) is the senators from the last election.

      And they can be dealt with by a double dissolution at the first available opportunity. (They can either pass whatever the Liberals want for the first year or so, or be voted out so fast their heads will spin)

      And that ownage of your meagre knowledge of how our political system works and probable outcomes was bought to you by a member of the Gen Y you just put down.

    • fml says:

      05:43pm | 05/09/11

      Caucasians? What have the Armenians to do with this?

    • Poco Loco says:

      06:05pm | 05/09/11

      Yes, just as Britain is reaping the pain of its liberal (note the small ‘l’) immigration policies of 20 or 30 years ago.  Riots across the greater London area and other cities like Manchester;  “sink” housing estates where the hopeless and helpless end up;  rising violent crime rates, and so it goes.  What a lovely future we’re sowing by following the British example.  Just sit back and smell the petrol bombs.

    • Suiciders. says:

      05:09pm | 05/09/11

      Wouldn’t it be great if Labor commited mass suicide,but wait a minute isn’t that what they are doing to themselves now.

    • Steve on the coast says:

      05:32pm | 05/09/11

      Julia Gillard has set back years the aspirations any female had of becoming Prime Minister of Australia. It also proves that promotion and or position in a company or political party should be based on ability and not gender.

    • James In Footscray says:

      06:29pm | 05/09/11

      Nice try Steve on the coast, but since when did Gillard seize the leadership ‘based on her gender’?

    • michael j says:

      08:29pm | 05/09/11

      Thats pretty fn scary thinking youse got going here,,i thought Mr Hawke was behind all these things,,fu4 it i’ll ring him now and find out if we are really going to have a carbon tax,,,,

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      06:07pm | 05/09/11

      Whatever the Senate decides, the plebs will criticise.

    • layla says:

      06:23pm | 05/09/11

      Steve is right, I wasn’t a labour voter but I was hopeful that a woman PM might shine a different and better light on this country.  Who would vote for a woman again after this.  You are a disgrace to us Julia.  The country is in such a bad way, burning our money that the libs left on NBN while most of us can’t afford to pay our electricity and water bills.  I was always taught as a kid “pay for what you have to first, then pay for what you want to last” - the NBN was a luxury not a necessity.  Necessities are making sure people can afford to live, hospitals have enough well qualified doctors, schools have good teachers, drivers have good roads etc etc etc…. you will go down in history but not in the way you hoped, or any of us that you have let down. Will someone please bring back John Howard

    • Steve on the coast says:

      07:00pm | 05/09/11

      James in Footscray what you are saying is that Julia Gillard seized the position of Prime Minister, not promoted into it. I was talking about people being promoted into positions not those that usurp positions. There is a difference

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      07:12pm | 05/09/11

      Hi Joe,

      If we are going to have these talks about great civilizations like the Roman & the Ottoman Empires of the past, then bringing up equal rights may seem a little strange to begin with!!  Because, I feel back in those days, the men basically were sent off to war to fight for their countries.  And what did the women do, I wonder??  But I surely hope that we have evolved a little in the past 2000 years or so!!  Yes most definitely these days, we would like to claim that we have equal rights to everything our society offers.

      However,  until the men can actually have babies physically as well as being able to provide for their families, we should not be obsessed with the idea of being equals in every thing that we do.  Because it is not realistic way of thinking at all.  I truly believe that a woman with children to take care of, can sometimes live a life with obstacles as far as a sense of achievement & accomplishment is concerned.

      May be part of the problem lies with the fact that Ms Julia Gillard happens to be a woman.  And nothing more or less!!  Do I also sense a hint of jealousy &  envy on the part of some male members of our society, Ms Gillard being our very first female Prime Minister & all that.  I personally think that there has been a little bit of overkill, when you consider all the negative smear campaigns which we have witnessed in our recent history.

      When it comes to the ongoing plight of asylum seekers, is it more practical & easy to go back the ways of the past??  May be so, after all history tends to repeat itself!!  Best regards to your editors.

    • michael j says:

      10:18pm | 05/09/11

      Gay Marriage , test tubes , rented wombs and the Film where Arnie was pregnant ,and the Matrix any Evolution we might have had will be lost when
      a Virgin has a truly transgenic baby ,,,
      back to the problem of Slave Traders with the Liberal Party in power and the ALP about to become extinct there is no solution ,,

    • gra gra says:

      09:19pm | 05/09/11

      Because she is a woman? That can’t be so in Australia, can it? Howard was a male,(I nearly wrote “man”), and he was discarded by his own crowd, the Libs, and his own electorate, (by a woman), and so wandered off into oblivion. And then, Abbott got a touch-up by a shiela. And they just can’t stand it. They carry on like a couple of Ericks, because the outcome was so damaging to their egos that they now console each other with their own particular choice of religous crap. Abbott with his life-long adherence to catholicism, and Howard with his own chosen cult. What are they called? Doesn’t matter they are all pagan cults.
      Gillard doesn’t believe in sky fairies, or drinking blood, or eating the flesh of some bloke who may or may not have even existed, and for that her critics lambast her. We didn’t used to do that to women, but hey, some blokes, you know.
      Two years to go. It’s a long time for Abbott to remain stuff-up free. Two weeks is a long time for him, and I await, not only because I think Abbott is a cretin but because I consider him to be a cretin who worships, on his knees, stone and plaster idols.                                                Charity to others, common sense, granting sactuary, caring, all these are anathema to the stone worshipper. Cold heart, weak will, and able to be trusted on nothing. And with one aim, regardless of who suffers—to be the “man”. Sorry Mr Abbott. You ain’t up to it.

    • Zac says:

      03:40am | 06/09/11

      But here is a guy who is not into like you say fairies, or drinking blood but ended up killing 7 boys and girls for his Atheistic cause. While you verbally bash Tony Abbot’s religious beliefs think of that. Have a look at some of killers words for more insight….

      “a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist. “I am prepared to fight and die for my cause,” he wrote. “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.” Pekka Eric Auvinen - Atheist Finnish who killed seven students for Atheistic causes.

      Ref: CNN, Europe

    • Gerry Sinclair says:

      01:29am | 06/09/11

      “AdamC says:03:05pm | 05/09/11

      What complete nonsense. There have been effective female political leaders in the past, and there will be more in the future. Julia Gillard’s extraordinary incompetence cannot be blamed on her gender, it’s all down to her.”

      Yes but not in Australia (or in my opinion NZ) Adam, do the names Joan Kirner, Carmen Lawrence, Anna Bligh, Keneally ring a bell?

      The fault is not with the gender per se it is with gender invoking tokenism, and tokenism in any field of human endeavour simply does not work.

      In this case if you think the Labor faceless and Gillard herself did not think that her gender alone would get her a win over Abbott who the media was trumpeting had a problem with females, and that they could thus be lazy with policies and implementation because of that, then I have two coat hanger shaped bridges to sell you - one in Sydney and one in Newcastle on Thyne.

      To find out the calibre of who we have as PM as human being get your hands on a copy of the affidavit signed by Robert John Kernohan ex President of the Victorian general branch of the AWU at Castlemaine on 11th August 2010 & witnessed by Special Constable M Crane at Castlemaine Police Station, 50 Lyttelton Street, Castlemaine 3450.

      If that doesent get you asking questions both about her and our media for not publicising it, then you and every other blinkered apologist out there deserve everything that is coming your way.
      However the other 65% or so of us dont, so we will still try to introduce rationalism into the debates, knowing full well that one thing true believers hate is facts and rationalism.

      To Fred Phillips - read what I said again and stay off tangents - anyone who tries to enter any country in the world without paperwork is an illegal immigrant, end of story.
      If the country decides to take them because they believe they are seeking asylum, is a completely different debate and in no way invalidates the first statement which is the starting point - asylum seeking is point two.
      The first is a simple statement of fact, the second is an emotionally charged matter of subjective decision making and the connection between the two is if you appear to be weak on the first then you leave yourself open to be abused on the second i.e. to juggle both requires astute management.

      The polls show that most Australians perceive, rightly or wrongly, that astute management is lacking on this issue and we are being having a ‘lend of’’ by economic opportunists.
      Whether this is in fact true or not, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that no matter how people arrive here, by boat, plane, raft, or swim - if they do not have the relevant paperwork when they arrive they are by definition illegal immigrants.

      How you then treat them, and why, is a different debate altogether, but if you dont get the sequence of events in logical order and address each point one after the other the odds are you will make a mess of it for all involved.

      For any problem that is simply the implementation of ordinary good management principles or to quote Bob Dwyer ‘‘true champions are usually not the players who do the extraordinary, but the players who do the ordinary extraordinarily well’‘. i.e. dot all the ‘i’s and cross all the ‘t’s.
      Our political ‘players’ quite obviously have not done that, in fact they are perceived as doing the ordinary extremely badly, and unfortunately for them not just on this issue.

      I personally could not care less what brand or label a political party or a Government has, but I do care if they are unreasonable, non pragmatic, ideologically instead of rational result driven, and inept managers who rely on spin, and it appears there are a lot out there who are starting to feel the same way.

      The inability of them to think things through in a logical fashion, and for it seems around 35% of the country to have the same problem, does not auger well for Australia in its coming competition with the very pragmatic Asian peoples surrounding us as our region becomes the economic powerhouse of the world, and given the fact that the most rational & balanced news reporting worldwide is currently coming out of China, maybe more than than just economic leaders.

      We had better shape up or learn to like rice!

    • Zac says:

      03:28am | 06/09/11

      For up until half of your blog I would give you +1. But the rest is a BIG -1.  I think half of the blog is directed towards the symbolic crowd in Canberraistan who is hardly sober to know or bother about our border and the people who come through it via boat or plane and their effect on Australian society.

      All they are worried about is wine and pre-pubscent painting which is called art. Well, not surprised, to these crowd “compassion” is accepting and receiving - with open hands - refugees who hardly believes in democracy - simply because their Allah wouldn’t want anything to do with it and the same refugees will plot to destroy our society. When the thinking people reject their idealism, we are called racists and xenophobes, not that I care. We will fix their arrogance and absurd commie idealism by voting (that includes even the female folk I love) for Tony Abbott.

    • Jay says:

      07:04am | 06/09/11

      It is amusing that you can be so flippant in Labor’s demise. Julia Gillard has never been given a chance to lead or show us her wares because she failed the first and most important test as a leader. She lied about the Carbon Tax, and the sad thing is that she never had to do it. The Greens would have followed her wherever she went. If Labor take the route you have suggested then they will be effectively abandoning the people they were charged with protecting. The Liberals will have a stranglehold on Parliament and they will be free to introduce whatever legislation they desire. The Gerry Harvey’s of the world will demand that wages be slashed so he can make another huge profit.In fact in the dying days of the Howard Govt he was lobbying that a second class of worker be allowed into Australia where they could pay them whatever they wanted and not be bound by any minimum standards. That is the type of lunatic you are dealing with; a man who has so much but wants to take the minimum away from people so he can control them and ensure a captive workplace. Labor has two years to make some tough calls and it is now that some of the senior party statesment stand up and move Julia aside. Scrap the carbon tax, get back to focusing on the economy and hold Abbott accountable.So far no one is making Abbott accountable and his constant flip flopping which is a tragedy.

    • Bob says:

      12:27pm | 06/09/11

      Gillard did have a chance to lead and show what she was capable of. It’s just that she failed this test in record time and kept failing it. Also remember that Rudd didn’t operate in a vacuum - She was one of the key players there as well. How many chances does she need?

    • oldtimer says:

      09:30pm | 14/09/11

      Abbott accountable for what ? he’s NOT the PM…he can say and do whatever in Opposition.
      it’s the PM and her Party that need to be accountable….they are the ones in power arent they ??? or is it the Greens? (sarcasm)
      i dont know, im confused as to who or what is running our once great country into the ground.

    • Sick of the ALP says:

      05:14pm | 06/09/11

      Worst government ever!

      They should all be thrown in jail for incompetence!

    • Eigengrau says:

      09:33pm | 06/09/11

      There is only one problem with this - how do you send them back exactly? The appeals process can (and did) last for years, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Then you have the difficulty of physically removing the failed applicants - no doubt you can imagine the pictures of Federal Police officers forcing women and children off planes and the headlines that would ensue. Even finding their country of origin is fraught with difficulty given that many dispose of their papers before entering Australian Territorial Waters.
      Moreover, you can be assured that a future action will stipulate the government has a responsibility to illegal arrivals to ensure their safety at their country of destination. So how is this all better policy? There is a reason why offshore processing has (more or less) bipartisan support.

    • Jandowae says:

      07:46am | 07/09/11

      Loved your artilce Joe, spot on

    • Owen says:

      09:56pm | 08/09/11

      Seems that Labor has more in common with Roman times than I realised. Take this quote from a Gaius Petronius Arbiter a Roman Courtier during the reign of Nero “We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;
      and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress
      while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”  Gillard has reshuffled her policy cards so many times the dog ears now forecast whatever hand she plays is read in advance by Abbott. Confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization are the three pillars of any Labor government.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @mumbletwits: +1 MT @meadea Adding voice to the boss RT @abcmarkscott: Hereby instruct @Colvinius to make a swift return to good health. (Take care Mark.)

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

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