The Dili Proposal

jk says:

02:52pm | 06/07/10

Patently ridiculous to try to pretend that this is no change in policy.

Heath Karl says:

03:05pm | 06/07/10

This kind of opinion, ultimate cynicism right from the start, shows that you were never interested in listening in the first place. Starting to look like a performing seal? compared to which politican exactly?

Sherlock says:

03:15pm | 06/07/10

Hmmm let’s see, After the election (of course)

We’ll have a bit of a chat to East Timor and NZ to see if anyone’s really interested in setting up a refugee processing centre. We haven’t really thrashed out any details nor really allocated any funds but trust us and we’ll sort it out.

It’s not a new “pacific solution” because we’re not using Nauru this time and anyway East Timer is in the Timor Sea.

We might (or might not) get tough on these asylum queue jumpers or at least look tough especially just before an election.

Seriously though all you have to do is read the speech to see that nothing has changed for Labor even with the new PM. The whole speech is nothing but window dressing with absolutely no substance.

Pule ALP spin to hide the fact that they’re doing nothing

DD Ball says:

03:18pm | 06/07/10

Andrew, JK, you are right to laugh at this backflip. It is a substantial backflip. And media analysis hasn’t given you an understanding of what it means. It means the ALP policy has failed, and that the Pacific Solution was right. Worse, the ALP policy has resulted in at least 170 known deaths. It also resulted in some 5000 people paying people smugglers so $15k each for the privilege of drowning, dyeing of deprivation or being incarcerated for an unknown length of time. This is what the ALP called compassionate. Those bastards in the Liberal party had on the other hand, sustainably increased the population. That is what Gillard’s back flip means

Sherlock says:

04:28pm | 06/07/10

I know who who really governs Australia. It’s not Julia Gillard or The Alp. It’s not the Miners or even the AWU heavies. The real person in charge of Australia is….

TONY ABBOTT.

Just look at his results.

Tony Abbott says the ETS is a disaster for Australian economy. Result- Despite being the central core of ALP election policy and having the PM describe it as the greatest moral challenge of our time, the ETS is consigned to the dustbin of history never to be mentioned again.

Tony Abbott says the RSPT will turn out to be yet another disaster. After the PM said there would be no changes made, the ALP in a desperate hurry to appease Tony Abbott got rid of the PM. Despite the treasurer accusing miners of being faceless, foreign-owned giants, liars, ignorant and bullies they dumped the RSPT completely. Oh and somehow instead of being sacked for being totally incompetent in the introduction and handling of this failed tax the treasurer was promoted. I can only assume Tony wants him to stay.

Tony Abbott says we need to get tough on boat people and go back to processing them off-shore. Result - the ALP re-introduces the Pacific Solution. This is despite Julia Gillard saying no to the pacific solution on a number of previous occasions. However, apparently what Tony Abbott wants Tony Abbott gets. What power the man so humbly wields.

I hope Tony Abbott continues to release more policy. I’d like to know what the government are going to do and Tony Abbott seem to be the man in charge.

Brad Coward says:

04:42pm | 06/07/10

The Dili Solution brought to you by a Dill of a Prime Minister !  Julia….those Sparkles are starting lose some of their shimmer and it’s not even been two weeks since you were presented to the electorate as the new and improved leader of the government who had lost it’s way !

The trouble is that whilst new, you are no improvement and the government is still losing it’s way !

Overflow says:

05:18pm | 06/07/10

Sherlock says:04:28pm | 06/07/10
I’d like to know why Abbott wanted The Goose to stay on as Treasurer ..... although it could be the need for a jester.

Jason says:

05:30pm | 06/07/10

In another late breaking dvelopment, Victoria Police have hired Julia to solve every unsolved crime from the past 20 years….....

jk says:

06:28pm | 06/07/10

DD you forgot to mention the biggest joke being that the Liberals pacific solution cost half a million per asylum seeker and 98% of them were allowed into the country anyway.

VictorG says:

08:15pm | 06/07/10

I always prefer the original to the sequel. Joooolia’s production is missing the director and cast, surely a few stunts won’t make the show.

Heath Karl says:

03:10pm | 06/07/10

I like your first principle Eric. Im particularly interested to know whether this is an actual beliefs of yours - an actual principle, or whether your just saying something because it suits your purposes today and tomorrow when it doesnt suit your principles you abandon them.
Do you all the Aboriginal people the same principle to have ultimate say over who arrives?
Secondly, if a mathematical trend shows an increasing frequency, which is necessarily indefinately unsustainable, should the trend be changed? What if that trend were wealth? what about longevity? surely these ‘trends’ cannot be sustained.

James1 says:

04:33pm | 06/07/10

To be fair on Eric, he has argued in the past that back in 1788 the Aborigines needed a much better border control policy in order to prevent the unprecedented influx of boat people in the ensuing 200 years.  Eric is nothing if not consistent.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

05:48pm | 06/07/10

James 1 : hmm, the pseudonym says it all , living in the past . However this isn’t about indigenous Australians , it’s about illegal entrants and Eric’s comment ia quite right , the Abbott proposal on border control is the only way to effectively stop the flood of people iillegally entering Australia . 
Let’s get back to how John Howard’s philosophy ” We will decide who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they come. ”

Eric says:

06:18pm | 06/07/10

Heath Karl, in answer to your questions:

(1) Yes, I absolutely believe that we have a right to determine who migrates to our country, and the circumstances under which they come.

However, in order to be effective, rights must be enforceable. The Aborigines lacked the ability to enforce their right to determine who came to their country, and thus they suffered a disastrous invasion.

(2) A trend may not be infinitely prolonged, but a finite end could still prove catastrophic. Suppose there were 100 million desperately poor people who wished to move to Australia for a better life, and had the physical means to do so - which are not unreasonable suppositions.

Then, if they were not controlled, our population of 22 million and its infrastructure would be swamped, and we would all be reduced to the same poverty they fled from in the first place.

Thus, a trend need not go to infinity to be significant.

P.S. Than you, James1.

Heath Karl says:

12:35pm | 07/07/10

@Eric. So we ARE all illegals, its just that Aboriginal customary law didnt provide an effective mechanism for the enforcement of the boarders, doesnt undermine the legal authority of the judiciary which orally defined the existing boundaries. Heres a scenario that might scare you. Every one of the 6 billion living human move to Australia. Scary? yes. would we all starve or kill each other? probably. But heres the point. I DONT GET TO DECIDE. Neither do you. Your one human and you dont get to say where other human should live, as a basic point of prinicple. You might construct an edifice of state around you, you might build an army to enforce your will, but that says nothing for legitimacy. You can kill a man, but that says nothing for your right to kill a Man. When we talk of ability, you are able. The right to kill? the brightest minds in history on this question have resorted to that which is immutable - the authority of the creator. On national borders, unfortunately, he has said precious little.

Jane says:

10:58pm | 06/07/10

Wow..‘toughness’ AND ‘compassion’....a bob each way, all things to all people. Who’da thought.
What a joke.

This is the Pacific Solution backflip you have when you’re not wanting to admit a Pacific Solution backflip.

Proof the Coalition had it right BEFORE Labor dismantled it and went all soft on it, encouraging them to come again….. a Labor policy constructed by no less than Julia herself!! An admission of her own failure….without actually admitting it.

It now comes down to credibility…and, as Labor now have zero, the Coalition have been totally vindicated on this.

Jane says:

08:42am | 07/07/10

Wow..‘toughness’ AND ‘compassion’....a bob each way, all things to all people. Who’da thought. What a joke.

This is the Pacific Solution backflip when you’re not wanting to admit a Pacific Solution backflip. Proof the Coalition had it right BEFORE Labor dismantled it and went all soft on it, encouraging them to come again….. a Labor policy constructed by no less than Julia herself!! An admission of her own failure….without actually admitting it.

It now comes down to credibility…and as Labor now have zero, the Coalition have been totally vindicated on this.

MarK says:

02:39pm | 06/07/10

Hahahahahaha,

Exactly.

James says:

02:47pm | 06/07/10

Sorry Homer, politics is actually separate from people. DOH!
I think I’ll take the fine for not voting at this election. Australia’s democratic parties, when combined, look as sad as a three legged dog. The necessary fourth leg is missing, and the dam dog runs with a handicap because of it.

Doh says:

03:07pm | 06/07/10

“Sorry Homer, politics is actually separate from people.”

So what is politics about then, the food?  The animals??  Fairy Floss???

I don’t know how you can say that, politics is ALL about the people, in this country anyway.  The people vote for the party with the policies they want and if that government does not live up to expectations *cough cough* you vote them out.

If you don’t agree with any of the parties you can even form your own provided you are willing to do the work and muster the necessary support.

“Australia’s democratic parties, when combined, look as sad as a three legged dog.”

I assume you are referring to the illustrious Greens.  More like 2 legs and a gimpy leg.  Just on that, why don’t you vote for “let them all in” Bob Brown?  Oh that’s right he would not even provide any indication of where he would draw the line.  I thought that sort of policy is at odds with the small sustainable population green policy??

Heath Karl says:

03:15pm | 06/07/10

The humanitarians are already in hysterical oppositon mode to this policy, but still, dont let that stop you from making your ridiculous claims about your political opponents.

Sherlock says:

03:19pm | 06/07/10

No no no. Having them in East Timor is far more humane than Nauru just ask anybody. East Timor is in the Timor Sea so what’s all this claptrap about another “Pacific Solution”?

The excuses for Labor will come thick and fast from the left.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:01pm | 06/07/10

Bazza   :  Right on !  Gillard phoned the N.Z. P.M. once and Timor’s P.M. once , add her rhetoric , toss in a little spin , voila !  Labor’s border protection policy. !
Oh , almost forgot , if the unions don’t agree , back to the drawing board.
East Timor Prime Minister , Xanana Gusmao , is not exactly over friendly with his recent remark that Australia’s decision to wage war against the Japanese in Timor during World War 2 , cost the lives of 60,000 Timorese.  Gillard seems to be jumping the gun but that was the case with the BER school buildings program as well , so wait for this idea to fold up in flames at a high cost to taxpayers.

marley says:

02:56pm | 06/07/10

I think you’re overreaching on that one.  As usual, there is confusion between the refugee movement and the migrant flow.

I think that, on the subject of regionalization, she’s talking about the skilled migration movement, not the refugee movement. The latter has no impact on labour issues, urban congestion or pressure on services, while the former most certainly does.  The real challenge is how to to direct skilled migrants away from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and towards smaller regional centers which are crying out for workers.  This is a legitimate issue, though not one for which there is an easy solution.  But it’s totally separate from the refugee issue.

Doh says:

03:10pm | 06/07/10

@Heath Karl

I know several thousand Greek, Italian and Vietnamese immigrants who would disagree with you.

The only thing worse than encouraging these people to work for a living (shock horror!!) is having them dependent of the public purse for the rest of their lives and not contributing anything to Australia’s economy.

We have enough home grown dole bludgers without adding to the strain.

Heath Karl says:

03:31pm | 06/07/10

@Marley. It certainly sounds like im making a broad and inaccurate statement, but consider carefully the Prime Ministers statements. Gillard made a simple association, towns with lots of people and no work, and lots of work in towns with no people. You might have interpreted her motives as some differentiation between refugees and migrants, but that is not what she said. Once her precept is accepted, then the suggestion that refugees shouldnt be bound by the same conditions, well common sense dictates that her ‘reasonable’ claim should be coupled with a ‘reasonable’ movement of available workers, refugee or otherwise.  All in the name of moderation
I am a materialist, so I believe that all that humanity has is a result of all humanity has done. I believe that socially-necessary-labour-power and population are related. Infact proportionally related. So refugee intake directly impacts the labour market. I take your point that refugees is not related to skills and regionalisation, but i think Its absoloutely wrong, and proven so by wild claim that refugees have no impact on congestion, but migrants do. I guess whether you take up a seat on a train depends on your mode of entry into the country.

dovif says:

03:58pm | 06/07/10

Make them work as slaves in Coal mines for 10 years before becoming Australians

I like it already

Heath Karl says:

04:30pm | 06/07/10

@ D’oh. Ill explain the Australian economy too you. We have about 11 million individuals who are of working age and are able to work. Of that 66% participate in the economy. Of those 66% of participants, 5% are unemployed. These are your dole bludgers. The ones who contribute nothing to society.

How disturbing that you have such emotive responses to these people, yet are silent on the 33% of people who can work, but choose not to, and yet are not unemployed. What does that tell you? that if you have enough money to never work again, you arent unemployed, you just arent participating in the economy. People who havent got the money, they should work. They must work. If they dont they are bludgers, and worse, leech $10 000 a year off society to continue their existance. If you’re rich you dont have to work, it doesnt matter if you have a skill society needs, you are free to live your life - to follow your bliss. Your not even unemployed. If your poor, you must work, you must contribute to the economy, if you dont your a leech and a bludger.
Work is necessary? obviously not.  Work is only necessary to aquire the necessaries of life, if you have what is necessary, be free, if you dont, and must therefore be least able to provide what is necessary, you’re on your own.

Heath Karl says:

04:37pm | 06/07/10

@dovif. A little consistency would be nice. If thats the citizenship test, then let it be that way. But this land was stolen in the first instance. In the second the only citizenship test that many europeans endured was stealing a loaf of bread or paying 10 pound for the trip. The only citizenship test your progency are likely to face is which peice of land they were uncerimoniously ejected onto.
We live on stolen land inhabited by the decendants of criminals and economic migrants, and NOW your talking about propper citizenship rites. Typically Australian, the passage to citizenship must involve a declaration of entitled arrogance.

marley says:

04:37pm | 06/07/10

@heath - look, you believe that labour, power and population are proportionally related.  Well, here are the proportions we’re talking about:  115,000 skilled migrants a year, who go wherever they want, usually to a major city;  56,000 family migrants, who go to wherever their family lives, also usually a major city;  13,500 refugees a year (of whom perhaps 2000 are boat people and the rest selected offshore), many, but not all of whom, go to major cities (because that’s where the support facilities are).

So, if we’re talking proportional impact,  I stand by my view that those 13,500 refugees have next to no impact on any of the labour market or urban congestion issues, in comparison to the 170,000-strong regular migration movement.  And Gillard would know that as well as anyone.

The other point is that, now that the TPV is history, asylum seekers who are found to be refugees get permanent visas.  There is no law which would allow the government to force a permanent resident of this country to live in a particular area or work for a particular employer.  Once the person is a permanent resident, he has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to pick up sticks and head for the big smoke if he doesn’t happen to like Warnambool or Townsville or Wagga Wagga.

Doh says:

05:09pm | 06/07/10

@Heath

Thanks for the free lesson, it is worth exactly what I paid for it…..

“Am I the only one who reads this entire exercise as an excuse to enslave refugees as the low-paid workforce who must move from town to town across the country doing all the worst and lowest paid work. “

This is exactly what the the Greek, Italian and Vietnamese migrants did when they came here all those years ago.  I am sure you will agree that they have made an excellent contribution to Australia and in return and shared in the rewards.  It worked then, why can’t it work now?

Brad Price says:

05:38pm | 06/07/10

Well if you wish to emigrate to Canada you can do so quite easily from Australia. Just don’t think of living in vancouver because you won’t be allowed to work. But with the right skills you can live and work in many other territories. Oh except North West Territories because many industries must hire persons that are indigenous first and then those that have lived in the territory for at least 6 months…..
How racist and enslaving those Canadians can be….. Pffft.

Simple. If you want to come here you can ,but you have to live and work where you are wanted and needed. Surely that is a reasonable proposition for Australia to consider.

What is racist and enslaving about that?

But i do agree with you about Julia.

Heath Karl says:

12:16pm | 07/07/10

@ Marley. Of course you’re correct in saying that refugees have little impact on the aggregate impact of human movement. As one percent of the volume, they represent one percent of the effect felt. I think you are misreading what I am saying. I am simply asking, who benefits? For us, the citizens of the economy, the primary effect is the assualt on services. Competiton here decreases wages and dilutes services. People in suburbia feel this assault acutely, and suffer the burden already of low wages and weak sevices. I would argue that these effects can be negated,  they are essentially circumstantial. Join a trade union and the government adjusts services to accomodate more people, problem largely alleviated. This can be harmlessly acheived provided there is no legal mechanism preventing their integration, read TPV.

The second point is that the larger, more significant, long term effect is the increase in the labour market. More hands means more completed tasks, meaning we can move on to more complicated and more highly skilled tasks, meaning we have to wallow at the trough of capital-building, socially degrading industrial production. Simply, the more people there are, the more wealth in society. The larger the population, the larger the pool of wealth. More people is a good thing, everyone benefits - as I said, provided government is competent enough to build the services around the people, and the individuals themselves engage with the labour movement.

Heath Karl says:

12:42pm | 07/07/10

@D’oh. Haha, i liked that…. But no, unfortunately your premise is predicated on a misconception. The post-war migrants benefitted, how? because they increased their standard of living? yes, but but their own efforts, they increased their own standard of living by contributing much more than their share to the standard of someone elses living. That is the social contract. Its proportional. Make me a million dollars, and ill give you 50 bucks. Your 50 better off then, arent you. Qualitatively you are better off. Quantitively, you just entered poverty.  The problem is its almost never described as such. People think 10 dollars more is 10 dollars more and thats the end of the story.  They are wrong.

martinX says:

02:50pm | 06/07/10

Chris said: And this differs from the Pacific Solution how?????

Well, duh. It’s the Timor Sea solution. That’s heaps different. New letterheads for a start.

Chris (Times New Roman) says:

03:35pm | 06/07/10

Martin,

You are indeed correct - how foolish of me. Those dastardly font changes get me all the time.

I guess the ‘Push’ factor in this case means push it all over horizon and out of sight.

Stewart Henstock says:

02:37pm | 06/07/10

Whoa…sounds like another white Australia policy brewing here.

Heath Karl says:

03:02pm | 06/07/10

Thanks Lin for giving me the most hearty laugh of the day. That sneaky Leela and the midnight calls to the gay helpline. Comedy gold!

Lin says:

03:24pm | 06/07/10

Stewart Henstock, your rose-couloured glasses must have made you miss the colour of the WWII and Balkan war criminals I was also mentioning.

James1 says:

04:16pm | 06/07/10

Lin,

When we started taking Hungarian, Greek, Italian, and Balkan refugees, they were not actually considered to be white in the same way that the Anglo-Irish majority was.

Heath Karl says:

04:39pm | 06/07/10

@James1, to highlight the craziness of racism, The earliest europeans to this continent considered the Irish to be a sub race of anglo-moors. Now they are whiter than white.

MarK says:

05:17pm | 06/07/10

Pffft no one likes the Irish.

They can’t even make the finals of the world cup.

Lin says:

05:36pm | 06/07/10

I am here to make your day Stewart… read the two actual articles and LYAO. But beware, a bit of logic is required to connect the two.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/cuban-refugees-from-us-arriving-here-in-exchange-for-tamils/story-e6frgczf-1225850083681

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/department-of-immigration-sends-184-asylum-seekers-to-darwin-and-port-augusta/story-e6frgczf-1225855713333

Eric says:

06:25pm | 06/07/10

Boat people are, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, currently only 1% of our immigration intake. Therefore, stopping them would have no significant effect on our very colourful range of diverse legal and wanted immigrants - and no relation whatsoever to the Labor Party’s old White Australia Policy.

MarK says:

02:43pm | 06/07/10

Sort of like The Sting 2.

You take an absolute classic and try to redo it for a fast gain.

Falls over dead. Panned by critics from everywhere. Tries to imitate but comes up short.

Everyone laughs at your stupidity.

O hai Joolia /wave

MarK says:

02:50pm | 06/07/10

Yeh lets spend a few billion and do it everywhere.

I mean wow we got the cash we just spent $16 billion on overpriced school halls, $43 billion on some NBN that will be coming to you “soon” (TM Labor - meaning after I get my parliamentary pension and travel for free for life card).

Yeh we have heaps of cash after those $900 cheques and that fantastic insulation scheme that has had a twofold effect of stimulating the funeral home industry, insurance assessor industry, electrical safety inspector industry and many many house rebuilds. I mean wow….talk about the stimulus package that keeps on giving.

Lets toss a few billion at this. All we got to do to keep the budget in the black is tax the miners and make sure we keep our forward projection calculations of revenue based on an ever increasing mineral price that is already at historical highs.

Piece of cake this government budgeting lark.

Just Sayin' says:

03:34pm | 06/07/10

Wouldn’t it save everyone a lot of trouble if we just set them up in Afghanistan?

Zaf says:

04:08pm | 06/07/10

It’s probably cheaper than towing all those boats back out to sea over the next ten years.  And if it worked, it would make Australians a lot more relaxed and comfortable, no?

Zaf says:

04:22pm | 06/07/10

* sigh *  they’re called refugee camps, and if we (as a region) made sure that the ones that exist in Pakistan, India, Thailand, etc. were safe for refugees, as well as processed people from there (which we actually already do) it would be a good thing both for the refugees and also for our own tender sensibilities wrt unscheduled boat arrivals, queue jumpers, etc.  And also probably be cheapter than running Christmas Island.

Jon says:

06:58pm | 06/07/10

Hey, it mite work! worth a try. Better than Krudds.

boo says:

03:36pm | 06/07/10

i wonder how much the government contributes towards these disgusting shows.  border security, send it the dogs, customs, highway patrol..  sigh.. ( isnt there another one aboat boats too? ) all designed to get us used to the idea and accepting of the fact that we are all guilty until proven innocent.

the more we get used to such imagery, in the name of “border security” the more malleable and compliant we become with each newly mandated imposition and erosion of what little rights and dignity we have left.

airport scanners for my little daughter because some nitwit without a passport was escorted onto a plane by the cia with explosive undies..

be alarmed, not alert.

Steve_of_Cornubia says:

04:06pm | 06/07/10

Hey, how aout we combine two shows into one program? The first half - the ‘Border Security’ part - is all about high speed chases out at sea, rounding up illegal immigrants, with lots of uniforms, stern officials, shouting and handcuffs. The second part - the ‘Getaway’ part, is about transfer to a lovely tropical island for processing, maybe with Catriona Rowntree showing the ‘guests’ to their new rooms, hidden behind swaying palmtrees.

Can’t think of a name….....

Miami Splice says:

08:04am | 07/07/10

Those shows breed xenophobia.  Already I have girls in the office addicted to watching the “Navy Seals” (WTF?) keep terrorists off our shores.  As I go to correct them, my sub-concious tells me to let them rot in their own ignorance.  Besides “Border Patrol” sounds much better than “Illegal Fishing Police”.

James1 says:

03:03pm | 06/07/10

That is an outright lie Fiat Lux.  For a start, illegal immigrants are not entitled to any Centrelink benefits.  Secondly, migrants who are get exactly the same as every other Australian, which unless they are pensioners themselves is less than the Old Age Pension.  You are either lying deliberately to make some kind of point, or have swallowed lies whole without checking for yourself.

James1 says:

03:57pm | 06/07/10

Those self funded retirees are being grossly misinformed, if they think that, Fiat Lux.  Illegal immigrants can not claim Centrelink benefits at all.  Migrants who can get the same as every other Australian, and if they are not on the Old Age Pension they get considerably less than old age pensioners.  Some facts in your post would be nice.  Also, apologies if these sentiments are posted twice - somehow my first attempt at calling these lies what they are did not get through…

James1 says:

03:59pm | 06/07/10

Oops.  I should have realised there would be a high volume of comments on this one, and that some would get held up as a result.  My apologies to the mods and my fellow readers.

Informed (not by forward emails) says:

04:28pm | 06/07/10

I got that forward email too - don’t believe every forwarded email or Facebook status update that you see.

There are no point to point speed camera’s on the M7 in Sydney either, despite hundreds of emails ‘proving’ this is the case.

The propaganda machine works.

Bigos says:

08:50pm | 06/07/10

James1. Maybe it is you who lies. People are entitle to different payments from the Government depending on their circumstances. And yes that means refugees do clean up a lot more then pensioners and your everyday Australian. Why don’t you browse the Centrelink website and find out before accusing people of lying.

Rachel says:

08:13am | 07/07/10

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2191987.htm

Took me less than 30 seconds to find that one. It’s an urban myth - based on an email that originated in Canada and North America.

The real deal:

Refugees coming out of detention on Temporary Protection Visas (now about to be abolished) get what is called Special Benefit payments. This is the lowest Centrelink benefit available. In 2005 it was $404.00 per fortnight for singles over 21years (less if you are under 21). They can also get up to $60.00 housing assistance per fortnight. These folk have been found to be refugees and are legally allowed to stay in Australia.

Under this Special Benefit payment they lose dollar for dollar for every dollar earned so for instance if they get part-time work 13.5 hours per week at $15 an hour- then they lose their Centrelink and their housing assistance as well. These folk also are not eligible for any help to get work, English classes or any federally-funded programs. They get no pharmaceutical benefits or assistance with phone and electricity bills. Special benefit has now been increased to $429.80 per fortnight.

See http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/co038_0801/$file/co038_0801en.pdf

Old age pensioners (single rate) get $546.80 per fortnight.  Plus extra help with pharmaceutical benefits, power and phone bills. This is not a millionaire rate but it is $117 per fortnight more than refugees.

See http://www.centrelink.gov.au/Internet/internet.nsf/payments/pay_how_agepens.htm

You can check the links to see that this information is correct and find out more detail about couple rates, etc.

Don’t believe every email that is forwarded to you. Chances are that nice lady living in Nigeria may not actually give you that million dollars she promised…

James1 says:

10:39am | 07/07/10

Show me the evidence Bigos.  I have search - even asked Centrelink employees, and there is no evidence that they get more.  There is evidence that they get less than Old Age pensioners though.

Bigos says:

12:57pm | 07/07/10

James, you said “Secondly, migrants who are get exactly the same as every other Australian.” This is a lie, they do get more and it isn’t just from Centrelink, they’re on priority housing lists and get a raft of other benefits. You didn’t check the centrelink website and it would show you the payments differ. In terms of overall government assistance (subsidised housing, subsidised loans, etc) they are better off, almost at point where it’s pointless participating in the economy, as someone with no skills would make only a little bit more then the handouts.

James1 says:

02:24pm | 07/07/10

Where is your evidence for the larger payments, Bigos?  Surely, if you are telling the truth, you can post some links to the Centrelink website for us which shows these discrepancies.  Or does the information you claim to possess come from an unattributed chain email? 

As for your latter claims, show me the evidence.  While they may indeed, not having families and friends to call on for support, or any idea how the rental market works here, have a greater need for access to public housing than your average Australian.  But Fiat Lux’s claim is still an outright lie.  A migrant is not able to access any kind of Centrelink payment that is “over twice the weekly Government Old Age Pension”.

Jason says:

05:51pm | 06/07/10

Nicole, we’re not all stupid - but unfortunately 54% are by the look of it.

She’ll win the next election before everyone works her out.  Same old incompetent ministers in place, same bungled policies and then 3 months before an election -  we’ll be saved by Swan who had nothing to do with Julia because she did it all herself.  Are they actually even a party?

iansand says:

03:41pm | 06/07/10

Of course it will fly.  It only has to delay things until after the election to achieve its purpose.  This is not about solving the problem.  It is about neutralising it.  The fact that East Timor is a signatory to the convention means it is the last place in the region that will permit onshore processing.

James1 says:

04:22pm | 06/07/10

iansand and marley,

I imagine that would be a matter for negotiation with the government of Timor Leste.  As long as the agreement provided for the resettlement of successful applicants in countries other than Timor Leste, I see no reason why they would not welcome the income it would bring.  The Pacific Solution did help plug a major gap in the national budget of Nauru, after all.  Overall, that aspect of the policy seems fairly workable, and I actually hope that it goes bipartisan and defuses this as an election issue.  That way, it can go back to being an elite consensus of sorts, where both political parties agree not to attempt to use it for political gain and we can use intelligent and informed people to fashion a bipartisan policy that serves both national and humanitarian interests.  But politicians being what they are, I would be just as likely to see a pig flying past the spire on top of Parliament House from my office window…

WKH says:

04:06pm | 06/07/10

You mean us “rednecks”

James1 says:

04:24pm | 06/07/10

Not necessarily WKH.  I know plenty of people in marginal electorates in the country who are just confused as Mike says, and are not rednecks at all.  Some of the emails they send me are hilarious in terms of their factual inaccuracy.  If they believe such rubbish (like that outlined by Fiat Lux above), then there is no wonder they are confused.

ProtectOurBorders says:

10:03pm | 06/07/10

So some people should not be allowed to vote if they do not conform to Mike Ferguson opinions? They must be confused if they don’t agree with Mike Ferguson’s opinions? They must live “on the fringes of society” if they don’t agree with Mike Ferguson’s opinions?

A classic example of an arrogant moral supremacist, who cannot sustain any sort of reasoned debate, so is reduced to abusing people who can. That is what is truely pathetic.

Shama says:

03:56pm | 06/07/10

@Sally it seems highly unlikely to me that the Greens want any population increase via any means given their agenda. They would probably prefer 0 pop growth.

Correct me if I am wrong but inspite of all the scaremongering, its the Liberals who are - well most liberal - in letting people in. it makes economic sense etc.

Doh says:

04:14pm | 06/07/10

@Sally

You are 100% correct on all counts.  I find it unbelievable that The Greens actually consider themselves a major political party.

“Surely Australians are seeing through all this rush to dilute Gillard’s proven record of incompetence.  If not, we sure would be a dopey lot.”

It remains to be seen.  it is “tough but humane” all over again.

Heath Karl says:

04:43pm | 06/07/10

On the one hand the right tries to discredit the Greens by saying they want some eugenic-style approach to international population controls. THATS how concerned about they environment they are. Trees before people. Then they say they are trying to ruin the country ending border controls forcing a population explosion, and putting terrible strain on the environment.

Compared to that diatribe, the Greens appear as beacons of moderation.

Jason says:

07:13pm | 06/07/10

I’m still waiting on the Greens to release one policy before the upcoming election.  Maybe sideshow Bob should show us what he offers before getting his mug in the media and criticising everyone else.
Its easy to throw stones when you are NEVER going to be in government.  I’d prefer to be in opposition forever than rely on their preferences to gain power.

All says:

04:40pm | 06/07/10

I don,t believe it! 8 years of abusing the Howard Govt for having “Pacific Solution” and Julias great big new idea is “The Timor Solution.” 8 years of condemning the detention centres, Christmas Island and temporary protection visas and the only thing missing so far are temporary protection visas. She has virtually reannounced Howard policies and asked Australia to dance giddy with excitement because she has come up with a wonderful new visionary plan. She thinks that we are stupid enough to believe her and she is right most of the masses will believe her rewritten, to suit herself, history. Of course Red Kez and the rest of the ABC journos will wax lyrical over this “new” visionary policy.

Romsey Quints says:

05:10pm | 06/07/10

At least she’s not having a “yak”

MarK says:

07:24pm | 06/07/10

“Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the labor party poliicy that has caused all the problems written by Jools?”

You are 100% correct.

“Now she’s getting wraps for getting rid of her own unworkable pooolicies?”

It is quite possible she is the second coming. Just ask the msm.

“Are we all fools or can we not see the programmic specificity for the trees?”

Some are some are not. It will all fall over a lot quicker than Rudd, journalists learn like pavlovs dogs so they will see the stupidity of jools a bit quicker.

Of course there is the issue of a tiny weenie bit of waste in the BER that
Crean will dump in her soon enough.

Andrew says:

04:25pm | 06/07/10

3rd coup. Don’t forget poor Kevin

WKH says:

04:50pm | 06/07/10

Well put…...

Joan says:

05:09pm | 06/07/10

Yes ET can’t even look after themselves, with some United Nations still there. Is Australia paying for all again? You can just see smugglers heading straight for East Timor - Indonesia will be relieved to no longer be stepping stone to Australia by asylum seekers.

Andrew says:

04:49pm | 06/07/10

Firstly, I love the words “waxing lyrical”. Always reminds me of Chariots of Fir.

Secondly, what’s your point? Are you seriously trying to draw a parrallel between “illegal” (yes I think they’re illegal, boat people and traffic queue jumping? Bit odd.

Finally, so what’s your view on Jools’ latest backflip (on her own policy no less)? Or is it just another in the long line of labor announcements without planning?

Joan says:

06:12pm | 06/07/10

Some queues are visible - like supermarket you can tell who is jumping queue if someone barges in- other queues like medicare queue for operation are invisible- as with refugees. Nobody likes a queue jumper no matter who.

NAQJ says:

10:58am | 07/07/10

A little tongue in cheek perhaps. The ramifications of different types of queues can be life or death, or trifling. My point was that there seems to be a general abhorrence to ‘queue jumping’ yet most people do it all the time to much lesser extents. So it then is not ‘queue jumping’ but something else that is the issue, because queue jumping is apparently not that bad - by demonstration. Just highlighting some hypocracy on the periphery of the arguments.

MarK says:

07:17pm | 06/07/10

Hey I might not want them coming by stealth and i might want them held offshore for processing but I am not cruel and harsh.

Goddam…......sending them there is just not an option. They are still people. I guess we could send the Irish there but.

MarK says:

12:03am | 07/07/10

Thank you for taking the time to read the OP and then the 120 odd comments.

I would have probably given up earlier if it didn’t interest me or at least added the more important points that need discussing.

I hope to see in future threads with the same go getter attitude and attention to detail and argument that has characterised this gem of a post.

Your input is valued. Bestest wishes ever.

James1 says:

11:28am | 07/07/10

In order for a neoliberal economy to function perfectly, there must be mobility of labour.  This line of thought goes right back to Adam Smith, and I think you should give Costello credit for living up to his ideals.