When sorry seems to be the hardest word

Tedd says:

01:26pm | 16/02/11

Yeah, but Scotty has missed the fact the govt fostered their immigration onto the mainland for the funerals.  Makes the govt as bad as the people smugglers, eh? /sarcasm

mRabbitt would have got on the plane-phone and turned the plane back, eh? (or got Scotty to beam them back) /sarcasm2

sofia majewski says:

01:28pm | 16/02/11

Maybe he shoiuld have grasped some facts first.  How could the relatives who live in Sydney travel to Christlmas Island for the funerals?
And, how could they have afforded further visits to visit and tend the graves? Was Christmas Island the most appropriate place for the burials”?  Scott Morrison must know it wasn’t.
Re his use of the phrase .....“they could pay for their travel like any other Australian”  Scott Morrison, are you for real?  Is a person who arrives in desperation, seeking asylum and having lost his wife and child as he watched on in horror, categorised as “any other Australian?”  Get real, Scott Morrison!  Broaden your understanding of humanity. Lose your hatred of Labor.  Take off your Anti-Labor blinkers and recognise humanity.

glenm says:

02:03pm | 16/02/11

Sofia , why can the relatives travel to christmas island for the funerals,?. I wont get a free trip to perth when a family member dies. Why are asylum seekers given preferential treatment?

Seanr says:

02:11pm | 16/02/11

I agree with AdamC’s points.

So Sofia why should the Australian taxpayer fund these funerals? I’m sure many people can’t afford to fly to relative’s funerals or visit their graves, will you pay for them as well?

Sue says:

02:15pm | 16/02/11

Seeking asylum means escaping political upheaval or human injustice and fleeing to the nearest safe Country.  Illegal economic migrants who actively choose to flee through 3 or 4 other countries to arrive in Australia and suffer a tragedy should not have privileges over and above what ordinary tax paying Australians are entitled to!!!!

Tedd says:

02:54pm | 16/02/11

glenm,

preferential treatment??

They have the c*&% bombed out of their countries by a group of countries including Ours; are interred on an isolated island, probably have no money; have no income; have not been able to bury the bodies quickly as is their custom, and you want a compensatory trip to Perth?

Did you get Sofia’s point about visiting and tending the graves [in future]?

It’s not about you, pal!

Neil says:

03:01pm | 16/02/11

Perhaps the point might be that their bodies should have been repatriated to their country of origin, after all that is where their relatives are and would tend the graves etc.

Bobster says:

03:15pm | 16/02/11

Sue, your exclamation points have convinced me.

I now believe you should never help anyone unless they have followed the proper bureaucratic channels.

Den says:

12:30am | 17/02/11

The labor government paid for the travel and funerals for these illegal people are they going to pay for the Australian people who have died in bush fires ,cyclones ,floods,I didn’t see the labor government offering to pay for funerals of these Australians ,these illegal people knew the risk traveling here illegally and they passed so many countries to get here why because our government is weak we have to start sending them back the UN should be doing its job and finding countries willing to take them SHAME ON THE UN

acotrel says:

04:36am | 17/02/11

Scott Morrison shouldn’t use big words, if he doesn’t know their meaning. ‘COMPASSION” is not well understood by conservatives.  In fact ‘compassionate conservative’ is an oxymoron!  Scotty, what does EMPATHY mean to you?

acotrel says:

04:41am | 17/02/11

AdamC, I recently paid for 3 kids from my wife’s previous marriage, to fly from Melbourne to Perth because their father was dying from liver cancer there.  I don’t whinge about the money I spent on that!  Scott Morrison has demostrated a very ugly side of the conservatives!

Bobster says:

12:16pm | 16/02/11

They are. Up to $5000 is routinely offered to grieving families as part of disaster relief funding.

PD says:

12:46pm | 16/02/11

The government is quite generous to ex-servicemen & women, on the whole.

TheRealDave says:

01:32pm | 16/02/11

@PD….except to the thousands of veterans they spend tens of millions of dollars per year to top legal firms around the country to DENY them rightful compensation claims arising from their service to this country in both peacetime and times of war. Many servicemen have been fighting all flavours of Australian governments since the end of WW2 and still have not received recognition and or entitlements/compensation they actual deserve. Off the top of my head i can think of broad categories like Maralinga atomic test personnel, Voyager/Melbourne survivors, Agent Orange sufferers etc And that’s not even touching on the more apparent PTSD sufferers and TPI pensioners now being hidden aroudn the country in Nursing Homes.

Hell…it was only recently that Keith Payne was forced to prove he was a real Vietnam veteran to obtain benefits….Keith Payne for chrissakes. As much as I am not a fan of the man, he was awarded a Victoria Cross and is probably, outside of Normie Rowe, the most famous still living Vietnam Veteran.

Ashamed to be an Australian says:

04:57pm | 17/02/11

Den,
Are you so lacking in neurons that you simply parrot the terminology trotted out by equally ignorant, fear-mongering MP’s?  Asylum seekers are NOT illegal. 

Article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states ‘Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.’

Australia accepts shamefully few asylum seekers compared to many other countries who can ill afford to, yet you would have the UN direct them elsewhere.  Does a heart beat in your chest, or do you run on bile?

With a bit of research you may just be able to formulate an informed and orginal thought, but as demonstrating compassion requires a conscience, there’s little hope for you in this regard.

B4Bear says:

01:04pm | 16/02/11

Why is he the news item here?

Because he was unable to keep his loud mouth shut. He wanted to get his words into the community, and to show the One Nation supporters that the Opposition agrees with their stance, he can deal with the consequences.

The proper place should have been in the Senate Estimates hearings. Not in the tabloid press.

fairsfair says:

01:39pm | 16/02/11

Your middle paragraph aside, fair point. But I can’t see Tory writing a story on the outcome of the senate estimates hearings and people being interested. This is clearly how the game is played these days (not that I agree with it). All that aside, we still haven’t heard a peep in response to his actual questions.

Skip says:

02:41pm | 16/02/11

i am over all this BS about Ilegal Immigrants as as sorry as I am for them they should not have got on the boat in the first place as they are IILEGAL IMIGRANTS and expect to be treated like Australian Citizens and they are not!!!! Australians are not Australian anymore you need to come from another country to get any true benefits!!!!  I have worked hard all my life for what!!!!

Hayley Anderson says:

03:01pm | 16/02/11

Skip I take it you don’t know the refugee laws of your OWN country.  It’s NOT illegal to hop onto a boat and come to Australia, pull your skirt up your ignorance is showing. Take some time to google boat people and the laws before you come in here sprouting Illegal immigrants and do you realise that more people FLY into Australia and claim asylum than those who come by boat?  And that we have more visa overstayers than refugees? 50,000 visa overstayers a year in Australia.

shane says:

03:14pm | 16/02/11

@Skip. Wrong. They’re not illegal. They’re asylum seekers. Refugees.

fairsfair says:

03:46pm | 16/02/11

Hayley would we pay for their funerals if they died on our shores? That is the issue, not this usual PC word police crap that is simply used to cloud the issue at hand. It is not pertinent to the argument.

If I overstayed my UK work visa and I died in a car accident driving back into England after my weekend jaunt to Paris - what would happen? If I don’t have insurance and my family in Australia could not afford my funeral would the English or the Australian government pay? Would the English government track down my broke Aunt in Manchester pay for my body to be flown there, my funeral and some other English relatives to attend my burial? I don’t think it would happen.

That is the question. Why the special treatment? The only reason I can come up with is because it is newsworthy and a PR stunt aimed at pacifying the advocate groups and further demonising the opposition.

Mouse says:

03:55pm | 16/02/11

Immigration laws :
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programmes.  Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 x the daily minimum wage.   
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… Options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our prime minister or his policies. These will lead to imprisonment and deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
Too strict?......  The above laws are the current immigration laws of the Muslim countries!
Comments anyone?

persephone says:

04:30pm | 16/02/11

Mouse

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools - er, there are? Where?

Oh yes, in aboriginal communities, where they are taught real Australian languages.

2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language. - They are.

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.- It is. However, this will make dealing with the Chinese, Indians, French and Germans a little difficult for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long - they are here. - They don’t. I know Italians who have been in the country for fifty years and can’t vote.

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office - they can’t.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programmes.  Any burden will be deported. - they aren’t. You need to be an Australian citizen to get these benefits.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 x the daily minimum wage.  - and the thinking behind this is? Does it apply to Australians investing overseas as well?

8. If foreigners come here and buy land… Options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country. - Rupert Murdoch will be shattered.

9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our prime minister or his policies. These will lead to imprisonment and deportation. - ‘his’ policies. What a give away. How about you start leading by example, and not bad mouth our PM or her policies?

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you. - that happens at present. Asylum seekers are not illegal entrants according to international law.

Mouse says:

08:18pm | 16/02/11

Persephone, if you read it correctly, it says that these are the immigration laws in Muslim countries. At no time do I state that they are the laws here.  A few points to answer your answers :
2. the ballots are ONLY in that country’s language
4/5. you are only considered a resident/citizen if you are born there.
6. the people who come here by boat are NOT Australian citizens and they get welfare, food stamps, health care and other government assistance programmes. Few are deported.
8. oh, poor Rupert.
9. this is how they are written. If Gillard wants to go there and be PM, good luck to her, I am sure they will change it. I’m not sure whether they would appreciate her taking Tim though. Muslims are a bit funny about “living in sin”!
10. it does not happen here and assets or whatever they bring are never taken.  People entering Australia without visas are, by international law, illegal and are subject to mandatory detention.

Not once did I give an opinion on these laws, state my feelings about them or slag Gillard. “What a give away. How about you start leading by example, and not bad mouth our PM or her policies?”
I am disappointed in you persephone, your comments are usually intelligent.  What did I give away? Lead by example? Bad mouth Gillard? Her policies? She did not write our Immigration Laws and had no input into their construction. Geez, you are starting to sound like nossy!!

persephone says:

08:45pm | 16/02/11

Mouse

I googled your whole entry.

They’re the immigration laws of MEXICO.

See:

http://geckofeeder.blogspot.com/2008/07/immigration-laws-1.html

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=5222

89% of Mexicans identify themselves as Catholics, not Muslims.

Gregg says:

12:55am | 17/02/11

@B4Bear,
And you know why Scott Morrison needs to open his mouth?
Because this cheating, lyomg commiving government would rather not the total truth be told about anything to do with their stuff ups and what it is costing all of us as far as an overall standard of living goes.
For example - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/asylum-seekers-25m-hotel-bill/story-e6freuzr-1226005955902

Gregg says:

01:05am | 17/02/11

@ Hayley,
And yes, those arriving by plane have to put their case and most are rejected.
People smuggling is an illegal activity and partaking of it voluntarily by paying a fee makes the users just as criminal, a bit like driving a car you know is stolen
Immigration do apprehension of overstayers based on Untelligence they receive in order to track them down.
People using people smugglers are as close to being a refugee as an elephant is to a Hippo.
If they are a refugee why do they not use the UNHCR process rather than queue jump and then we would not have all the problems that are growing daily with Australian lives being put at risk.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/asylum-seekers-25m-hotel-bill/story-e6freuzr-1226005955902
And then these parasites are being awarded compensation
http://www.news.com.au/national/compensation-bill-for-asylum-seekers-rising/story-e6frfkvr-1225926099583
This bullshit needs to be halted.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:16pm | 16/02/11

Bob

why wouldn’t you repatriate the bodies if you really wanted to do something ?

Bobster says:

12:30pm | 16/02/11

Because, mate, when you show up on a people smuggling vessel you tend to come from a lower socio-economic bracket.

But grab me a quote on repatriation from Christmas Island to Sydney and I’ll comment on affordability.

Hopefully, that will be part of Mr Abbott’s push to uncover the costs involved - that is if he still plans to go ahead with that one.

I’m with you on the soldiers. But this shouldn’t be an us and them argument. Past failures to not justify new ones.

We are a compassionate country and for all of my criticisms of them, I am proud of our government for footing the bill this time.

BM says:

12:31pm | 16/02/11

So when a relative of mine who lives in Perth passes the Australian tax payer is going to foot the bill for me to fly over for the funeral??? I think not. Why should this be any different. People made choices and those choices had consequences. Unfortunate, yet still it was a choice they made and thus consequences they must live with. Harsh perhaps. But fact none the less. I’m with Scott on this one.

AdamC says:

12:33pm | 16/02/11

“Tory, you’ve just filled me dread. I’m about the spend the rest of the day bitterly disappointed about what has become of that good old Australian fair go. “

What pompous nonsense. Maybe next time asylum seekers need a flight somewhere you can offer to pay for it yourself, given your abiding interest in that fair go.

Bobster says:

12:45pm | 16/02/11

Pompous nonsense? Since when is compassion pompous or nonsensical?

If you’re so worried about the bill to tax payers, give Wayne Swan a call and offer to pay for it yourself.

How patriotic would that be? Footing the bill yourself in the face of a wasteful government.

No one will question your nationalist credentials after that.

loxy says:

12:54pm | 16/02/11

Bobster, the Australian Government never has and most likely never will pay for the costs of Australian citizens to attend a relative’s funeral so it’s beyond me that you think it so reasonable to pay for foreigners. No one is questioning that what happened was an absolute tragedy but to treat foreigners better than our own people is just plain madness, especially when they are burdening us with another tax to look after our own people!

SM says:

12:55pm | 16/02/11

“I cannot see how anyone can argue that families (with no money) should not be helped to make it to the funerals of their loved ones.”

will the government now be paying the costs of anyone who’s broke to attend a relative’s funeral in another state?

AdamC says:

01:35pm | 16/02/11

Bobster, extravagent claims of compassion without any cost to onesself have always been regarded as pompous and nonsensical.

And, incidentally, I don’t really have a problem with the government paying for these asylum seekers to attend the funeral. Does that mean I can do the conspicuous compassion stuff too?

Bobster says:

01:43pm | 16/02/11

Disaster victims. Don’t play semantics.

Mattb says:

01:52pm | 16/02/11

@SM
Umm yes, im pretty sure they do this already, the government pays compassionate payments to the unemployed through centerlink to help cover the cost of flying interstate to attend the funeral of a relative. See my post in reply to Peter below

Bobster says:

02:05pm | 16/02/11

I didn’t realise we had to write cheques to hold opinions. You lot must be loaded.

Andrew Bolt is in for one hell of a tax bill.

And anyway, the Feds never asked me for a contribution - I may have made one. It’s a worthy cause.

Criminals are given transport to their loved ones funerals. Maybe we should hit them up for cabfare?

But hey, I pay tax. Aren’t I allowed to say I support the way that money was spent in this instance?

Or are you only allowed to speak about tax dollars when you’re complaining they’re being wasted?

raymond says:

03:10pm | 16/02/11

Yes the disheartening thing is that Morrison’s views will be very popular, even amongst people on this blog it seems.  There is something more important here than $K300.

ILR says:

03:30pm | 16/02/11

“Since when is compassion pompous or nonsensical?”

When you spout compassion when you know it won’t cost you a cent.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

04:55pm | 16/02/11

Howard kept one man on Manus Island for almost a year and spent $7 million to do it, they kept two men on Nauru for 2 years at a cost of $12 million per year, Nauru cost $1.5 billion and yet they whine about paying the flight for corpses and families who have been forced to wait for 2 months.

There are two women buried on Christmas Island, the husband of one lost his 20 year old pregnant wife in a disaster in November 2001 when Howard was playing the race card, he was incarcerated on the island for a year, then sent to Nauru for 3 more.  He cannot visit his wifes grave on Christmas Island now he is a citizen because the DIC’s use al the seats in every plane.

The other person was a grand mother whose son, daughter in law and 4 grand children spent 4 years on Nauru and are now citizens.

They cannot afford to visit Christmas island.

Another man whose wife died of a massive stroke due to medical negligence was deported in her coffin at the cost of $250,000 while her husband and three little kids had to sit in a Dubai airport for 24 hours while the coffin baked in the sun.

They have been in danger since we sent them home to Afghanistan after refusing to even let them make a claim for asylum, this is a complete breach of humanity.

So will you miserable arseholes just shut up.

And of course the relatives of those who died on SIEVX never got to say goodbye because no-one bothered to find the bloody bodies.

We are talking about human beings, not ping pong balls for you bastards to play sick games with.

Rob r Chaerteris says:

05:28pm | 16/02/11

Marilyn Shepherd says:04:55pm; That’s the reality but the snivelling dribbling lib’s would never admit to it, along with the buget blow outs of nearly every policy rAbbott created in the Howard government.

Rob says:

06:34pm | 16/02/11

To Tedd,persephone,Bobster and the rest the bleeding hearts out there.How about a reality show where we bring all the ‘‘asylum seekers’’ to the mainland and catch up with them every 5 years to see how they are getting on.No need I’ve seen the show .First 5 years wife has 3 kids under 5.Hubby dosn’t work ,dosn’t need to thanks to generous government.After 10 years same as first 5 only difference seven kids under ten.The station tried to get Kayser Tradd for the lead but he was too busy.

Ben81 says:

07:22pm | 16/02/11

Yes Marilyn, under the Pacific Solution it ended up costing a lot more per person to keep those few we actually had in detention.

It now costs less per person to keep the 6000 and climbing we have locked up as we speak.

How is this in any way a good thing?  I don’t know why i’m even bothering to ask, since you always seem more concerned with attacking John Howard than caring about the facts.

Joan says:

12:59pm | 16/02/11

Gillard and Labor should resign…... they put out the invitation and encouraged people, and smugglers…. had Labor kept Nauru in place these people would probably still be alive - where ever they came from… safer than accepting Gillards welcome invitation

Christian Real says:

01:24pm | 16/02/11

Yes Morrison should resign, and take Tony Abbott with him

Rob r Charteris says:

03:55pm | 16/02/11

Joan says:12:59pm; there you go again Joan, waving that red flag again. Got ya songbook handy?

Joan says:

04:46pm | 16/02/11

Rob ..... The Hammer and Sickle belongs to Gillard ... the Socialist Forum Hammer and Sickly waving gal
Gillard trained… by ex Communist Party Members.

Rob r Charteris says:

05:21pm | 16/02/11

Joan says:04:46pm; It also suits you to a t. But I guess you didn’t hear for Gillard it was a teenager thing where one is finding his/her place in life. For you the difference is you never grew out of it.

Joan says:

06:05pm | 16/02/11

Rob….... I laugh hard at your twot.. the real .Gillard has just grown into a hardened Commie….. real Gillard the classic commie with her overnight backstabbing removal of Rudd… a classic Commie takeover tactic

Rob r Charteris says:

07:44pm | 16/02/11

Joan says:06:05pm; you laugh at my “twot” wtf is that? I have dangly bits sweatheart.

Christian Real says:

07:38am | 17/02/11

Joan,
It might interest you to know that aspects of WorkChoices and Anti - terrorism laws were akin to laws from ‘Hitler’s enabling Act, of March 23rd,1933.
I believe that Malcolm Fraser resigned from the Liberal Party because it was leaning to far to the right
In a story ( Nazi tones in Howard’s anti-terror laws: Fraser )  in ‘The Canberra Times”, Wednesday, 2 November,2005 Malcolm Fraser even wrote that “parts of the Howard Government’s anti-terror package resemble measures taken by Adolf Hitler.”
So Joan, by your logics, calling Labor (communist) and claiming that ‘the hammer and Sickle belongs to Gillard”, does that mean that the Liberal party are Nazi’s or Neo-Nazi’s and that the swastika belongs to Abbott and the Liberal party(after all Abbott and most of the current Liberal Opposition bench approved of Howard’s WorkChoices and Anti-Terrorism laws.

Bryndal says:

12:26pm | 16/02/11

I feel sorry for you Erick…....... well not really!

Warren says:

12:49pm | 16/02/11

And this from Erick who recently posted “I’m not racist”.

Bobster says:

12:55pm | 16/02/11

When folk like you apologise for being racists and xenophobes.

Lola says:

01:08pm | 16/02/11

Ah well, the legacy of a colonial country lives on. Once were the colonisers are now the colonised. Karma hurts doesn’t it.

Listen, no one is advocating for people to get in boats. But tell me this, if you are not speaking from a racist or xenophobic bias what would your HONEST opinion be if the boat was full of white South Africans fleeing from violence, blood shed and racism against whites back in South Africa? Would you open your borders to them?

Christian Real says:

01:22pm | 16/02/11

Erick
Did the English say sorry for invading and taking over this Country, My Aboriginal Ancestors Country?
And look at the Un-Australian,uncaring and inhumane people like you that we have now got to put up with.

shane says:

01:24pm | 16/02/11

Must be an interesting world you live in Erick.

Tell me, have you bought your copy of “Catcher in the Rye today”?

eddie says:

01:38pm | 16/02/11

The opinionists will probably stop painting Australians as racisct xenophobes ( and mysogenists) when people like you - Eric / Erick stop clearly demonstrating that you are racist xenophobic mysogenists.
there are plenty like you on this site Erick/Eric but you do stand out as a particularly bitter and twisted version. What made you so nasty and intolerant, old man? Why is there so much hate in you?

Josh says:

02:55pm | 16/02/11

Oh Lola,
“What would your HONEST opinion be if the boat was full of white South Africans fleeing from violence, blood shed and racism against whites back in South Africa? Would you open your borders to them? “

Too late, we already did, it’s called St. Ives 2076 and Cranbourne 3977.

Jim says:

02:58pm | 16/02/11

“Racist”...the catch cry of the uneducated. It’s unfortunate that rpeople now refuse to debate a subject but just reach for the “racism” call.

I wonder how many of you have lived in countries where illegal immigration has become a massive problem. I’ve lived in 3 coutries where it is and I can tell you it’s not racist to want to protect your way of life. It’s also not racist to associate people of certain ethnic groups with certain activities if it is true. I think it is unfortunate that the media has declared it fashionable to stick your head in the sand and call everyone with concerns “racists”. I can assure you we (Australians as a whole)are not half as racist as some of the people who are attempting to illegallly migrate here. If they were all such great people, they wouldn’t have all this trouble in their own backyards.

And unfortunately multiculturalism is a failure. A diverse population can work, but not multiculturalism…we just haven’t evolved enough yet.

Bobster says:

03:18pm | 16/02/11

So it’s OK for you to live in other countries, Jim, but it requires a national outcry when someone wants to come to your country?

Are you even from here? Do you pay tax? Go back to where you came from. I’m sick of economic asylum seekers.

Jim says:

03:56pm | 16/02/11

Bobster - you prove my point. You didn’t read / understand my argument and you resort to childish comments due to your inability to formulate a sensible response. So tell me…what did you decide in the end?? Is Australia “my country” or am I an “economic refugee”?? You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind. To top it all off you tell me to “go back to where i came from” after you previously have accused Erick of being racist. As I said, the call of racism is the call of the uneducated. You have proven my point nicely. If you had actually read the repsonse properly you would see where I am from.

For the record, I have no problem with legal immigration, I never said that I did. My problem is with illegal immigrants that do not want to integrate into the host country culture. When I lived overseas I did everything possible to integrate. I experienced racism directed at me but it was my choice to be there so I brushed it off. Fact of the matter is that racism exists everywhere, its natural, thats why different species of animals rarely integrate. Humans haven’t yet evolved enough to co-exist peacefully. You haven’t even evolved enough to be able to read properly and you consider yourself some kind of expert on these matters.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

04:57pm | 16/02/11

Erick, it was Bob Menzies who wrote the open border policy.  As he should have after turning away Jewish refugees.

Bobster says:

05:59pm | 16/02/11

Jimminy cricket, in the immortal words of Tony Abbott, you got the response you deserve.

Gregg says:

01:31am | 17/02/11

@Lola
Not that it is too likely for most white SAs are happy nough to stand and fight.
We do however have plenty using normal immigration means and other than that I would be happy for them to use the UNHCR process.
Alternately they could take their chances and fly in and see how they would fare with applying for asylum.
If a whole heap got aboard a boat, there’s every chance they would either own or charter it and not be doing it via people smugglers but same deal and I’d rather they be using the UNHCR process, just as I would prefer those arriving by air to do.

Do you think there could be a difference in how white SAs would assimilate and contribute to our society and do you think that most would have different skill sets?

John says:

12:34pm | 16/02/11

What’s with the latest polling nossy?

nosthow says:

01:52pm | 16/02/11

@John - Tones lags 10 percentage points below Julia as preferred PM Johnny - with 2 and a half years to go till an election !  hahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

John says:

02:36pm | 16/02/11

Hmmm yes… but then the people don’t elect the PM, do they?

What’s with the party polling?  I’d hardly say “the Labor Party has nothing to worry about”.  Quite the contrary I’d say.  They should be very worried about polling.  And they will be worrying, just ask Kevin Rudd.

John says:

02:36pm | 16/02/11

Hmmm yes… but then the people don’t elect the PM, do they?

What’s with the party polling?  I’d hardly say “the Labor Party has nothing to worry about”.  Quite the contrary I’d say.  They should be very worried about polling.  And they will be worrying, just ask Kevin Rudd.

Kelvin says:

02:53pm | 16/02/11

Apart for their complete incompetence at every level to run any sort of government.

They can’t leave their lying, duplicitous, spin, spin spin ways behind them and do what most practical thinkers in this country would say is appropriate on almost everything that they touch.

With support of nearly a third of the country - now that’s a foundation to build on. Gillard would think it’s all blue sky from here - but wait, look at Keneally’s numbers and yes labor can go lower and they will.

RGG says:

12:45pm | 16/02/11

“Other countries don’t do it so we shouldn’t either”

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Compassion and love should outweigh all other considerations. We are a rich nation and can spare this money.

Vicki says:

12:51pm | 16/02/11

I think there’s a difference between the two that you’re deliberately ignoring - the people who died on the boat probably came from an impoverished background from a third or even fourth world country. Australia is a first world country. I don’t think they would have been on a boat if they had any money, because lets face it, its much easier to come on a plane and disappear once you reach Australia or overstay your visa. Hundreds of people do it everyday, they’re the real queue jumpers not a bunch of kids, women and men on a boat.

Remember that it’s not illegal to seek asylum in Australia, and let’s have some compassion instead of bitching and moaning about what was probably not a lot of money in the scheme of things.

Mick In The Hills says:

01:31pm | 16/02/11

Curse you Ironside, you have introduced maturity, objectivity and rationality into this discussion.

How are we expected to mount counter-points in the same vein now that you have broken the ‘vibe’?

Guess we’ll just have to keep on railing against “heartless monsters” , since we haven’t got any rational arguments to counter you with

Ironside says:

02:09pm | 16/02/11

@ RRG I wasn’t comparing Australia to other countries I was comparing the Australian governments response to the plight of its citizens to the Australian governments response to the plight of non citizens and saying that I didn’t like the implied double standard.

@ Vicki, no its not illegal to seek asylum in Australia however it is illegal to enter the country without a valid visa. It is illegal to pay criminals to circumvent Australian government processes. The difference between a visa over stayer and boat arrival is the timing of the crime. Visa over stayers have not committed an offence until they breach the conditions of their visa. Boat arrivals never had a visa in the first place. And by what measure do you claim that all these asylum seekers are impoverished. Many can pay 10’s of thousands of dollars across the various stages of their passage. I certainly couldn’t afford that no matter what my circumstances were.

As for the comment that its not a lot of money? That’s not really the point is it? If I defrauded the tax office for 10 thousand dollars it wouldn’t be a lot of money in the grand scheme of things but it would still be wrong. Just like it is wrong for the government to spend taxpayers money on this particular service to non Australian Citizens while not offering it to Australian Citizens. Please note its not the expense that bothers me, it’s the double standard, why should the grief of a non citizen family be worth government largess but a citizen family gets nothing in similar circumstances.

David C says:

03:19pm | 16/02/11

Vicki if they dont have any money how did they pay for the boat trip?

Troy says:

03:46pm | 16/02/11

@Ironside - “If I defrauded the tax office for 10 thousand dollars it wouldn’t be a lot of money in the grand scheme of things but it would still be wrong. Just like it is wrong for the government to spend taxpayers money on this particular service to non Australian Citizens while not offering it to Australian Citizens.”

Er, no.  It was not a crime to pay for the flights.  So it is not “wrong” in any sense of the way you describe it.  It is only “wrong” because you disagree with it.  Big difference.  To the rest of us, $300k is an insignificant and appropriate sum to spend as an act of compassion for the families involved.  You don’t agree, but I can equally say you’re “wrong”.

michelle says:

07:36pm | 16/02/11

There are no double standards - the government has paid for people to be flown home in tragic circumstances and disasters- Bali 2001 they evacuated injured and the dead and they also had charter flights for those just wanting to get out, the Tsunami in south east asia 2004-same thing, Lebanon 2006 and just 2 weeks ago Egypt when Australians were evacuated.  They gave $5000 to people for funeral costs for loved ones killed in the 2009 victorian bushfires and just more recently the floods in Qld. This incident in xmas island is no different to those tragedies.

Kika says:

01:10pm | 16/02/11

Why were they flown to Sydney when the boat crashed in WA?

Tim says:

01:31pm | 16/02/11

KIKA,
because they had relatives in Sydney and they wanted the bodies transferred to be buried there.

Nafe says:

02:26pm | 16/02/11

Well Tim, if that was the case, the families should have paid for it.

Warren says:

12:53pm | 16/02/11

Wrong Andrew. Seeking asylum is not illegal nor a criminal act. These people have not been convicted of a crime. Some simple fact checking on your behalf would confirm that, but I’m guessing you can’t be bothered to find out for yourself.

bobw says:

01:17pm | 16/02/11

@Andrew:  What is the statutory basis for your claim that “these people” have committed a “criminal act”?

Tony of Poorakistan says:

01:27pm | 16/02/11

Warren

you are WRONG.

These people never claimed asylum. How could they? They were dead.

They were, in fact, illegal entrants who died in the process of making an illegal landing.

Mick In The Hills says:

01:43pm | 16/02/11

Warren and bobw blatently ignore Andrew’s main point - we don’t fly relatives of overseas visitors here for funerals or to retrieve remains.

Nor repatriate Australian citizens who die overseas or at sea.

So why are we making a special case this time?

Answer: because labor are slaves to ‘holier than thou’ public opinion as are the media.  never mind basic soundpublic policy

bobw says:

02:13pm | 16/02/11

@Mick:  Why would I put any stock in someone’s “main point” when their central line of argument is factually misconceived?

Richard says:

02:14pm | 16/02/11

Entering Australian territory without a valid visa IS a crime, Warren, and why the hell shouldn’t it be?

Richard says:

02:14pm | 16/02/11

Entering Australian territory without a valid visa IS a crime, Warren, and why the hell shouldn’t it be?

Bobster says:

03:11pm | 16/02/11

Wow, Tony.

You’ve just set the bar for semantic bullshit with that one.

Burko says:

03:13pm | 16/02/11

Warren you are correct, seeking aslyum isnt illegal, but what about the way you seek asylum…....I dont pretend to know too much about international law but it seems that the orchestrators of “people smuggling” can be charged with just that, so wouldnt it stand to reason that anyone who paid to carry out the act of people smuggling should be charge with the same or something similar?
In now way am I trying to detract from the tragedy that these people have suffered but this is a question that has yet to be answered. It could be that paid arrival via boat is indeed illegal. If someone could please clear this up….......

bobw says:

03:27pm | 16/02/11

Statutory reference please, Richard.

Warren says:

04:20pm | 16/02/11

Tony of Poorakistan. Point me to the legislation that says as much. I dare you.

Richard says:

04:28pm | 16/02/11

I don’t want to speak legalese with you bobw. If its not a crime to enter Australian territory without a valid visa, why the hell not? Do we or do we not have the right to decide who comes to our country and the circumstances in which they come? If not, why not?

bobw says:

04:47pm | 16/02/11

Richard, if you don’t want to “speak legalese”, then I suggest you refrain from making bogus claims about the criminal law.

Richard says:

06:37pm | 16/02/11

Well bobw, I may not be a lawyer, but I can tell you that as far as I know it IS illegal to enter this country without a valid visa. If you can prove that it is not illegal, well then I would want to know why? We are a sovereign nation, we have the right to maintain the integrity of our borders!

michelle says:

07:58pm | 16/02/11

Here is the correct legal analysis taken from the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees. This is a UN convention (ie international) and Australia signed and agreed to this with no amendmnet in 1954 if they say they are a refugee until proven otherwise they are internationally recognised as ;egal immigrants

The Refugee Convention is designed not only to define who is a refugee, but also to protect refugees against forcible return, explain what rights and obligations they should be entitled to in their country of asylum, and set up a system that ensures that they have access to durable solutions; voluntary repatriation, resettlement or local integration.

The provisions of the Refugee Convention stipulate that no penalties will be imposed on refugees for their illegal entry or presence if they come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is under threat. This is provided that they present themselves without delay to the authorities and have a good reason for their illegal entry.

Moreover, the Convention states that refugees lawfully staying in Australia should be issued with travel documents for travel outside Australia unless there are compelling reasons of national security or public order for not doing so.

Mouse says:

09:28pm | 16/02/11

bobw, Warren, a couple of references to your “show me where it is” requests.
http://www.en,wikipedia.org/wiki/illegal_entry  : this will explain what “illegal” means. If you are illegal, you are breaking the law.  This doesn’t apply just to Australia, but internationally. Also look up Mandatory Detention in Australia in wikipedia. It’s a fact, check it out.  Tony & Richard you are so right on this one!
Burko, paying these people smugglers isn’t illegal, coming without a visa/identification is. These trips are not cheap either and children aren’t half price. They travel to other countries, some muslim ones too, before they reach our shores and somehow lose all their documents by the time they get here. What they are doing is illegal by Australian law, it doesn’t matter what their reason or whatever way you want to paint it, it is still an illegal act. Hope I have helped!

bobw says:

10:22am | 17/02/11

@Mouse:  You are mistaken, and Wikipedia is not a source of Australian law.  Point me to the legislative provision under which “these people” could be charged with a “criminal act”.

@Richard:  Why should I prove a negative when you have asserted, and declined to substantiate, a positive?

PTom says:

02:07pm | 16/02/11

Matt,
These may sound heartless here somethings to think on.
* Why do we need bring back Australian that have died overseas, could they not be buried overthere. If travelling you should have travel insurance.
* Australian should have life insurance to cover there own funeral.
* All Australian have a income source and have access to finance source to help attend family funerals in Australia.
The difference is these people are detainees, no income, no insurance and held in a remote location in Australia by our government.

Matt says:

02:52pm | 16/02/11

PTom, are you suggesting that the asylum seekers should have had travel/life insurance?

Nigel says:

01:03pm | 16/02/11

I don’t think he mentioned those things and it’s probably because they’re irrelevant. 

Australia is obligated to fund search and rescue (and that implies victim recovery) within its waters so I doubt that Scott has an issue withy that expense aside from the obvious fact that the boat was there illegally in the first place.

He should stick to his guns and I do agree with you - he is on a winner.

YouGoNigel! says:

01:54pm | 16/02/11

Wow Nigel, good response to sarcasm.  You are of course correct - nothing should be done to help anyone, no matter how desperate and mind-numbingly tragic their predicament, unless there is a legal requirement to do so. 

I expect that you are equally aghast at the so called “charitable acts” performed by (government supported and tax-exempt) institutions including those wasteful religious types.  I also expect Morrison, a professed strongly religious man, will quit his church in protest of its not-required-by-law acts of charity.

And remember, next time you see a child fall into a pool, you should consult a lawyer to determine your legal requirements regarding rescue before jumping in and saving them.

michelle says:

07:48pm | 16/02/11

nigel I think whilst we are talking on what Australia is obligated to do- you may also find we are a signee of the UN Refugee convention and the Protocol relating to refugees which also creates obligations for this country.I don’t believe the enforcers of these agreements would think Australia had met it’s obligations if we went with abbotts proposal of “towing refugee boats back to sea” . So given the liberal party intends to ignore it’s obligations to 2 international treaties (which by the way previous liberal governments signed) then it probably would be fair to expect Morrison to suggest we wasted money fishing the refugees involved out of the water.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

01:05pm | 16/02/11

You won’t get an answer out of her - like all bleeding-heart, snivel-libertarian, tree-hugging, pro-illegal immigration lefties ... they pick and choose when it suits them. It is OK for a bunch of Muslim foreigners, but not for Aussies.

fairsfair says:

01:12pm | 16/02/11

Perfect comparison because they are recent events that suggest a similar level of grief and extenuiating circumstance. The answer to that question is no. You get the same disaster payment from Centrelink if your child died as you do if you lost power for 48 hours.

Morrison’s questions sought to work out the why that related to that no. Instead of demanding an answer with him our media find a way to force Morrison say sorry. WTF?

Oh and I’d still like these questions to be asked of the govt piped up and said that they would be paying for the funerals and family travel of the flood victims. The old addage there are two things certain in life, death and taxes - where was I when the bit about those taxes pay for over and above the death bit happened?

MrMac says:

01:20pm | 16/02/11

They aren’t interred in a refugee camps with no money though, are they?

Narelle says:

01:29pm | 16/02/11

Good point Peter, proves the point that it’s the Government playing politics with this issue.

Mattb says:

01:44pm | 16/02/11

@Peter ,

 I think your trying to compare apples and oranges with that one buddy. You’d have to assume that the relatives of victims in qld floods aren’t being detained in detention centres under the care of the Australian government. These detainees have no money and no possiblity of employment to earn money as they are being detained. Like it or not, it seems quite right that travel costs to sydney be supplied by their ‘carer’ or ‘detainer’. 

Who pays the costs for the criminals in Australian prisons when they have to travel to a realitives funeral Peter?. I’d put my money on the Australian taxpayer footing that bill too.

And I know from experience that centerlink have compassionate payments available to their unemployed clients who need money to travel to their relatives
funerals around Australia. I know this because when my grandfather passed away my mother received a phone call from a centerlink in Darwin asking her to verify if she knew a person who was claiming that he needed a compassionate payment so he could fly to adelaide to attend my grandfathers funeral. My mother didn’t know the bloke and told them so. He obviously trolled through the obituaries and picked out my grandfathers name to use on his compassionate payment application, nice bloke eh! 

James says:

02:59pm | 16/02/11

Mattb - your correct, these guys are “detainees” (and for a reason) who paid thousands of bucks to sneak in the back door. Not tax paying Australians. May sound cruel to you, but there has to be a limit to compassion.

Mattb says:

04:12pm | 16/02/11

@James,
I agree with you, the whole pay thousands of dollars to jump in a boat (if you could call it a boat at all by the look of some of the indonesian contraptions that are used in making the journey) often with young children and risking life and limb to get to Australia for asylum to me seems like a ridiculous decision to make. It should be discouraged. 

I go out fishing in my mates brand new boat, equiped with epirb, radio, flares and lifejackets far enough off the coast to have me still worry about what should happen if something goes wrong. How these people come to the decision to travel across an ocean in one of those rickety Indonesian ‘boats’ I’ll never understand, it’s ludicrous. They must be either extremely stupid or extremely desperate.

But, that’s not the issue here as far as I’m concerned, the issue is Scott morrison’s comments yesterday and quite rightly he’s apologized for them. 

Like I pointed out in my above post, we do it for the unemployed and less fortunate in our society and i’m pretty sure we do it for those jailed within our prison system. The asylum seekers that attended the funeral yesterday are here under detention in our country and I don’t think it is unreasonable to help them out to attend funerals when they have lost loved ones. 

And as for your comment 

“may sound cruel to you, but there has to be a limit to compassion”

WTF ???.... Why does there need to be a limit to compassion?, and if there is some magical ‘limit’ to be put on our compassion, whose going to set this limit??. 

I’m sorry if my ‘compassion limit’ is set a little higher than yours….

Nafe says:

02:38pm | 16/02/11

I would like to challange your point that “In these circumstances, especially where they are being held against their will without having committed a crime”

They are not being held against their will. They have the right to advise the Immigration department that they will return home and they would be put on the next flight. They chose to county shop and therefore chose to go through immigration detention for a better life in Australia.

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:02pm | 16/02/11

Grow up. They knew the risks when they decided to pay the people smugglers. It’s called the concept of responsibility for actions. If people didn’t pay the people smugglers then these types of deaths would not occur.

glenm says:

02:14pm | 16/02/11

I dont know about all conservatives, but as one I suggest that I contribute to quite a number of causes, financially and physically . I dont want the government to pay for me to go to someones funeral, but I do want the government to use the tax it collects from me and others sensibly. These people are desperate we get that , so are many others the lines are long, why should a limited few get trips to sydney for funrerals rather than say donating the same fundes to the childrens hospital or local ho,eless shelter.  Its called priority , Morrison has to ask the question, someone has to ask the question the are not always nice but if you had a dollar to give to someone would it be for this cause or could you think of another more worthy. How do you decide?

shane says:

02:23pm | 16/02/11

If thats the standard, then why attempt aid for anyone. Leave climbers stuck to mountain sides. Don’t bother looking for people lost in the bush. Let miners buried alive suffocate. My post was largely about compassion, not on whether boat people should be dimissed as victims of their own stupidity. 

Compassion would seem to me to be the grown up option, not whining about flying some people to a funeral.

David C says:

03:25pm | 16/02/11

hello? they managed to scrape together the thousnds of dollars to get on the boat?

Joan says:

01:47pm | 16/02/11

GJA….  people like you who live in lap of luxury ... don’t stop to consider that the poor of Australia…. are not afforded the same privileges in death by the Government as the government has given to asylum seekers.

PTom says:

02:19pm | 16/02/11

Joan,

You right whinger. Should really do web searches.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/hd001_1003/$file/hd001_1003en.pdf

Richard says:

02:35pm | 16/02/11

Too right Joan, I’m not rich, I don’t have a plasma tv, I don’t have any possessions at all, apart from my computer. Australia is not a rich nation, it is indebted to the tune of over $100 Billion. No one, no matter how poor they are, is automatically entitled to Australian citizenship. Compassion is no replacement for common sense, justice, the rule of law, prudent financial management, and equitable treatment of all.

Joan says:

03:11pm | 16/02/11

PTom .... I suggest you read the site you highlight….. Breavement payments as listed would not cover the cost of a funeral or use of air travel of relatives or in taxi fares for relatives.

GJA says:

01:31pm | 16/02/11

Last time I checked Anna - our government and people of Australia contributed hundreds of millions to flood/cyclone victims…..compassionate.
Now if I take your logic for a moment - it was these Australian’s choice to live in flood plains, and/or on the beach knowing full well the dangers of such reckless development…... See how silly it can all get?

Sandy says:

05:05pm | 17/02/11

@GJA, what glib, imperious sophistry. By your logic we should hold an appeal for these boat people and see who contributes.

It only gets silly when smart-arse elitists like you talk down to people with genuine concerns.

gavin says:

01:42pm | 16/02/11

It is very easy to say ‘that’s life’ when you’re life is filled with opportunity and relative luxury. ‘Let them eat cake,’ perhaps?

Nafe says:

02:43pm | 16/02/11

In the words of Tony Abbott, You can get on a boat, pay tens of thousands to people smugglers to get to Australia, but sometimes, S*** happens.

LauraBoBaura says:

04:09pm | 16/02/11

I love how there are so many people commenting on here that say, ‘I’m sorry people were killed, but…’ in my mind it is the same thing as saying ‘I’m not racist, but….’ it’s a copout. Have the metal to stand behind what you really mean Anna, ‘They might be terrorists, so I dont care’.

I guarantee that half the people who are ‘outraged’ right now, would be fine with it if the refugees were from say, New Zealand.

Furthermore, your comment that the government has no compassion for it’s own people, is just a lie basically.
Did you not watch the floods? The millions of dollars grants, income subsidies, recovery payments?
300k is about 1/100th of the compassion that the Government has shown it’s own people.

Andy says:

01:43pm | 16/02/11

It’s glaringly obvious the Government are playing politics, especially after the tragic deaths in QLD from the floods. No airfares for these Australian families to attend funerals.

LauraBoBaura says:

04:02pm | 16/02/11

Andy & Ian - regardless of whether the Government is ‘playing politics’ or not, they made the right call. This was the right thing to do.

TheRealDave says:

01:47pm | 16/02/11

Funnily enough, I’m anti-country shopping…since they passed the Asylum Seeking bit 2 countries ago… BUT… I have nothing but compassion and have no quibble with the government flying some relatives down for the funerals.

Its funny when you think about it, no the tragedy, but the conflux of opinions. Its great that we as a modern secular democracy can have and speak our different opinions without degenerating into violence, recriminations, payback, arrests etc that are the hallmarks of the homelands these people are fleeing from.

But I digress…..

As I said, I disagree with allowing Country Shoppers into this country by jumping the queue and being pimped out by the growing Refugee Advocacy Industry that owes its living to people like this attempting to subvert the system. But, people died here. Children died. What kind of heartless bastard wants to score political points on the deaths of children? Fly a couple of their relatives out, surviving parents, whatever…just so the poor little buggers don’t have government officials standing around as the only people there to witness their burial.

Otherwise thats just unnecessarily cruel, inhumane and un-Australian.

persephone says:

04:33pm | 16/02/11

What about the over two and half million spent by the Howard government to keep one guy (and his cat) on Manus Island?

LauraBoBaura says:

10:19am | 17/02/11

Anna C - the logic for your argument is so flawed that it defiess belief. We are not paying for them to come to Australia. We are paying for them to attend the funerals of their families, and then we are sending them back to Christmas Island.
I fail to see how ‘cutting out the middle man’ has any basis or is relevant in any way to what has gone on here.

Rev says:

03:15pm | 16/02/11

Would you care to evaluate the ability of Swannie to keep the purse-strings clinched tight?

Zeta says:

02:06pm | 16/02/11

...and apart from that, in Afghanistan, where enemy combatants are killed by our troops we take on the burden of giving them proper burials when their tribesman don’t return to collect them. I don’t see anyone complaining about that cost.

If our soldiers, who have pretty weighty concerns like not getting killed, can take time out of their day to treat the dead with respect, I don’t think it’s too big of an ask for our Federal Government to do the same for people who’ve never lifted a finger against us. Since World War 1, Australians have considered it a solemn duty to acknowledge that the dead deserve to be honoured, no matter who they are.

What pisses me off is that the people supporting Morrison’s callousness are probably the same supposed Christians he claps happily with at Hillsong. Refusing to go out of your way to make sure people get a respectful burial strikes me as the most unchristian thing anyone could possibly do.

Tim says:

02:21pm | 16/02/11

Zeta,
then why did the Funerals have to be in Sydney?
Fair enough we have a duty to them but they died at Christmas Island, and their funerals should have been at Christmas Island.

John Smythe says:

02:34pm | 16/02/11

Actually Zeta…..your argument is the only one to stand forth as to why we should.

The cries about compassion, or how poor they are is completely irrelevant.

Well said.

Zeta says:

03:06pm | 16/02/11

@ Tim - Because that’s where their families are. We let their families settle here, obviously they’d met the criteria for resettlement. Or maybe they were on bridging visas awaiting deportation. Or they’re on temprorary protection visas, f***, I don’t know. Nor does it matter.

I think it’s pretty ghoulish to say to a family that we’ve accepted as potential Australian citizens ‘no, we can do whatever we like with the corpses of your loved ones and we’re going to chip off a couple of feet of phosphate and bury them there, on the island that killed them’.

Or heres an idea - we could have kept them on ice for a couple of years while the refugee claims of the survivors were sorted and send them all back together to save money! Or maybe we could get into the buisness of holding the corpses of dead asylum seekers hostage until the families can pay up!

Tim says:

03:18pm | 16/02/11

Zeta,
that doesn’t explain why the taxpayer should pay for the bodies to be flown to Sydney. The government wouldn’t do it for anyone else so why make an exception in this case?
I realise we are not talking about a lot of money here but if the government won’t provide this service to it’s own citizens then why do it for non-citizens?

Bobster says:

03:24pm | 16/02/11

Zeta, you raise a very valid point.

I want to know how much it’s cost the poor, impoverished Australian Government to refridgerate these criminals in the weeks it’s been since the accident.

Surely that electricity bill is an unjust cost on the Australian taxpayer.

When, oh when, will the waste end?

LauraBoBaura says:

03:51pm | 16/02/11

Zeta - your comments have honestly restored my faith in humanity today. Thanks I was honestly beginning to think that I was the only one that wasn’t outraged.

the good reverend says:

02:31pm | 16/02/11

Sorry Helen but, as is often the case with r whingers you are wrong.The government does help with funeral costs in cases of natural disaster.I am glad the government spent my taxes and the taxes of a mean-spirited whinger like you on helping these unfortunates. Its called compassion and humanity, words I suspect are as alien to your vocabulary as they are to those of Abbott and Morrison.

glenm says:

02:20pm | 16/02/11

I dont think labor staffers posting under the title Liberal is very honest.
And to equate the coalition with the KKK is a low act of bastardry and I suggest should never have past moderation on this site.

Hank says:

03:00pm | 16/02/11

Not hard to get past moderation when all the journalists are Labor puppets

Tara says:

03:19pm | 16/02/11

so what your saying is because the Australian coalition would rather spend money on Australians not the rest of the world that makes them bad people.

Aitch B says:

03:30pm | 16/02/11

@Liberal with a conscience

Indeed I would get a new one….. it’s called ‘replacement value’ or ‘new for old’ insurance.

I guess you only have ‘market value’ insurance.

I’m sure Joyce isn’t the first or last MP to write off a ‘company’ car.

Bob_M says:

02:23pm | 16/02/11

For ever. You haven’t noticed? Right up there with Riley.

Richard says:

02:37pm | 16/02/11

You’re new around here hey…

JT says:

04:06pm | 16/02/11

You must be new, she is a typical leftie and always has been. She is still young so maybe she’ll grow up one day.

Warren says:

02:22pm | 16/02/11

Wise owl? Bird brain more like…

wise owl says:

06:33pm | 16/02/11

Hey Warren. How long did it take you to think that one up Genius? Facts and figures don’t suit you? Maybe your a Labor voter then? You know, one of those who takes Australia for granted and takes from Australia rather than contribute to it.

Spite says:

02:17pm | 19/02/11

Really, “wise owl”?
Before you take a pot shot at someone else’s intelligence, you might want to grasp the fundamentals of spelling and grammar. It doesn’t really elevate the political logic in your argument when you can barely communicate your point.

Zeta says:

03:22pm | 16/02/11

People who are stupid enough to build their houses in flood plain, in cyclone prone areas, or near dry, fire-prone forests should not get any support either. While we’re at it, let’s not investigate any murder that occurs in a neighbourhood with high crime - it’s their responsibility, right?

And since you’re in the Navy, we shouldn’t give veteran’s benefits to your family if you die. Afterall, you were stupid enough to get on a big boat filled with explosives and bristling with guns. It’s your responsibility if you get blown up.

RGG says:

03:25pm | 16/02/11

How is arriving by boat and saying “I require asylum” any more or less of a proper channel than arriving by plane and doing the exact same thing? Or are you seriously suggesting that these people should have stayed in the countries where they’re being persecuted for the sake of beauracracy?

Tara says:

04:03pm | 16/02/11

RGG - It isn’t the same thing. i don’t see the people that decided to go thru the proper channels getting any free accommodation. and am pretty sure that if they die the government won’t be flying their family to the funeral much less paying for it.
Zeta- all those people that have built their house in flood areas etc i don’t believe they are getting anything they are getting money from people that have donated the money the government is handing out is going to rebuilding train lines etc in which case it was their fault for putting it their to begin with so they should fix that.

and as for us getting on a boat that got blown up by these people you are defending had we not we would have copped more slack for not attempting to help.  but yes we are stupid for putting our lives on the line to help you people.

RGG says:

03:27pm | 16/02/11

Just because you say something’s illegal doesn’t make it so, you know. It has always been legal to enter this country without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum.

The flood victims and their families were not being detained by the government without any income so your second point is moot.

fairsfair says:

04:32pm | 16/02/11

But RGG they have family here in Australia who have to have been working and/or receiving govt benefits - the ones in Sydney who requested burial there. If the flood victim was broke their family would be paying for the funeral otherwise they would receive a state arranged funeral in the town of their expiration or be left in a morgue until their body was claimed.

I am not saying that that is right/compassionate - I am just saying that that is what would happen. My question remains - why the different treatment in this instance.

RGG says:

03:28pm | 16/02/11

Yes, it is people arguing on the internet that encouraged “these invaders” to come to our shores in a leaky, dangerous boat. Not the horrors of murder, torture and opression they were suffering in their home countries.

LauraBoBaura says:

03:55pm | 16/02/11

Okay so it was 300k, I must have missed that part. My feelings remain the same.

Michael says:

03:58pm | 16/02/11

Be careful what you wish for mate because I certainly would tell them… as long as the government pays for the travel expenses.

JT says:

04:04pm | 16/02/11

I’d do it in a second. The only low life here is you Jason thinking the world owes you or them anything whatsoever.

LauraBoBaura says:

04:52pm | 16/02/11

Well said Jason.

Michael & JT, how can you have so much hate for people you don’t even know?

JT says:

09:02pm | 16/02/11

I have no hate whatsoever for them LauraBoBaura, why would I?

RGG says:

04:03pm | 16/02/11

They are not being given anything and everything they want. They have lost everything and are being detained by a government whose conventions they do not understand while they attempt to rebuild their shattered lives.

You have no basis whatsoever to say that the asylum seekers do not care about our country or our culture other than your own biases. These people risked life and limb to get to this country. What did you risk to get to this country? On the objective evidence it sounds like they care about this country a lot more than you do.

I want you to quantify the value of this ‘weekly allowance’ you allege asylum seekers are receiving and then compare it directly to the value of the pension. I then want you to tell us how that smaller number is ‘significantly higher’ than the larger number.

We do not need to stop the boats. We need to stop political slogans that feed off the misinformation your post is filled with. How about getting to know the facts before parroting what your favourite opinion column tells you to believe as your own view?

LauraBoBaura says:

04:50pm | 16/02/11

Wow. Does this site actually have moderators?

LauraBoBaura says:

04:49pm | 16/02/11

You ‘love the picture’ do you? Do you take pleasure in the suffering of others Michael? In the suffering of people who have lost children?

There is something very very wrong if the feeling you get looking at that photo is one of pleasure.

Michael says:

05:48pm | 16/02/11

And what would you know about losing a child, Laura?

The child did not even belong to that woman. She was playing up because the media was there. “Shame Australia, Shame Australia” What the? How dare they try to put their deaths on us!

Now please stop taking my comments out of context, I’m not Tony Abbott. My comment was referring to her playing up for the media, and then the media taking that and plastering it on the front of every news website to evoke some sort of emotional response. Look around, the people have spoken.

RGG says:

08:08pm | 16/02/11

Different cultures have different ways of grieving. Breaking news right here people.

LauraBoBaura says:

09:00am | 17/02/11

I do not have children. But my mother lost his son, my brother to leaukemia 2 years ago.

I know you’re probably just trying to stir me up. So I am going to contain my anger & be civil with you.
You have taken their comments out of context, they were saying ‘Shame Australia, let them stay’ They weren’t blaming us for their deaths, they were saying that the refugees should be allowed to stay in Australia.
There was a 10 year old boy who’s entire family died, he had family he could stay with in Sydney, but they packed him up & sent him back to Christmas Island after he buried his parents.
This child isn’t going to blow up buildings. How is it fair?

Michael says:

04:28pm | 16/02/11

People are saying “Why are we helping queue jumpers while we’re not helping ourselves?” Australia donates millions in humanitarian aid; I don’t hear people complaining about that. The thing is the queue jumpers are doing the wrong thing, they got themselves into trouble, and then we go ahead and pass them a bucket of money. It isn’t fair that the government will spend $300,000 on people who done the wrong thing while I would get squat, and I have done the right thing. The family should be forced to pay the money back just like that liver donor here in the west.

Tom says:

04:54pm | 16/02/11

Michael, I understand what you are saying, but the point I am trying to make is that at the end of the day if you are getting something that these people are getting or not does not come into it. It simply does not matter. What matters is that we treat all people humanly and with compassion.

You say that it “Isn’t fair” that you get nothing when these people get something. I’m not sure that that is actually true. Unless you yourself are in a detention centre on Christmas island and have recently suffered a terrible tragedy after fleeing your homeland, the situations are not comparable. You may well feel you are entitled to more support in what ever situation you are in, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I don’t really want to get into all that “is there a actually a queue?” stuff as it is a bit off topic, so we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Michael says:

05:30pm | 16/02/11

I understand that in normal circumstances being compassionate it is the right thing to do. But there are millions, no billions, of people that need help. Tragedies that we can’t even comprehend happen all over the world, and there are things we can do to fix these problems but it is too hard to do.

Que…sorry, “Asylum Seekers” make a very small percentage of those people that need help. Looking at the cost to send 22 of them to Sydney for a few days you can only imagine how much we are paying to house them, feed them, and process their claims.

Somehow these people are raising thousands of dollars to pay People Smugglers to get here. During this journey the pass through many safe countries, and make a treacherous journey in clapped-out boats to get to Australia. This is dangerous and put lives at risk.

I can understand why they would want to come here, particularly with what the Australian taxpayer affords them. The problem is they are willing to risk the lives of their family and they are being processed before we take in people that have followed the correct process (thus the queue jumping label). They are living in luxury while there are people still starving in Africa, while Junkees rob little old ladies for their pension money and aboriginal children are exchanged for grog and petrol to sniff.

It’s not like the Australian people are not generous, but we want our money to go where it is going to be the most effective. Encouraging more boat people to come to Australia and spending $300,000 to send them to a funeral when one of them dies is not an effective use of our aid money. How long do you think $300,000 would feed a poor, African family.

wise owl says:

06:22pm | 16/02/11

No Tom. People are concerned that some groups are treated differently to the rest of us. They should have been buried on Christmas Island, and family from within Australia could pay their own way, as we would have to. The morale thing to do was exactly what Howard did. Get tough and stop people getting on the boats in the first place. Australians have faced hard times e.g. the Great Depression, WWII, and they faced these times with dignity and without jumping on boats to find somewhere better. But we work hard and generally try to build a country worth living in. When the Government steals so much of our money, and then spends it like it does not matter, Government has to be held to account. Otherwise, eventually we will be the basket case country in the long term. Imagine if the mining boom ended tomorrow. As massive budget cuts followed, $750 million a year to deal with boats that a previous Government had already dealt with will really start to upset people.

Sandy says:

04:44pm | 17/02/11

Tom, why don’t you walk out of your house and let some queue jumpers live in it? To not do so would be “small minded and selfish” by your own lofty, pompous standards.

No, people like you are only generous with other people’s money. In fact you make me sick with your feel-good hypocrisy.

Tom says:

05:47pm | 17/02/11

Sandy, No one is asking you, or me, or anyone else to leave their house… so I’m not sure how relevant your point is to the argument.

I don’t think that asking that folks are treated with humanity and compassion is either lofty or pompous.

Michael and Wise Owl, I did respond to your thoughts last night but it would seem that for some reason the post has not been published.

Michael, in short - it is not very useful to say there are people who need the money more - there will always be people who need the money more. Every day we spend money that could be used to help the world’s most needy folk on a variety of arguably less pressing concerns from plasma TV’s to Funerals for asylum seekers. What is important is that we treat individuals with human dignity and compassion - the same way we would wish to be treated ourselves.

Wise Owl, you say you are concerned that some people are treated differently to you, but you do not take into account the fact that you are not in the same situation as these other people. You may take some comfort from the fact that if you did happen to share their circumstances, if you were in detention, if you had lost loved ones during a tragic attempt to flee your homeland - then you would be extended the opportunity to attend your loved one’s funerals.

Tom says:

05:47pm | 17/02/11

Sandy, No one is asking you, or me, or anyone else to leave their house… so I’m not sure how relevant your point is to the argument.

I don’t think that asking that folks are treated with humanity and compassion is either lofty or pompous.

Michael and Wise Owl, I did respond to your thoughts last night but it would seem that for some reason the post has not been published.

Michael, in short - it is not very useful to say there are people who need the money more - there will always be people who need the money more. Every day we spend money that could be used to help the world’s most needy folk on a variety of arguably less pressing concerns from plasma TV’s to Funerals for asylum seekers. What is important is that we treat individuals with human dignity and compassion - the same way we would wish to be treated ourselves.

Wise Owl, you say you are concerned that some people are treated differently to you, but you do not take into account the fact that you are not in the same situation as these other people. You may take some comfort from the fact that if you did happen to share their circumstances, if you were in detention, if you had lost loved ones during a tragic attempt to flee your homeland - then you would be extended the opportunity to attend your loved one’s funerals.

michael j says:

05:13pm | 16/02/11

so wat ya sainn is ,so ya crashed ya boat onto some rocks
im real sorry bout that ,,,,,sounds bout rite ta me,,,,,,,,,,

Gregg says:

01:44am | 17/02/11

No Mickey,
Wayne is saying this government we have courtesy of two indescribable independents is just as indescribable and sickly dead in the head to the extent they do not give a stuff about Australians.

Sandy says:

04:59pm | 17/02/11

“Boarder Protection Laws”? ... bit of a freudian slip there.

Michael says:

05:13pm | 16/02/11

I find your comment, shallow and pedantic.

Bobster says:

06:08pm | 16/02/11

I find your comment predictable, repetitive, semantic and off point.

The Libs spent the same on printer cartridges as the government spent on these funerals.

That pretty much sums up the guts of this debate.

Even the Libs disagree with you on this one MarK, why do you think Morrison had his wings clipped?

Tom says:

06:08pm | 16/02/11

“Gillard has policies that kill” - shrill and pointless anyone??

MarK says:

07:18am | 17/02/11

Thanks Michael. So?

Here is Bobster onto the good old cartridge-gate excuse. What relevance it has is beyond me. And again you miss the point - do you really think I care that much about what the Libs think?

Dear oh dear Tom. I saw 50 odd reasons floating of Xmas Island during prime time that sort of proves that point. Nice compassion there.

Bobster says:

08:42am | 17/02/11

It has everything to do with it MarK.

It tells us that you think spending money on ink is fine, but a bit of compassion for the bereaved is wrong. $300k each way and we know which way you’ve gone - nothing more needs to be said.

Melrusk says:

10:25am | 17/02/11

HHHmMMm I find that rather Un Right in nature to Pay Now.
Isn’t it usually Buy Now & Pay later

Stewart Henstock says:

09:13am | 17/02/11

Good idea!
Maybe then they might consider not jumping the que and enter via the front door like others.
Compassion???
Fine no problem as long as it goes for EVERYONE short of a buck.

LauraBoBaura says:

11:18am | 17/02/11

Again Zeta, you’re right on the money. I honestly can’t believe that a comment like ‘Drown me hearties, one and all’ made it through a ‘moderator’?

I’m gobsmacked that popular opinion seems agree with Morrison. When did we all get so selfish?

If our diggers can have enough respect for the dead to bury people who were trying to kill them. Why can’t we accept that a miniscule amount of money - (in the grand scheme of our nation’s wealth) is going towards burying people who have never tried to harm us.

I really don’t get it.

Tom says:

10:14pm | 16/02/11

majid, It makes me so sad. I feel sick when I see how incapable folks are of imagining themselves in someone else’s shoes and thinking about how they would like to be treated.

majid says:

10:27am | 17/02/11

tom, it all depends how sincere you are when you tell it, are you telling it from your heart or from your KEYBOARD???

I know personally many western writers and journalists who do defend humanitarians causes, but unfortunately it comes often only from their KEYBOARD… as it is their only way to make a living and guarantee a steak on the table.

While it is understandable, I will only believe and trust things coming from the heart, as it is so easy to detect…

Tom says:

11:44am | 17/02/11

The keyboard is mightier than the sword majid, most great changes in public opinion and policy start with writing. I tend to think that most folk are decent in the heart and the kind of heartless on show here is often the result of ignorance or failure to think the issue through thoroughly rather than nastiness.

majid says:

01:12pm | 17/02/11

Tom, there is no more swords, but only missiles and atomic bombs as they are the western inventions and are in the hands of developed countries..

Yes, I do believe the writing can make the difference and change the world for better. I just wonder how much heart is put in the writing of some people. I know, I can play God and the Devil by using the same keyboard… and so can everyone.

I believe that every culture will be better served and defended only by its own children… It sounds hash, as it sends back everyone to his or her own culture, but it is a reality that we all face one day or another.

It doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate each other, it is all the contrary, we should all learn to like and learn from our differences.

persephone says:

08:18am | 17/02/11

54% of Australians support Muslim immigration

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4536/

Melrusk says:

11:36am | 17/02/11

Ah edwina I would be in that 1%.

No I am not Muslim, I don’t believe common religion is required to display common courtesy & respect for humanity.  Respect is a personal choice
These people are moving themselves & thier loved ones (yes through other countries) to get themselves to safety. Often they travel through Muslim countries only to be told those counties have accepted thier quota, or the particular ideology of that country is of some threat to them.
Relgious zeloutry has much to answer for no matter what denomination it identifies with.
They take a risk of further persecution & physical harm to find a safe haven.
I respect thier right to live free from pursecution & to escape the violence that in the Aphgan, Iraq cases we as a country chose to be involved. (WMD’s ring a bell?)
We as a nation in turn accept a degree of responsability for the non combatant’s we effect.

I am an average white, female Australian who believes that this counrty has prospered exponetially as a result of it’s cultural divercity.
I accept these people are comming through non conventional channels, but the option’s available are limited & the people in need are people in need. It was only August last year that gillard lifted the quota form Indonesian camp’s form @ 50 to400. that left people for at times thirty years raising thier children in camp’s.
I can not believe how easy it is for people to forget what life was like here twenty, thirty years ago.
If you can’t see a daily benefit to your lives in the food we enjoy, International relation’s, the culture, the delivery of information & discussion then I suggest you give yourself a trip to your local cafe & ask who introduced this to Australian culture. Hell take your self to your local pub if that floats your boat, & enjoy a beer.

I also believe that the fear campaign of our previous government is taking a toll on Australia, in that it breed contempt & fear of any one who look’s a bit out of sync with the white middle class norm.
It dosen’t look like me there for there must be something wrong with it. (yes objectifying releases the burden of humanity)

This ideology that ” THEY” are taking something away from US is simply ignoring the history Australia has enjoyed on the back of immigration (Snowy River Hydro e.g.)

As far as sending back the healthy young males, who is left to care for thier families here, while we send thier healthy young men back to a war torn region. That is the war torn region we as a nation involved our seleves in by choice.

I appreciate I am not an eloquent writter but you asked & that would be my 1% observation.

Mouse says:

07:27pm | 17/02/11

Persephone the same Ray Morgan poll also states in regards to “Attitudes to Immigration of ‘Boat People’
Respondents were then asked: “Should asylum seekers arriving by boat be allowed to apply for immigration as now, or should they all be returned and told to apply through normal refugee channels?” In July 2010 pollers voted   Returned 64%, as now 26%, other 5%, can’t say 5%
The argument is “Boat people”, or illegal entry,  not Muslims.

@Melrusk, we are told that the majority of “healthy young males” that
  come via boat are single and not with families. If they have families, they have left them at home.