Yep his own Labor colleagues branded him a psycho, seems like they were right

One must look at what is occurring. Some are economic refugees, which can afford the fair. But many are carried on fair paid by other forms or people. This further makes this people smuggling trade a very despicable lot. Faster we address the boats the better people will be. But remember, I am talking about real answers not superficial band aid measures of the foolishly supported.

Yes they have, but I did not want to let TV know his entire solution on boats actually has nothing to do with them. It demonstrates much about people when they push a line that they know so little about.

Fact is, if people consider more the solutions and push their government to address the real situation, not meander to the foolish for political support something will be done. However, will people continue to play the party line… well let us put it this way, while people continue to let their grey matter lay dormant nothing will occur.

Unfortunately while the coalition policy is not ideal, it is the best we have had as it worked. I have constantly stated we should make it unnecessary to get on the boat in the first place. But while the fools continue to use these people as political footballs, clowns will continue to do nothing.

 

What would you do to stop the boats but at the same time uphold our humanitarian obligation? Please don't drivel though Garry just be concise and to the point! Take your time with a response and try not to use big words!

Look, in all honesty I reckon you'd be a nice bloke Garry, but i think you try too hard and end up being vague!

 

I have already made my point to this, because you are obviously far too informed it must have flown over you.
http://www.politicalforum.com/members/garry17.html

Perhaps that might help you to change your ignorance, but I doubt it

Vague??? that coming from the only poster who provides absolutely no substance??? Only you opinion, you have claimed as fact??? Obviously you have nothing so attempt at insult is your best.

 

The vagueness continues!

 

Obviously you did not read what is provided. If you don't want answers to your questions, don’t ask them. Simple as that.

So again you have nothing, and yet you expect to be given everything. Bit like Gillard, supply nothing and blame everybody else for not getting your message. LOL

 

The silence seems like the death or your debate.

I answered your question, how about answering mine?

Or do you consider your defeat???

 

Delusion is the lefty`s antidote to the truth. Your little mate has no shortage of antidote.

 

Click on the link you provided gazz!

 

The policy on asylum-seekers can be easily worked out if it hadn't been so badly politicised by Howard so he could win the Tampa election. A far more important policy issue is the economy. We ignore that at our peril.

 

Absolutely diuretic! This is the coalitions sole policy platform, there is nothing "positive" forthcoming to make one feel good about our nations future! What a dreary mob we will become under his leadership! You know who his followers are on this forum, they are negative, pessimistic characters to the core! Nothing refreshing or positive comes from within...........individuals know i'm talking to them.....yeah that's right, if the cap fits, wear it!

 

LOL... Sorry about that, copied wrong short cut. Should have read it before posting.

Try
http://www.politicalforum.com/austr...l-rain-until-september-15.html#post1062764215

 

Come on, stop just looking to lay blame. If you wanted to be truthful about this issue you would need to go back decades. This issue has been going on for years, people only began to see what occurs when boats sinking came to the forefront. Instead of throwing the blame about further politicizing the problem, perhaps pressure should be to actually do something that works.

 

Oh so cutting... LOL

But the real problem is, as you continue to demonstrate, that you have no clue about either parties policy. Sure you know the name of them, but you really don't know the policy. I think the rhetoric will be funny when the ALP is in opposition. It will further demonstrate the hypocrisy of the drones that support them.

 

Yep, it fits perfectly!

 

Translation :
BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are only around one thousand asylum seekers dead, and those naughty misogynists in blue ties are being negative about it. BWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Must come from the lack of contribution of the finger pointer... LOL

 

Thanks garry! Look there are a couple of massive implications for us us and potential accommodating nations!

1. It would create a massive influx into these centres and issues surrounding non genuine asylum seekers who would then have to be processed, mulitplying by who knows how much the work load required in terms of processing and infrastructure! Yeah, it could work if there was an initial process prior to entering these centres( maybe you considered this). This probably doesn't sound very moral but could sort out a few issues: How about those who have declared independent financial security of sorts a separate processing system! If asylum seekers can contribute significantly! Maybe a payment for processing but guaranteed quicker processing(all just brainstorming, so don't tear me down....lol!) Governments around the world generally know what events are happening, so establishing a priority system is feasible IMO! (Maybe they do that now)

2. The government were attacked over proposing to establish a processing centre in Maylasia due to Maylasia's humanitarian background and also importantly their failure to sign up to the UN's human rights convention! Where does this leave us in terms of these obligations? Being in these countries is probably a safer option than where they came from, but again it simply became a political game the coalition played with the issue!

3. Sending back asylum seekers to thes processing centres would probably quickly put a stop to boat arrivals, but turning the boats back is simply defeating the purpose of our moral obligation!

 

Not sure if going back decades does any good. Remember the Song Be 12? First of the South Vietnamese vessels into Darwin. I actually spoke to some of the people who were on board (long story). Anyway the Fraser govt and opposition handled it well. Asylum-seekers were politicised as an issue by Howard who was beginning to rope in the Hansonist vote at the same time. It was a coming together of xenophobic populism from Hanson, which Howard at once condemned and then captured, and an opportunity to turn that into a single issue that would win an election. Howard did it. Without the politicisation of the issue good policy could be ours. Kim Beazley was rattled by Howard's blatant Hansonism, he belatedly turned Labor's policy a little towards Hansonism so as not to alienate the drongo vote in the marginals, but Howard had outplayed him. From then on Labor has been a captive of the xenophobic voters, they know what good policy is, they simply can't put it forward because of their fear of losing the drongo vote, the same drongo vote that Rudd has recently captured. If he can hold onto it it will be a surprise.

 

So what are you saying ? A majority of Australians are drongo type voters ? Because if they weren't a majority, and they were a small percentage, why would you worry about alienating them ? as they would have no effect.

Perhaps they are a larger percentage than you think. If that is the case, and they are a majority group, are they Drongos because of a difference of ideals ? or are they Drongos because their opinions differ from yours ?

Disclaimer : Diuretic when I say yours, I use it to represent people with the same opinion and ideals as your own.

 

Yes, I had a good friend who came over from Vietnam by boat. I find his story was extraordinary placed on a boat by himself at 10 years of age with no other family, crossing the ocean in a boat that was more built for rivers after evading military and near sinking on 2 occasions. Waited in detention until his old brother Arrived some time later on another boat. AS HE STATED THEN and still believed last we spoke. After the ordeal of what he went through, what Australia did was trivial. He knew under no circumstances if he and the rest of the family did not leave when they did they would be dead. His evidence was his parents were killed shortly after.

Ok I see what you’re getting at, but Frazer and Hawk Keating also used these people for political purposes. The fact that Howard could so easily turn this situation into a vote winning issue should enlighten you that both major parties were doing the same thing. In fact, If I recall Hawk had a type of turn the boats back policy (more just fly them home or meet them at sea and let them know in no certain terms not to come) which is why animosity was created. Frazer was similar but I just cannot recall but it is suffice to say that BOTH parties are to blame for the issue.

Howard's policy was simply brought to the forefront by the media who by that time had the resources to capture the action. Before this governments have had the indolgence of lack of resources. Many people were proclaiming as you are that earlier governments were politicising it, but because nobody could splash it against the TV screen nobody cared.

So no, you cannot simply lay blame at one party or PM.

As the ALP generally are good at social policy and the coalition for management, would it not be good if they actually worked together on issues rather than try and compete for the same job? Imagine what would happen if you could get a party that was good at both? I do not think you would find a Coalition or ALP party after the first election and the country would be better for it.

 

Are you suggesting that this would not work because if they do not have to risk their lives they will come flocking to Australian shores to be processed?

Ok, let me try and not offend you here (as you really seem interested in considering something other than ALP crap, over this) Consulates around the world are swamped with people who apply for asylum-seeker status all the time. This is why it is a major problem. Resources are limited on the consulate so prior processing is demanded to ascertain validity of claim. Also there is a greater number applying for 457 Visas to fly to Australia with some very convincing stories. I don't really know how to point this out, by detaining the people in Australia which has cost Australia over 4billion now, many resources are being drained from the people on the front line. So this problem is already an issue and due to government politicising the boats nobody actually see the entire picture.

So you point is valid but irrelevant simply due to process and policy that addresses the point.

No, the government was not proposing to establish a processing centre in Malaysia. They intended to swap 800 Australian asylum-seekers for 4000 in Malaysia. No processing centre or anything. By the way, this is the very style of Abbott's turn back the boats policy but I will allow you to consider why.

Gillard’s Malaysia policy was tossed by the high court over several points. One of which was the part of the legislation that only allowed appeal to the immigration minister who could make individual decisions at his own discretion without recourse of law. This is a denial of natural justice which is unconstitutional in Australia. But there were others, I am not sure you would be able to grasp the intricacies so I do not intend to debate them.

And that is the very point, No need to turn a boat back simply chuck them on the plane and send them back. So their trip by boat is pointless so why bother getting on the boats? If they already applied and are waiting for an answer, jump a boat. Simply put them to the back of the administration queue and begin again. Although by that time I would suggest they would be rejected anyway as it is obvious they are not in need of asylum.

There are many implications to both Australia and nations this deal would be considered. For example, what Law would be relevant in the settlement?

However, there would be only one measure for success of this idea, and that is if the boats stop coming. Every other consideration is merely a side benefit. For example the costs for this policy would considerably cheaper than it to detain, process and house them until self-sufficient. This saved cost could well be spent for more resources to process these people. More could be spent at consulate to increase resources to handle the daily flow of people and still save the bank balance.

It is interesting to consider but I can guarantee you will not see that soon, the government will not be able to use the boats as a political issue again. Why would they change that when they believe (with good reason) it wins them elections?

 

Because they're in marginal seats?

 

Look, whatever the "processing" arrangement in Maylasia, the opposition pushed the point that Maylasia were not a signatory to the human rights convention, along with their human rights background! Yet, the Howard government disregarded our obligation to the UNHRC when they decided to turn back the boats! Simple bipartisan support on the Maylasia solution alone could have saved some lives!

What I was saying, is that there would be implications for hosting countries beyond what they would want to commit to! These countries already sit on the fringe of those countries that people are fleeing from and massively already cater for people under these circumstances, numerous times more than what our intake is! The more you think about it the more you start to think how much credibility the "Maylasia solution" had! Aussie's were hoodwinked again by the lying, conniving torries!!!

 

The drongo vote is the uninformed, couldn't-care-less, let's vote for Johnny or Tony or Kev, a vote that is only important in the marginals. The drongo vote is those electors who think that they elect the PM and do so not on the basis of policy but on the look of the PM and how the sound bites come across. Some of those drongos vote Labor, some Coalition and some probably vote down the page without checking the names. I realise it's considered elitist and un-democratic to voice that opinion but that's how I see it.

 

garry I'm serious when I say that the Indo-Chinese arrivals in the 1970s were not politicised. I'm not suggesting that it was all sweetness and light - I do remember that after the first few arrivals people here began to get snarky about the numbers, banging on about taking Australian jobs and living on welfare and the rest of it. I worked on a small task force during the late 1970s within the Indo-Chinese community in north-west Adelaide at the time and I know that bludging was the last thing on the minds of our new arrivals. Many had independent wealth with them and they weren't economic refugees, they were very much political refugees. It was get out of Saigon or end up in a re-education camp if they were lucky. Now we see the businesses they have set up, in Adelaide for example our market garden industry just north of the metro area, centred around Virginia, has been built up to an export industry by many Indo-Chinese Australians. This isn't me using the old "oh but aren't they industrisous!" defence. it's to say that the grumbling and moaning by Australians already living here was groundless. It was groundless then, it's still groundless.

I reflected on your comments about later governments (Labor). Yes, you're right, they did get tougher on Indo-Chinese arrivals but I think it was based on proper policy considerations (some may consider them flawed but I do think they were policy considerations at least) and not on populism. Governments from Fraser onwards didn't have Hansonism to deal with or exploit. There was the usual xenophobic prattle from us but it wasn't really effectively politicised. Hanson did that and Howard capitalised on it while pretending that he wasn't doing so. I believe the evidence is there for that position.

On the issue of a joint approach to government, it would be good if it could happen, but the competing vested interests in our society wouldn't permit it. As a simple and admittedly simplistic example, let me suggest that big business and labour, although they share a common interest, also have sufficient differences in interests to keep them apart and in essence in Australian politics we're talking about big business v labour. If there were a unitary approach in that regard (business and labour) I think we might see our politics resemble those of the US where there is no real difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party and certainly where labour has been co-opted to help business as a handmaiden rather than as an equal party thanks to the influence of Samuel Gompers.