Too many threads repeating the same old garbage, so I am putting them here.
Check for the left wing version thread, if you want the other end of the idiocy argument.

Bowen is currently talking in the House of Representatives saying that because the Coalition wants to send people only to countries that are signatories to the UNHCR, that this and future governments would send people to countries like Somalia, among others, which is a signatory. Does he really, for one second, think that a Coalition government would send a single person to one of those kinds of countries? The idiocy of what he just said is astounding!

Astonishing. There are people in Somalian refugee camps wishing to be relocated to countries like Australia. Unfortunately, they get pushed out of our humanitarian intake by queue jumpers arriving here on rickety boats.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

Bowen is currently talking in the House of Representatives saying that because the Coalition wants to send people only to countries that are signatories to the UNHCR, that this and future governments would send people to countries like Somalia, among others, which is a signatory. Does he really, for one second, think that a Coalition government would send a single person to one of those kinds of countries? The idiocy of what he just said is astounding!

Not that I'm watching or believe they would, it is a nuance thing.
Surely you can see this or are you really that black & white?
Here it is,
The coalition will not support sending refo's to Malaysia DESPITE the swap refo's having Australia & Malaysian guaranteed protection from caning, education for children & decent accommodation(not tents in camps) because they have not signed the UN charter.

Inferring that they are in danger because these countries(Malaysia) have not signed & they will be safe only in countries that have.
Well this is obviously wrong as you yourself have pointed out.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 2:29pm: Bowen is currently talking in the House of Representatives saying that because the Coalition wants to send people only to countries that are signatories to the UNHCR, that this and future governments would send people to countries like Somalia, among others, which is a signatory. Does he really, for one second, think that a Coalition government would send a single person to one of those kinds of countries? The idiocy of what he just said is astounding! Not that I'm watching or believe they would, it is a nuance thing. Surely you can see this or are you really that black & white? Here it is, The coalition will not support sending refo's to Malaysia DESPITE the swap refo's having Australia & Malaysian guaranteed protection from caning, education for children & decent accommodation(not tents in camps) because they have not signed the UN charter. Inferring that they are in danger because these countries(Malaysia) have not signed & they will be safe only in countries that have. Well this is obviously wrong as you yourself have pointed out.

No such protection from caning exists. Even the ALP admit that. There is also no education offered in these detention facilities and they are crammed in like sardines.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

Too many threads repeating the same old garbage, so I am putting them here. Check for the left wing version thread, if you want the other end of the idiocy argument.

Do you somehow think we have not got the idiocy from the other side?

Tony Abbott has today attempted to introduce to Federal parliament a bill that would allow the government to utilise offshore processing (which I thought the ALP was for, not against) in any country which is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees, but would exclude Malaysia as it is not a signatory. The ALP used its numbers to deny Abbott the opportunity to introduce this bill.

Clearly, Julia Gillard has no intention of solving the problem she and Rudd created and she's content to use every death for her own narrow-minded political gain.

I thought that the ALP was for offshore processing. Apparently I was wrong.

Got a link??

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd feel better knowing where your information comes from.

Far too much money thrown around to science research projects, AIDS research, Arts and Green Projects.... 8-)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Got a link?? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd feel better knowing where your information comes from.

They were all running around like disgraceful morons an hour ago.

Gillard was giving a speech in the house about pushing ahead with Oakshot’s members bill.

Abbott was having a press conference about introducing his own members bill.

Then the children all started yelling at each other.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Got a link?? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd feel better knowing where your information comes from.

He is talking about parliament its on TV now ABC24 and ABC1 i expect

Its not over yet and he is jumping the gun

mainly the labs are trying to debate the issue and the libs are just trashing the labs as usual,

SOB

lol Gillard the hypocrit and even more so when it comes to a UNHCR country.

No, labor want people to be treated like cattle and be branded, wipped in Malaysia.

Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

lol Gillard the hypocrite and even more so when it comes to a UNHCR country. No, labor want people to be treated like cattle and be branded, whipped in Malaysia.

Always thought Gillard looked to be in to that kinky stuff, explains her big bum, she likey the spanking.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/01/25/1226253/896711-mark-knight-cartoon.jpg

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/01/25/1226253/821485-120126-nicholson-cartoon.jpg

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/01/25/1226253/896711-mark-knight-cartoon.jpg

Type of evil lying crap that comes out of the putrid abusive minds of the atheist socialist left - and guess what all of their abuse and pontificating is all about making themselves richer...surprise surprise...cut funding to Green projects, the Arts and AIDS research - just get on with it. 8-)

I have never understood how it was supposed to be a good deal 800 to them and 4000 to us

SOB

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/06/22/1226405/735751-120623-leak-cartoon.jpg

The ALP should be made to clean up its own mess.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Got a link?? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd feel better knowing where your information comes from.

Gillard is hellbent on her Malaysia deal. It may (will probably) pass the House of Reps, but it is dead in the Senate where the Coalition will vote against it and so will the Greens due to their opposition to any offshore proecessing. The only solution is to adopt the Coalition's policy on this issue, which is TPV's, offshore processing in UN signatory countries, turning back boats when safe to do so and not giving benefit of the doubt to those who destroy their documents.

Here's the link for you...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-to-bring-in-bill-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuz0-1226410127406

The cost of the failures and crimes of the Greens and socialist left is counted in human lives - shame on their evil politicizing... :(

Kevin Rudd inherited a highly successful policy from his predecessor. It was known as the "Pacific Solution" and, through the utilisation of offshore processing in Nauru, temporary protection visa's and turning back boats when it was safe to do so, we all saw the number of boats decrease to absolutely zero in the policy's first full year in operation. Not one boat, not one death on the ocean between Indonesia and Australia. The business model for people smugglers was smashed, and they knew it. Everyone from Australia to Indonesia to the Middle East and South-East Asia knew that Australia was not a soft touch and this was an effective deterrent.

But now we have a Labor government headed by Kevin Rudd, who thinks he can keep the boats away, albeit with a more "humanitarian" policy. The events that have followed speak for themselves - more than 300 boats have arrived carrying more than 19,000 illegal immigrants. The deterrent that preciously existed is no more. Tragically, since Kevin Rudd scrapped the Pacific Solution, at least 1,000 people have died. Today, we see another example of Labor's failure on this policy (or lack thereof).

All we have seen from Labor on this issue is one screw up after another. As I said, Rudd scrapped the Pacific Solution and Australia was again flooded with boats. Then Gillard became PM and she's been much worse. Gillard has had every position known on this issue - except a return to the policies of the Pacific Solution. She wanted to send these people to East Timor and announced as much without even informing the East Timorese, who subsequently told her to go fly her kite. Then came the Malaysia debacle, which ended in a massive slapdown by the full bench of the High Court. Gillard is determined to implement her supposed solution to this farce by sending 800 of these illegal immigrants to Malaysia in return for them sending us 4,000. This policy is doomed to fail because (a) in a couple of weeks we'd have reached our quota of 800 and then we'd be right back at square one and (b) the policy has been ruled as illegal by the full bench of the High Court.

No, the problem is most certainly NOT the Coalition. That party has consistently advocated the same policy for more than a decade - a policy that has been tested and found to be extremely effective. Even people smugglers interviewed by TV programs have admitted so. The problem is Labor and the Greens. Labor because they wrecked what was a highly successful policy and the Greens supported them. The Greens because they support only onshore processing, which is a recipie for absolute disaster and would make the 1,000-1,500 arrivals per month seem like a trickle.

If the ALP truly want to fix this mess, they need to either (a) talk to Christine Milne to get the Malaysia deal passed because the Coalition will not support it or (b) sit down with the Coalition to work out a policy that works and does not include sending any people to Malaysia, such as the one Tony Abbott just tried to table in parliament a few hours ago but was blocked by Gillard and Co.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:58pm:

I have never understood how it was supposed to be a good deal 800 to them and 4000 to us SOB

Plus a whole bunch of money to them...to make it fair.

I will say again Australia has nO obligation to process anyone at all.

Believe me now dsmithy?

By the way, Julia Gillard has said in the past that she would rule out sending people to countries that are not signatories to the UN convention on refugees. Why the change? Another broken promise? Another lie? Abbott is coming to the government's aid to reinstate offswhore processing by attempting to introduce a bill that would allow offshore processing in countries that are signatories to the UN convention on refugees. Why does Gillard refuse to allow that bill and why does she want to send people to Malaysia, a country that refuses to sign the UN convention on refugees?

None of you Left-wing nut jobs have anything to say now? Your arguments are weaker than wet paper on this issue. Time to end the politics and support good policy, which is what Abbott is trying to introduce.

Malaysia deal cannot be implemented because it strips away the human rights of people taken from our care to Malaysia and that is one reason why it was ruled illegal by the High Court - because Australia would fail in its duty of care to those people by sending them to a place like Malaysia, which is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested.

I have never understood it. Like i said 800 for 4000? WTF? Its weird. Are they just not telling us what the policy is?

Oh and it seems turning the boats around will send them to indonesia which isnt a signatory for human rights either. So both parties are trying to get around human rights.

SOB

Thanks for the link.

Reading the story it would seem Tony has overruled Scott Morrison & will vote with the Government if they implement the Coalitions policy in full with no amendments.

A pox on both their houses.

But you reap what you sow.

I hope Tony never requires consensus whilst his in government.

Then again they'll probably fold. >:(

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. I have never understood it. Like i said 800 for 4000? WTF? Its weird. Are they just not telling us what the policy is? Oh and it seems turning the boats around will send them to indonesia which isnt a signatory for human rights either. So both parties are trying to get around human rights. SOB

People smugglers currently send from Indonesia 800 people in the space of a week or two. Then what? What would the government do for the other 50 weeks in the year? Labor's position on this issue is ridiculous. Gillard said she would never send anyone to a non UN signatory country, yet now she is hellbent on sending them to one - Malaysia. She wants offshore processing, but refuses to support Coalition attempts to put forward a policy that would allow just that. Labor and the Left haven't got a leg to stand on on this issue.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 4:00pm:

Malaysia deal cannot be implemented because it strips away the human rights of people taken from our care to Malaysia and that is one reason why it was ruled illegal by the High Court - because Australia would fail in its duty of care to those people by sending them to a place like Malaysia, which is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees.

Really? what rights do the refugees have if Tony tirns the boats around and sends them back to Indonesia? ... where is his concern for the rights of refugees then? they aren't a signatory to the refugee convention either ....

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

Thanks for the link. Reading the story it would seem Tony has overruled Scott Morrison & will vote with the Government if they implement the Coalitions policy in full with no amendments. A pox on both their houses. But you reap what you sow. I hope Tony never requires consensus whilst his in government. Then again they'll probably fold. >:(

By that time the socialist left will be quietly being moved on and having their preselections torn up....
http://www.pethealth.com.au/images/canetoad.jpg :D

Prevailing wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 4:13pm: Thanks for the link. Reading the story it would seem Tony has overruled Scott Morrison & will vote with the Government if they implement the Coalitions policy in full with no amendments. A pox on both their houses. But you reap what you sow. I hope Tony never requires consensus whilst his in government. Then again they'll probably fold. >:( By that time the socialist left will be quietly being moved on and having their preselections torn up.... http://www.pethealth.com.au/images/canetoad.jpg :D

Advocating Communism again Fruitloop.

This is the day the Government died in Parliament, they will never recover from this hypocrisy... :(

Tnoy again caught out being a hypocrite when the Liberal preferred system ran for years without unhcr sanction.

Its all about political gain - one-upmanship - the current dishonesty from the Liberals is outstanding.

The actions of weasels - it would be funny if it were not so sad.

The Government still not compromise on its intractable insistence on Malaysia - they are hopeless.

Prevailing wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:05pm:

The Government still not compromise on its intractable insistence on Malaysia - they are hopeless.

The opposition still not compromise on its intractable insistence on Nauru - they are hopeless

No one answered ... why if Abbott is insistent that he won't support Malaysia because it's not a signatory of the UN refugee convention, does he say if he wins government he will turn the boats back to Indonesia? Indonesia is NOT a SIGNATORY either ... at least the ALP has negotiated certain  human rights conditions with Malaysia, the libs want to send them back with no guarantee's that they'll be treated humanely

I watched the whole saga.   Both parties should hang their heads in shame.  Neither of them were going to agree on the other parties deal - Gillard wants offshore processing including Malyasia, whilst Abbot wants offshore processing and no Malaysia.  The only shining light in a political sewer was Turnbull - he spoke frankly and made sense. 

He also reminded them that the Senate would probably block either deal anyway.  I think that is when I realsied I had wasted an hour of my life on a bunch of petty people toeing the party lines.

I wonder what both parties would do if Malaysia signed the refugee charter?  That would be interesting

lisa.greek wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:17pm:

I watched the whole saga.   Both parties should hang their heads in shame.  Neither of them were going to agree on the other parties deal - Gillard wants offshore processing including Malyasia, whilst Abbot wants offshore processing and no Malaysia.  The only shining light in a political sewer was Turnbull - he spoke frankly and made sense.  He also reminded them that the Senate would probably block either deal anyway.  I think that is when I realsied I had wasted an hour of my life on a bunch of petty people toeing the party lines. I wonder what both parties would do if Malaysia signed the refugee charter?  That would be interesting

WTF? Watched? Its over? Its still going here. SPOILERS!

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 4:04pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. I have never understood it. Like i said 800 for 4000? WTF? Its weird. Are they just not telling us what the policy is? Oh and it seems turning the boats around will send them to indonesia which isnt a signatory for human rights either. So both parties are trying to get around human rights. SOB

Me and you both. Indonesia not being a signatory is contradictory as you are either sending them or turning them back to a non-signatory country.

I'm not giving up on an answer with this :-)

Everyone knows there is communists and criminal thugs in that Parliament like Gillard and Bandt... :(

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested.

whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming

Dnarever wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:05pm: The Government still not compromise on its intractable insistence on Malaysia - they are hopeless. The opposition still not compromise on its intractable insistence on Nauru - they are hopeless

so sending them to a vicous place like malaysia - but only a handful after which we have the same old problem STILL... thats ok right??? makes perfect sence after all Abbott's solution is pretty much exactly the one that WORKED previously.

so on the basis of politics alone, you support a solution that we already kn ow wont work (only 800 can be sent) and will be a human right violation (whipping of refugees) in preference to one we already know works???

well it certainly exaplsin why you love gillard and hate Howard.  you are a moron.

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

No one answered ... why if Abbott is insistent that he won't support Malaysia because it's not a signatory of the UN refugee convention, does he say if he wins government he will turn the boats back to Indonesia? Indonesia is NOT a SIGNATORY either ... at least the ALP has negotiated certain  human rights conditions with Malaysia, the libs want to send them back with no guarantee's that they'll be treated humanely

there is a difference in RETURNING people to their original loccation and RELOCATING refugees. You seem to thinkt he solution isfor all 50million refugees to come and live here. then who wil lbe the refugees? US.

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming

Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing?

i thought we were taking in refugees? Why send them elsewhere?

The parliament needs to table MY proposal. Set up quantus to bring there here by plane form indonesia (and everywhere else) when they claim asylum. voila! No more treacherous sea journeys.

SOB

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing?

and thats being generous. malaysia will only accept 800 after which we are right back at where we are now. so people smugglers will just writ-off the first 800 and keep selling more seats in leaky death traps.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

i thought we were taking in refugees? Why send them elsewhere? The parliament needs to table MY proposal. Set up quantus to bring there here by plane form indonesia (and everywhere else) when they claim asylum. voila! No more treacherous sea journeys. SOB

wow... so simple. and so so stupid. How many refugees do you think would come here is we offered the red carpet and free travel? there aer currently 50million refugees. so thats 50 million AT LEAST. you'd suddenly find another 100million suddely becoming refugees if they can leave their crap-hole countries FOR FREE and come here.

dumbest idea yet.

and its QANTAS!!!

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing?

My understanding is that part of the deal is that once they are processed in Malaysia, they are not guaranteed to be sent to Australia. They could be resettled anywhere. This removes the incentive for the journey to Australia in the first place.

Whereas for Nauru, the majority were resettled in Australia. Although certainly NZ took some, most of those people ended up here anyway. This is why the bureaucrats in the Dept. Immigration themselves are advising that Nauru is not a deterrent. People smugglers can point to the evidence that anyone sailing to Australia will almost certainly end up in Australia.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing? and thats being generous. malaysia will only accept 800 after which we are right back at where we are now. so people smugglers will just writ-off the first 800 and keep selling more seats in leaky death traps.

if you were an asylum seeker, and as you claim , you were country shopping, would you risk being a part of that 800 and ending up anywhere BUT Australia? the whole point is that it stops the boats

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:13pm: No one answered ... why if Abbott is insistent that he won't support Malaysia because it's not a signatory of the UN refugee convention, does he say if he wins government he will turn the boats back to Indonesia? Indonesia is NOT a SIGNATORY either ... at least the ALP has negotiated certain  human rights conditions with Malaysia, the libs want to send them back with no guarantee's that they'll be treated humanely there is a difference in RETURNING people to their original loccation and RELOCATING refugees. You seem to thinkt he solution isfor all 50million refugees to come and live here. then who wil lbe the refugees? US.

there original location is their country of origin .... the place they are trying to escape persecution from .... do the libs propose we send them back?

A current assylum seeker in detention is concerned about several family members who may have been on the boat that sunk.

This intrigues me, You'd not think that with the supposed costs of buying your passage on a boat that several members of a family are all making the trek, Must cost them 10s of thousands?

Why is it that their are always cases of family members on different boats??

Now remember thes eppl come from countries where the average wag eis $2USD a day how do they accumulate such a large amount of money??

They are not refugees they are leaving a country that they have probably been apart of a corrupt regime and have a massive stash of cash secreted away.

woof woof wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

A current assylum seeker in detention is concerned about several family members who may have been on the boat that sunk. This intrigues me, You'd not think that with the supposed costs of buying your passage on a boat that several members of a family are all making the trek, Must cost them 10s of thousands? Why is it that their are always cases of family members on different boats?? Now remember thes eppl come from countries where the average wag eis $2USD a day how do they accumulate such a large amount of money?? They are not refugees they are leaving a country that they have probably been apart of a corrupt regime and have a massive stash of cash secreted away.

why do you assume refugees are poor? Isn't it true that in most cases of civil unrest, the rich are often the first targetted?

My cousin married a former refugee ... back in his homeland his family had the sole rights to import mercedes ... every merc in the country went through their hands ... when it was time to run, they grabbed what cash they had and ran ... left behind a great lifestyle and a small fortune .... whats does that do to your stereotype now?

Gist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:46pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing? My understanding is that part of the deal is that once they are processed in Malaysia, they are not guaranteed to be sent to Australia. They could be resettled anywhere. This removes the incentive for the journey to Australia in the first place. Whereas for Nauru, the majority were resettled in Australia. Although certainly NZ took some, most of those people ended up here anyway. This is why the bureaucrats in the Dept. Immigration themselves are advising that Nauru is not a deterrent. People smugglers can point to the evidence that anyone sailing to Australia will almost certainly end up in Australia.

Not much of a disincentive, given the fact that once the 800 is reached (which is within a couple of weeks or so at the current rate) we will be right back where we are now. All we will see is people smugglers sending more people on more boats more often to wipe out that 800 quota as fast as possible.

This is just wrong. You've been shown proof of this, Labor has admitted they were wrong when they claimed this. End of story.

woof woof wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

A current assylum seeker in detention is concerned about several family members who may have been on the boat that sunk. This intrigues me, You'd not think that with the supposed costs of buying your passage on a boat that several members of a family are all making the trek, Must cost them 10s of thousands? Why is it that their are always cases of family members on different boats?? Now remember thes eppl come from countries where the average wag eis $2USD a day how do they accumulate such a large amount of money?? They are not refugees they are leaving a country that they have probably been apart of a corrupt regime and have a massive stash of cash secreted away.

All of the boat people I have seen are poor and unskilled.
See how they are all young men? Run away and leave behind the women.

I can not believe people here want more to come! Insane people!

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 7:43pm: A current assylum seeker in detention is concerned about several family members who may have been on the boat that sunk. This intrigues me, You'd not think that with the supposed costs of buying your passage on a boat that several members of a family are all making the trek, Must cost them 10s of thousands? Why is it that their are always cases of family members on different boats?? Now remember thes eppl come from countries where the average wag eis $2USD a day how do they accumulate such a large amount of money?? They are not refugees they are leaving a country that they have probably been apart of a corrupt regime and have a massive stash of cash secreted away. All of the boat people I have seen are poor and unskilled. See how they are all young men? Run away and leave behind the women. I can not believe people here want more to come! Insane people!

why are you here? why aren't you defending your women? coward

Asyl policy should be to make it as difficult as possible to get in.

Not make it easier!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:46pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing? My understanding is that part of the deal is that once they are processed in Malaysia, they are not guaranteed to be sent to Australia. They could be resettled anywhere. This removes the incentive for the journey to Australia in the first place. Whereas for Nauru, the majority were resettled in Australia. Although certainly NZ took some, most of those people ended up here anyway. This is why the bureaucrats in the Dept. Immigration themselves are advising that Nauru is not a deterrent. People smugglers can point to the evidence that anyone sailing to Australia will almost certainly end up in Australia. Not much of a disincentive, given the fact that once the 800 is reached (which is within a couple of weeks or so at the current rate) we will be right back where we are now. All we will see is people smugglers sending more people on more boats more often to wipe out that 800 quota as fast as possible. This is just wrong. You've been shown proof of this, Labor has admitted they were wrong when they claimed this. End of story.

where's your proof that they admitted they were wrong?

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 7:58pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 7:43pm: A current assylum seeker in detention is concerned about several family members who may have been on the boat that sunk. This intrigues me, You'd not think that with the supposed costs of buying your passage on a boat that several members of a family are all making the trek, Must cost them 10s of thousands? Why is it that their are always cases of family members on different boats?? Now remember thes eppl come from countries where the average wag eis $2USD a day how do they accumulate such a large amount of money?? They are not refugees they are leaving a country that they have probably been apart of a corrupt regime and have a massive stash of cash secreted away. All of the boat people I have seen are poor and unskilled. See how they are all young men? Run away and leave behind the women. I can not believe people here want more to come! Insane people! why are you here? why aren't you defending your women? coward

I spent 3years defending our people thank you including a role in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

I am a student but I am still open reservist if my county needs.

We are a BIG COUNTRY.!!

WE have LOTS of room ..... we NEED more population, according to economic growth indicators.

TURN THE BOATS AROUND.!!
PROCESS THEM OFFSHORE. !!

THESE IDEAS are simply grasping at straws. .. trying to preserve Australia for the old folks... that is .. their somewhat benign view of recent Australian history.

THEY CANNOT WORK.
We are just now BEGINNING to see the START of the influx.  It really is inevitable, -- and the desperation of the pollies (both sides) is embarrassing to see,  BECAUSE they fail to see the truth. 
THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE they can do this crap. 
They're wrong.
We need to take RESPONSIBLE action. knowing as we do that people are dying as we dawdle.!

WE MUST allow them onto our mainland, assess them fairly, .. and DEAL with them in an appropriate positive and humane way.  IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE...  for those who think money....
That way,, they become Australians, ...with everything to protect, and work for.

Rather than increasing numbers of people incarcerated and learning to hate us.  We have no excuse .... but xenophobia.!!

We should be actively intercepting these people, before they depart in a leaky boat.  For that we need Indonesia to come on board.  NOT MALAYSIA, ?? or NAURU??? ...both of which are illegal under current recent high court Law. And could never be an EFFECTIVE solution.

Forget it... do the right thing.... AND HOPE for the F'N BEST.!!!
We.. cannot stop this mass movement of people, and we become more and more   WRONG...
all of the time we try to ignore the inevitable.!!

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 7:58pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 7:43pm: A current assylum seeker in detention is concerned about several family members who may have been on the boat that sunk. This intrigues me, You'd not think that with the supposed costs of buying your passage on a boat that several members of a family are all making the trek, Must cost them 10s of thousands? Why is it that their are always cases of family members on different boats?? Now remember thes eppl come from countries where the average wag eis $2USD a day how do they accumulate such a large amount of money?? They are not refugees they are leaving a country that they have probably been apart of a corrupt regime and have a massive stash of cash secreted away. All of the boat people I have seen are poor and unskilled. See how they are all young men? Run away and leave behind the women. I can not believe people here want more to come! Insane people! why are you here? why aren't you defending your women? coward I spent 3years defending our people thank you including a role in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. I am a student but I am still open reservist if my county needs.

your a reservist who has run to where it's safe ... go home and defend your women you coward ...

I study for one year at invitation of exchange between governments.

Remember Australia is strong ally of Israel?

I defend my people from the scum who attack us yes.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:46pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing? My understanding is that part of the deal is that once they are processed in Malaysia, they are not guaranteed to be sent to Australia. They could be resettled anywhere. This removes the incentive for the journey to Australia in the first place. Whereas for Nauru, the majority were resettled in Australia. Although certainly NZ took some, most of those people ended up here anyway. This is why the bureaucrats in the Dept. Immigration themselves are advising that Nauru is not a deterrent. People smugglers can point to the evidence that anyone sailing to Australia will almost certainly end up in Australia. Not much of a disincentive, given the fact that once the 800 is reached (which is within a couple of weeks or so at the current rate) we will be right back where we are now. All we will see is people smugglers sending more people on more boats more often to wipe out that 800 quota as fast as possible. This is just wrong. You've been shown proof of this, Labor has admitted they were wrong when they claimed this. End of story.

certainly NZ took some

Yes they did which now looks like the numbers were different from what would have happened but it is worth recalling that the Kiwi’s took refugees only because they were ashamed of the disgraceful way that the Howard government had treated them.

Not much of a disincentive, given the fact that once the 800 is reached

Refugees will be very keen to risk their life on a leaky boat knowing up front that they will be sent to Malaysia and the end of the queue. The smugglers will not find many volunteers.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

This is just wrong. You've been shown proof of this, Labor has admitted they were wrong when they claimed this. End of story.

Have I? I don't recall seeing any such proof. Can you show me where I was shown? Can you show me the proof?

I can certainly show you the background to my claim. It's been posted twice in the past couple of days alone!

Gist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:46pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing? My understanding is that part of the deal is that once they are processed in Malaysia, they are not guaranteed to be sent to Australia. They could be resettled anywhere. This removes the incentive for the journey to Australia in the first place. Whereas for Nauru, the majority were resettled in Australia. Although certainly NZ took some, most of those people ended up here anyway. This is why the bureaucrats in the Dept. Immigration themselves are advising that Nauru is not a deterrent. People smugglers can point to the evidence that anyone sailing to Australia will almost certainly end up in Australia.

All? Lets assume you are not full of shi. for once, then All of how many?

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

All? Lets assume you are not full of shi. for once, then All of how many?

95% lolly, 95% many.

If you want hard number then you'll have to dig it out yourself. I've done enough research for you righties that you'll just ignore.

Gist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:02pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:56pm: All? Lets assume you are not full of shi. for once, then All of how many? 95% lolly, 95% many. If you want hard number then you'll have to dig it out yourself. I've done enough research for you righties that you'll just ignore.

lol so not ALL then. Well well well.

Out of how many again lol. You know you will not answer that one.

Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition.

Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:05pm:

Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition. Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar???

Oakshot is just a partisan hack for sure if he would allow the malaysian solution to occur.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:10pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:05pm: Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition. Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar??? Oakshot is just a partisan hack for sure if he would allow the malaysian solution to occur.

It's not going to happen, and just as well...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-to-bring-in-bill-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuz0-1226410127406

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:05pm: Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition. Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar??? Oakshot is just a partisan hack for sure if he would allow the malaysian solution to occur. It's not going to happen, and just as well... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-to-bring-in-bill-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuz0-1226410127406

wow ..what a story ...all of 5 words ... I bet reporter went to Uni to learn to do that?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:05pm: Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition. Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar??? Oakshot is just a partisan hack for sure if he would allow the malaysian solution to occur. It's not going to happen, and just as well... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-to-bring-in-bill-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuz0-1226410127406

This labor government are fwits. The Australian people see what is going on here.

liberals got the UNHCR that was requested and still that is not good enough. Gillard stating that she would never send them to countries not signed up to UNHCR but now is pushing very hard for the opposite to occur.

They are just pathetic and the most stupid bunch I have ever had the misfortune to watch run a country.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:18pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:15pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:05pm: Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition. Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar??? Oakshot is just a partisan hack for sure if he would allow the malaysian solution to occur. It's not going to happen, and just as well... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-to-bring-in-bill-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuz0-1226410127406 This labor government are fwits. The Australian people see what is going on here. liberals got the UNHCR that was requested and still that is not good enough. Gillard stating that she would never send them to countries not signed up to UNHCR but now is pushing very hard for the opposite to occur. They are just pathetic and the most stupid bunch I have ever had the misfortune to watch run a country.

Of course. Gillard wants to look like she is offering a compromise to the Coalition and that Abbott is saying no to it. I think the people are smarterthan that. Clearly, this is much the same bill that Gillard withdrew after Malaysia was ruled illegal by the High Court. She is only interested in playing politics and scoring cheap political points while people perish at sea needlessly. She is an absolute disgrace! Abbott offered amendments that would have given Gillard breathing room - offshore processing in any UN signatory country. She did, after all, say she would never send anyone to a non-signatory country. Now she is hellbent on doing just that by persisting on sending 4000 people to Malaysia in return for us accepting 800 from the Malaysians. Not only is she a liar, she is attempting to force upon us an inherently bad policy that is doomed to failure even if it was able to pass the Senate. All it would do would be to embolden people smugglers to send as many people as possible as quickly as possible to exceed that 800 quota and then everyone else gets processed onshore here in Australia - on top of the 4,000 we'd have to take from Malaysia no matter what. This would make the average of around 1,000 arrivals per month seem like a drop in the ocean by comparison to what we'd have to contend with under her Malaysian deal. That those on the Left cannot comprehend these simple facts is breathtaking!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:25pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:15pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:05pm: Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition. Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar??? Oakshot is just a partisan hack for sure if he would allow the malaysian solution to occur. It's not going to happen, and just as well... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-to-bring-in-bill-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuz0-1226410127406 This labor government are fwits. The Australian people see what is going on here. liberals got the UNHCR that was requested and still that is not good enough. Gillard stating that she would never send them to countries not signed up to UNHCR but now is pushing very hard for the opposite to occur. They are just pathetic and the most stupid bunch I have ever had the misfortune to watch run a country. Of course. Gillard wants to look like she is offering a compromise to the Coalition and that Abbott is saying no to it. I think the people are smarterthan that. Clearly, this is much the same bill that Gillard withdrew after Malaysia was ruled illegal by the High Court. She is only interested in playing politics and scoring cheap political points while people perish at sea needlessly. She is an absolute disgrace! Abbott offered amendments that would have given Gillard breathing room - offshore processing in any UN signatory country. She did, after all, say she would never send anyone to a non-signatory country. Now she is hellbent on doing just that by persisting on sending 4000 people to Malaysia in return for us accepting 800 from the Malaysians. Not only is she a liar, she is attempting to force upon us an inherently bad policy that is doomed to failure even if it was able to pass the Senate. All it would do would be to embolden people smugglers to send as many people as possible as quickly as possible to exceed that 800 quota and then everyone else gets processed onshore here in Australia - on top of the 4,000 we'd have to take from Malaysia no matter what. This would make the average of around 1,000 arrivals per month seem like a drop in the ocean by comparison to what we'd have to contend with under her Malaysian deal. That those on the Left cannot comprehend these simple facts is breathtaking!

To make it even more pathetic to watch this government, they make some deal that no man would in their right mind make and that is an 800 for 4000 swap. Just pathetic.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:25pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:15pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:05pm: Gillard has pushed through Rob Oakeshott's bill in the lower house and it will go to the Senate tomorrow. It's nothing short of disgraceful as it does nothing at all to address the core of the problem - there is no disincentive to people smugglers or their human cargo. Labor's so-called "Mayalsia Solution" is no solution at all and will, in fact, succeed only in making a bad problem much worse. Having said that, I do not see this bill passing in the Senate as the Greens have (rightly) said they will vote against it, as will the Coalition. Another boat, another death, another policy failure by the Gillard government. Sound familiar??? Oakshot is just a partisan hack for sure if he would allow the malaysian solution to occur. It's not going to happen, and just as well... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-to-bring-in-bill-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuz0-1226410127406 This labor government are fwits. The Australian people see what is going on here. liberals got the UNHCR that was requested and still that is not good enough. Gillard stating that she would never send them to countries not signed up to UNHCR but now is pushing very hard for the opposite to occur. They are just pathetic and the most stupid bunch I have ever had the misfortune to watch run a country. Of course. Gillard wants to look like she is offering a compromise to the Coalition and that Abbott is saying no to it. I think the people are smarterthan that. Clearly, this is much the same bill that Gillard withdrew after Malaysia was ruled illegal by the High Court. She is only interested in playing politics and scoring cheap political points while people perish at sea needlessly. She is an absolute disgrace! Abbott offered amendments that would have given Gillard breathing room - offshore processing in any UN signatory country. She did, after all, say she would never send anyone to a non-signatory country. Now she is hellbent on doing just that by persisting on sending 4000 people to Malaysia in return for us accepting 800 from the Malaysians. Not only is she a liar, she is attempting to force upon us an inherently bad policy that is doomed to failure even if it was able to pass the Senate. All it would do would be to embolden people smugglers to send as many people as possible as quickly as possible to exceed that 800 quota and then everyone else gets processed onshore here in Australia - on top of the 4,000 we'd have to take from Malaysia no matter what. This would make the average of around 1,000 arrivals per month seem like a drop in the ocean by comparison to what we'd have to contend with under her Malaysian deal. That those on the Left cannot comprehend these simple facts is breathtaking! To make it even more pathetic to watch this government, they make some deal that no man would in their right mind make and that is an 800 for 4000 swap. Just pathetic.

Gillard should call it what it is - a capitulation, not a swap.

proves you are just a pup. :)

I've seen much worse... but I do think the govt should just forget about off-shore processing...  where ever.. Its not viable.. economically..or politically, nor is it righteous in labor ethics. AMONGST OTHER THINGS.

Avram has a very good point  when he says the majority of these boat arrivals are young men.
Likely they are escaping death / war in their countries. But not certain, by any means. :-?

I would expect the aus govt to focus all local available naval units to patrol, specifically those areas likely to produce a load of boat people.   Ah HA.!!!

Now.. getting slightly more paranoid.!  ....
... whilst the avail naval units are occuppied with these drowning boat people,  how many others,  NOT CONVENIENTLY CLOSE to Christmas Island, have already reached our shores, unbeknownest to us.?

   Yes, I'm suggesting a 'two-pronged' approach, ... to get many alien and un-assessed males onto our shores.  The government conveniently ships those that are intercepted to major centres,  ... as well as extremely isolated locations.
Perfect ... for a subtle infiltration of subversives. 

Much better to take control and  'bite the bullet'. Trying to fend them off is too pathetic, and I am ashamed my govt proposes such foolishness.

   So...how many have arrived,? by boat AND PLANE???

No one can possibly say. !!  And that is a worry.  All this political turmoil over what is essentially a misdirection is a worry.
It seems our surveillance of our own territorial waters is so poor,  that veritable boatloads of people appear on  'our doorstep' so to speak, un- announced, and drowning.!!  ::) ::)

I find this whole scenario extremely suspect. >:( 8-)
And I'd suggest looking just to our nth ...for the source.

Christine Milne is unbelievable! She says that, "Australia wouldn't be in the mess it's now in over asylum seekers if all the money spent on the Pacific Solution had been devoted to achieving a longterm solution."

Is she really that plain stupid and uneducated? In the first full year of operation, the Pacific Solution registered zero boats and zero people. At the time the policy was dismantled by Rudd (with the backing of the Greens), there was a grand total of four people in detention.

She complains about the cost of Howard's policy. Does she not know that under Howard, the cost to taxpayers was less than $100m per year, while under the ALP the cost has skyrocketed to more than $1.2bn per year??? She complains that Howard's policy was "most appalling", yet does not criticise the ALP for the hundreds (probably over one thousand) of deaths that have occurred since Rudd took over.

If we follow the advice of the Greens, the 1,000 or so we see arrive per month now would very likely be two or three times higher.

Grow a brain, Christine!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/boats-kept-coming-even-under-howard-milne/story-e6freuz0-1226410503377

Gist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:46pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing? My understanding is that part of the deal is that once they are processed in Malaysia, they are not guaranteed to be sent to Australia. They could be resettled anywhere. This removes the incentive for the journey to Australia in the first place. Whereas for Nauru, the majority were resettled in Australia. Although certainly NZ took some, most of those people ended up here anyway. This is why the bureaucrats in the Dept. Immigration themselves are advising that Nauru is not a deterrent. People smugglers can point to the evidence that anyone sailing to Australia will almost certainly end up in Australia.

Thanks for elaborating further. If people smugglers knew that if processed at Nauru it would most likely result in them being resettled in Australia, why were the numbers during these years not high though? Just seems surprising that most were resettled in Australia - doesn't appear to be much of a deterrent?

you just don't get the picture.

'Deterrence'......... ::)  --- doesn't and won't and can't have any realistic application in this matter.

The people will keep coming.
They aren't just embarking on this type of life.threatening adventure for a wee jaunt.
Humans always find a way... and this unhealthy focus on boat arrivals being 'untouchable' is just ridiculous.!

Bring them onshore. !  No overseas 'solution' exists.!!!
It is simply a fantasy for all those unable to face the facts.

Times change people....people change times. ( ME) :)

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 10:51pm:

you just don't get the picture. 'Deterrence'......... ::)  --- doesn't and won't and can't have any realistic application in this matter. The people will keep coming. They aren't just embarking on this type of life.threatening adventure for a wee jaunt. Humans always find a way... and this unhealthy focus on boat arrivals being 'untouchable' is just ridiculous.! Bring them onshore. !  No overseas 'solution' exists.!!! It is simply a fantasy for all those unable to face the facts. Times change people....people change times. ( ME) :)

you just don't get the picture

The only deterent is a stay in a camp and to be processed until their identity can be verified.

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 10:51pm:

you just don't get the picture. 'Deterrence'......... ::)  --- doesn't and won't and can't have any realistic application in this matter. The people will keep coming. They aren't just embarking on this type of life.threatening adventure for a wee jaunt. Humans always find a way... and this unhealthy focus on boat arrivals being 'untouchable' is just ridiculous.! Bring them onshore. !  No overseas 'solution' exists.!!! It is simply a fantasy for all those unable to face the facts. Times change people....people change times. ( ME) :)

Atheists must be stopped from ruining this country must be defeated. :(

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

Emma wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 10:51pm: you just don't get the picture. 'Deterrence'......... ::)  --- doesn't and won't and can't have any realistic application in this matter. The people will keep coming. They aren't just embarking on this type of life.threatening adventure for a wee jaunt. Humans always find a way... and this unhealthy focus on boat arrivals being 'untouchable' is just ridiculous.! Bring them onshore. !  No overseas 'solution' exists.!!! It is simply a fantasy for all those unable to face the facts. Times change people....people change times. ( ME) :) you just don't get the picture The only deterent is a stay in a camp and to be processed until their identity can be verified.

NO..! Proglessness!! ::) Good grief!!

A deterrent is s'posed to apply to OTHER then those caught. DOH.!!!!!

Its TOO LATE to put them in a camp , as a DETERRENCE. !!

DOH!!!  dey's already here man.!!  Such nonsense seems to be the basis of this o/s processing idea.

Not rational, if you really care to think about it.!!! :D

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 11:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 10:53pm: Emma wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 10:51pm: you just don't get the picture. 'Deterrence'......... ::)  --- doesn't and won't and can't have any realistic application in this matter. The people will keep coming. They aren't just embarking on this type of life.threatening adventure for a wee jaunt. Humans always find a way... and this unhealthy focus on boat arrivals being 'untouchable' is just ridiculous.! Bring them onshore. !  No overseas 'solution' exists.!!! It is simply a fantasy for all those unable to face the facts. Times change people....people change times. ( ME) :) you just don't get the picture The only deterent is a stay in a camp and to be processed until their identity can be verified. NO..! Proglessness!! ::) Good grief!! A deterrent is s'posed to apply to OTHER then those caught. DOH.!!!!! Its TOO LATE to put them in a camp , as a DETERRENCE. !! DOH!!!  dey's already here man.!!  Such nonsense seems to be the basis of this o/s processing idea. Not rational, if you really care to think about it.!!! :D

No it is not too late. The deterent is for the next boat load and the next after that and so on. The word will spread and the evidence is in the liberal policy working in the past.

load of rubbish there mate.  Worked in the past??


Pshawwwwpheh??
Plainly, if it had worked - no boat people would be drowning... or would have  DROWNED back then.  What's hard to understand?

Well surprise surprise. They drowned back then too.

Just weren't as many..or we never heard about it... but THAT was just a matter of time,  ..and time has passed... and more and more dispossessed people are seeking a new life.  NO BIG SURPRISE .!!

New methods are necessary .. NOT OLD FAILED POLICY.
>:( >:(

get over it and adapt
or become a bit of cast-off waste blowing around on the edge of the nation's highways.!!!!!!!!

AND.... its really interesting!  that I have HAD NO REPLY to my Reply#75.

Are some things too hard.??

Got you thinking?
:)

Emma wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:11am:

load of rubbish there mate.  Worked in the past?? Pshawwwwpheh?? Plainly, if it had worked - no boat people would be drowning... or would have  DROWNED back then.  What's hard to understand? Well surprise surprise. They drowned back then too. Just weren't as many..or we never heard about it... but THAT was just a matter of time,  ..and time has passed... and more and more dispossessed people are seeking a new life.  NO BIG SURPRISE .!! New methods are necessary .. NOT OLD FAILED POLICY. >:( >:( get over it and adapt or become a bit of cast-off waste blowing around on the edge of the nation's highways.!!!!!!!!

How many dead back then compared to now? Bet you wouldnt answer that.

Emma wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:13am:

AND.... its really interesting!  that I have HAD NO REPLY to my Reply#75. Are some things too hard.?? Got you thinking? :)

There wasn't even a question in #75

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 11:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 10:53pm: Emma wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 10:51pm: you just don't get the picture. 'Deterrence'......... ::)  --- doesn't and won't and can't have any realistic application in this matter. The people will keep coming. They aren't just embarking on this type of life.threatening adventure for a wee jaunt. Humans always find a way... and this unhealthy focus on boat arrivals being 'untouchable' is just ridiculous.! Bring them onshore. !  No overseas 'solution' exists.!!! It is simply a fantasy for all those unable to face the facts. Times change people....people change times. ( ME) :) you just don't get the picture The only deterent is a stay in a camp and to be processed until their identity can be verified. NO..! Proglessness!! ::) Good grief!! A deterrent is s'posed to apply to OTHER then those caught. DOH.!!!!! Its TOO LATE to put them in a camp , as a DETERRENCE. !! DOH!!!  dey's already here man.!!  Such nonsense seems to be the basis of this o/s processing idea. Not rational, if you really care to think about it.!!! :D

I agree. That's why we need the Pacific Solution brought back. It deterred the people smugglers and their human cargo. In its first full year, no boats, no people, empty camps. Can't you halfwits understand that?

The ALP is captured by communists at the moment, thats why they want to reject legal protections, its part of a broader agenda to expand it here driving us down into the dirt. :P

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

We are a BIG COUNTRY.!! WE have LOTS of room ..... we NEED more population, according to economic growth indicators. TURN THE BOATS AROUND.!! PROCESS THEM OFFSHORE. !! THESE IDEAS are simply grasping at straws. .. trying to preserve Australia for the old folks... that is .. their somewhat benign view of recent Australian history. THEY CANNOT WORK. We are just now BEGINNING to see the START of the influx.  It really is inevitable, -- and the desperation of the pollies (both sides) is embarrassing to see,  BECAUSE they fail to see the truth.  THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE they can do this crap.  They're wrong. We need to take RESPONSIBLE action. knowing as we do that people are dying as we dawdle.! WE MUST allow them onto our mainland, assess them fairly, .. and DEAL with them in an appropriate positive and humane way.  IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE...  for those who think money.... That way,, they become Australians, ...with everything to protect, and work for. Rather than increasing numbers of people incarcerated and learning to hate us.  We have no excuse .... but xenophobia.!! We should be actively intercepting these people, before they depart in a leaky boat.  For that we need Indonesia to come on board.  NOT MALAYSIA, ?? or NAURU??? ...both of which are illegal under current recent high court Law. And could never be an EFFECTIVE solution. Forget it... do the right thing.... AND HOPE for the F'N BEST.!!! We.. cannot stop this mass movement of people, and we become more and more   WRONG... all of the time we try to ignore the inevitable.!!

import masses of screwed up people from already screwed up countries and bring all their crappy traditions culture and crap here? thanks but no thanks. It australia were a muslim country in the first place it would be poor and refugees would be leaving here to got to NZ or indonesia.  If they want to come here and adopt OUR culture, OUR language and OUR values then no problem. if not. stay out.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:46pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:36pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Question to Labor supporters for my own awareness - is there something that I am missing that would make Malaysia a more viable option despite it not being a signatory? I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm genuinely interested. whilst they aren't a signatory the government has been able to negotiate certain human rights guarantees as part of the package .... no one will get whipped or whatever other crap the libs are claiming Thanks for answering. However I have to also ask from your response, how does that make Malaysia a more viable option? It appears to be, at best, no different to what the Libs are proposing? My understanding is that part of the deal is that once they are processed in Malaysia, they are not guaranteed to be sent to Australia. They could be resettled anywhere. This removes the incentive for the journey to Australia in the first place. Whereas for Nauru, the majority were resettled in Australia. Although certainly NZ took some, most of those people ended up here anyway. This is why the bureaucrats in the Dept. Immigration themselves are advising that Nauru is not a deterrent. People smugglers can point to the evidence that anyone sailing to Australia will almost certainly end up in Australia. Thanks for elaborating further. If people smugglers knew that if processed at Nauru it would most likely result in them being resettled in Australia, why were the numbers during these years not high though? Just seems surprising that most were resettled in Australia - doesn't appear to be much of a deterrent?

They didn't know initially so it was a deterrent for a while. As the evidence started to come through that people were being overwhelmingly resettled in Australia and NZ then the deterrence value failed. If you look closely at the numbers of arrivals during the Pacific Solution years you'd see a marked increase towards the end. Even the architect in the Department of Immigration of the Pacific Solution agrees with this assessment and is advising the government to persue Malaysia.

The policy that Julia Gillard is hellbent on legislating is known as the Malaysian Solution. It is doomed to fail for a number of reasons, some of which include:

1. It is illegal. It was ruled illegal because Australia cannot simply fob off its duty of care to these people to a country that has a deplorable history on dealing with refugees. Australia is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees and would have been acting in contravention of that convention if we sent people to Malaysia.

2. It will not deter people smugglers or their human cargo. The deal would see us take in 4,000 people from Malaysia in return for us sending Malaysia 800 for processing. It will not deter anyone because the current rate of arrivals would see 800 people arrive within a couple of weeks. Then what? What happens after those 800 people are shipped off to Malaysia? We go back to onshore processing? This policy is a bad policy that will only encourage people smugglers to further overload their boats, to send the boats more frequently to overwhelm the 800 quota so that after that, the people will be processed onshore.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

The policy that Julia Gillard is hellbent on legislating is known as the Malaysian Solution. It is doomed to fail for a number of reasons, some of which include: 1. It is illegal. It was ruled illegal because Australia cannot simply fob off its duty of care to these people to a country that has a deplorable history on dealing with refugees. Australia is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees and would have been acting in contravention of that convention if we sent people to Malaysia. 2. It will not deter people smugglers or their human cargo. The deal would see us take in 4,000 people from Malaysia in return for us sending Malaysia 800 for processing. It will not deter anyone because the current rate of arrivals would see 800 people arrive within a couple of weeks. Then what? What happens after those 800 people are shipped off to Malaysia? We go back to onshore processing? This policy is a bad policy that will only encourage people smugglers to further overload their boats, to send the boats more frequently to overwhelm the 800 quota so that after that, the people will be processed onshore.

Point 1 is irrelevant because it is only illegal until the Parliament changes the law - which is in train as we speak. Then it will be NOT illegal. You persistently show you're too dumb to understand that simple point.

Don't care about Point 2 as it's also irrelevant. Neither Malaysia OR Nauru is the solution. But you cheergirls go ahead and cheer. We realise its all you know how to do.

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:02am: The policy that Julia Gillard is hellbent on legislating is known as the Malaysian Solution. It is doomed to fail for a number of reasons, some of which include: 1. It is illegal. It was ruled illegal because Australia cannot simply fob off its duty of care to these people to a country that has a deplorable history on dealing with refugees. Australia is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees and would have been acting in contravention of that convention if we sent people to Malaysia. 2. It will not deter people smugglers or their human cargo. The deal would see us take in 4,000 people from Malaysia in return for us sending Malaysia 800 for processing. It will not deter anyone because the current rate of arrivals would see 800 people arrive within a couple of weeks. Then what? What happens after those 800 people are shipped off to Malaysia? We go back to onshore processing? This policy is a bad policy that will only encourage people smugglers to further overload their boats, to send the boats more frequently to overwhelm the 800 quota so that after that, the people will be processed onshore. Point 1 is irrelevant because it is only illegal until the Parliament changes the law - which is in train as we speak. Then it will be NOT illegal. You persistently show you're too dumb to understand that simple point. Don't care about Point 2 as it's also irrelevant. Neither Malaysia OR Nauru is the solution. But you cheergirls go ahead and cheer. We realise its all you know how to do.

What would you do? I assume you're all for onshore processing. That is a large part of the reason why we are seeing hundreds of people die in their attempt to reach our country by boat. It's not a deterrent, it's an encouragement to risk their lives. We need to stop these people from risking their lives and to come via legal means instead. That you cannot understand this extremely simple fact shows just how brain-dead stupid you and the rest of the Left really are.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

What would you do? I assume you're all for onshore processing. That is a large part of the reason why we are seeing hundreds of people die in their attempt to reach our country by boat. It's not a deterrent, it's an encouragement to risk their lives. We need to stop these people from risking their lives and to come via legal means instead. That you cannot understand this extremely simple fact shows just how brain-dead stupid you and the rest of the Left really are.

Well... to quote you (or maybe lolly) - I'm not the government. It isn't up to me to find a solution.

I can tell you that any good solution is unlikely  come out of our current efforts. A good solution needs ongoing bipartisan support. That's what happened from Fraser through to Howard and were we "inundated" by boat arrivals? No.

But you can kiss bipartisanship goodbye whilst ever Abbott is leader of the opposition. He's been quite clear that he'll oppose anything the other side proposed - even if they propose his own policy! He seems to think it's OK to gain political points at the cost of human life. That man is lower than the slime living off slug sh!t, honestly.

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:19am: What would you do? I assume you're all for onshore processing. That is a large part of the reason why we are seeing hundreds of people die in their attempt to reach our country by boat. It's not a deterrent, it's an encouragement to risk their lives. We need to stop these people from risking their lives and to come via legal means instead. That you cannot understand this extremely simple fact shows just how brain-dead stupid you and the rest of the Left really are. Well... to quote you (or maybe lolly) - I'm not the government. It isn't up to me to find a solution. I can tell you that any good solution is unlikely  come out of our current efforts. A good solution needs ongoing bipartisan support. That's what happened from Fraser through to Howard and were we "inundated" by boat arrivals? No. But you can kiss bipartisanship goodbye whilst ever Abbott is leader of the opposition. He's been quite clear that he'll oppose anything the other side proposed - even if they propose his own policy! He seems to think it's OK to gain political points at the cost of human life. That man is lower than the slime living off slug sh!t, honestly.

It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place.

It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution.

Labor = partisan
Labor = poor policies

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:19am: What would you do? I assume you're all for onshore processing. That is a large part of the reason why we are seeing hundreds of people die in their attempt to reach our country by boat. It's not a deterrent, it's an encouragement to risk their lives. We need to stop these people from risking their lives and to come via legal means instead. That you cannot understand this extremely simple fact shows just how brain-dead stupid you and the rest of the Left really are. Well... to quote you (or maybe lolly) - I'm not the government. It isn't up to me to find a solution. I can tell you that any good solution is unlikely  come out of our current efforts. A good solution needs ongoing bipartisan support. That's what happened from Fraser through to Howard and were we "inundated" by boat arrivals? No. But you can kiss bipartisanship goodbye whilst ever Abbott is leader of the opposition. He's been quite clear that he'll oppose anything the other side proposed - even if they propose his own policy! He seems to think it's OK to gain political points at the cost of human life. That man is lower than the slime living off slug sh!t, honestly. It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies

libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no
libs = no

no,, no,  no ...how many times does he have to say it ... no matter what the cost...no, no no

John Smith wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:19am: What would you do? I assume you're all for onshore processing. That is a large part of the reason why we are seeing hundreds of people die in their attempt to reach our country by boat. It's not a deterrent, it's an encouragement to risk their lives. We need to stop these people from risking their lives and to come via legal means instead. That you cannot understand this extremely simple fact shows just how brain-dead stupid you and the rest of the Left really are. Well... to quote you (or maybe lolly) - I'm not the government. It isn't up to me to find a solution. I can tell you that any good solution is unlikely  come out of our current efforts. A good solution needs ongoing bipartisan support. That's what happened from Fraser through to Howard and were we "inundated" by boat arrivals? No. But you can kiss bipartisanship goodbye whilst ever Abbott is leader of the opposition. He's been quite clear that he'll oppose anything the other side proposed - even if they propose his own policy! He seems to think it's OK to gain political points at the cost of human life. That man is lower than the slime living off slug sh!t, honestly. It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no no,, no,  no ...how many times does he have to say it ... no matter what the cost...no, no no

Well when it comes to labor policy always being poor, then you are bound to see alot of no's, unless you are a greens supporter of course.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies

Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points.

And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right.

And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether.

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether.

To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:47am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:19am: What would you do? I assume you're all for onshore processing. That is a large part of the reason why we are seeing hundreds of people die in their attempt to reach our country by boat. It's not a deterrent, it's an encouragement to risk their lives. We need to stop these people from risking their lives and to come via legal means instead. That you cannot understand this extremely simple fact shows just how brain-dead stupid you and the rest of the Left really are. Well... to quote you (or maybe lolly) - I'm not the government. It isn't up to me to find a solution. I can tell you that any good solution is unlikely  come out of our current efforts. A good solution needs ongoing bipartisan support. That's what happened from Fraser through to Howard and were we "inundated" by boat arrivals? No. But you can kiss bipartisanship goodbye whilst ever Abbott is leader of the opposition. He's been quite clear that he'll oppose anything the other side proposed - even if they propose his own policy! He seems to think it's OK to gain political points at the cost of human life. That man is lower than the slime living off slug sh!t, honestly. It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no no,, no,  no ...how many times does he have to say it ... no matter what the cost...no, no no Well when it comes to labor policy always being poor, then you are bound to see alot of no's, unless you are a greens supporter of course.

you only say that because no one can say the same about the libs ... in order to have even a crap policy, one must FIRST have a policy ... note, i said policy, not a slogan or an idea, or a headline ...but a fully costed policy complete with all the bells and whistles that set out costs, timelines etc.....

John Smith wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:55am: John Smith wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:47am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:19am: What would you do? I assume you're all for onshore processing. That is a large part of the reason why we are seeing hundreds of people die in their attempt to reach our country by boat. It's not a deterrent, it's an encouragement to risk their lives. We need to stop these people from risking their lives and to come via legal means instead. That you cannot understand this extremely simple fact shows just how brain-dead stupid you and the rest of the Left really are. Well... to quote you (or maybe lolly) - I'm not the government. It isn't up to me to find a solution. I can tell you that any good solution is unlikely  come out of our current efforts. A good solution needs ongoing bipartisan support. That's what happened from Fraser through to Howard and were we "inundated" by boat arrivals? No. But you can kiss bipartisanship goodbye whilst ever Abbott is leader of the opposition. He's been quite clear that he'll oppose anything the other side proposed - even if they propose his own policy! He seems to think it's OK to gain political points at the cost of human life. That man is lower than the slime living off slug sh!t, honestly. It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no libs = no no,, no,  no ...how many times does he have to say it ... no matter what the cost...no, no no Well when it comes to labor policy always being poor, then you are bound to see alot of no's, unless you are a greens supporter of course. you only say that because no one can say the same about the libs ... in order to have even a crap policy, one must FIRST have a policy ... note, i said policy, not a slogan or an idea, or a headline ...but a fully costed policy complete with all the bells and whistles that set out costs, timelines etc.....

Ooooh the poor governing party.

You know all parties have that disadvantage and all parties would still love to have that disadvantage and be in power.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya.

The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it.

Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board.

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:02am: The policy that Julia Gillard is hellbent on legislating is known as the Malaysian Solution. It is doomed to fail for a number of reasons, some of which include: 1. It is illegal. It was ruled illegal because Australia cannot simply fob off its duty of care to these people to a country that has a deplorable history on dealing with refugees. Australia is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees and would have been acting in contravention of that convention if we sent people to Malaysia. 2. It will not deter people smugglers or their human cargo. The deal would see us take in 4,000 people from Malaysia in return for us sending Malaysia 800 for processing. It will not deter anyone because the current rate of arrivals would see 800 people arrive within a couple of weeks. Then what? What happens after those 800 people are shipped off to Malaysia? We go back to onshore processing? This policy is a bad policy that will only encourage people smugglers to further overload their boats, to send the boats more frequently to overwhelm the 800 quota so that after that, the people will be processed onshore. Point 1 is irrelevant because it is only illegal until the Parliament changes the law - which is in train as we speak. Then it will be NOT illegal. You persistently show you're too dumb to understand that simple point. Don't care about Point 2 as it's also irrelevant. Neither Malaysia OR Nauru is the solution. But you cheergirls go ahead and cheer. We realise its all you know how to do.

I wonder if this f wit whined when the lying little rodent sent people to Nauru when it WAS NOT a signatory to the UN convention?

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board.

It worked and even when they have gotten the UNHCR signage, it still isnt good enough. You lot are just pure partisan hacks.

Malaysia solution is way more cruel than the previous liberal policy was without the UNHCR signage and now with the signage, malaysia solution is on a different planet.

Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:29pm:

Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill?

Is it? Has there been a vote? You may want to wait for the vote...

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board. It worked and even when they have gotten the UNHCR signage, it still isnt good enough. You lot are just pure partisan hacks. Malaysia solution is way more cruel than the previous liberal policy was without the UNHCR signage and now with the signage, malaysia solution is on a different planet.

Like I say, I don't support the Malaysia solution. But YOU guys are the ones who keep talking about deterrence. Malaysia will stand a chance at deterring people from getting on boats. Nauru won't.

So what is it you're after? Your choice:

Deterrence?

Or proper treatment of asylum seekers.

You can only choose one.

Nauru didn't work. There were less boats because there were less refugees in that period. And once pressure was on again and everybody who ended up in Nauru ended up in Australia it would've made no difference at all. Swapping 800 queue jumpers for 4,000 genune asylum seekers is a good solution statistically, but people aren't statistics, they're people.

Neither is a good solution and the Greens solution of flying in everybody who wants to come isn't either. A good solution is possible. It requires some creative outside the box thinking.

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:26pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board. It worked and even when they have gotten the UNHCR signage, it still isnt good enough. You lot are just pure partisan hacks. Malaysia solution is way more cruel than the previous liberal policy was without the UNHCR signage and now with the signage, malaysia solution is on a different planet. Like I say, I don't support the Malaysia solution. But YOU guys are the ones who keep talking about deterrence. Malaysia will stand a chance at deterring people from getting on boats. Nauru won't. So what is it you're after? Your choice: Deterrence? Or proper treatment of asylum seekers. You can only choose one.

All of the above, hence the UNHCR signage

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:26pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board. It worked and even when they have gotten the UNHCR signage, it still isnt good enough. You lot are just pure partisan hacks. Malaysia solution is way more cruel than the previous liberal policy was without the UNHCR signage and now with the signage, malaysia solution is on a different planet. Like I say, I don't support the Malaysia solution. But YOU guys are the ones who keep talking about deterrence. Malaysia will stand a chance at deterring people from getting on boats. Nauru won't. So what is it you're after? Your choice: Deterrence? Or proper treatment of asylum seekers. You can only choose one.

You think the Malaysia deal will be a deterrent, eh? Okay, lets examine that deal. Each year, in return for Malaysia accepting 800 illegal immigrants from us, we will take from Malaysia 4,000 people.

So, when people smugglers get wind of this deal they will realise that the first 800 people they send a flotilla of boats with people crammed in like sardines. Currently, we get on average around 1,000 people come by boat per month. Under the Malaysia deal, this number is sure to increase - probably double. That would mean we'd reach the 800 quota within weeks.

Then what? After those 800 people have been sent to Malaysia, what then? I guess we'll return to onshore processing of the others who come during the other 11 months of the year.

Malaysia simply won't work and will increase the cost to taxpayers. Currently, the government is spending (wasting) about $1.2bn per year. Wayne Swan has budgeted for a meagre 450 arrivals per month. We see that many people arrive in little more than a week or so.

No, the so-called "Malaysian Solution" is no solution. It is, in fact, an incentive for people smugglers to send more people more quickly on their leaky boats. That Gillard, Swan, Bowen and all the other Leftards in this country cannot comprehend this (yet people smugglers certainly do) just demonstrates how comprehensively brain-dead stupid you lot all are. Unbelievable!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:29pm:

Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill?

The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations.

skippy. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations.

Labor is in government with the Greens. If Gillard wants a bill passed, talk to that lot.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Labor is in government with the Greens. If Gillard wants a bill passed, talk to that lot.

So you admit phony tony doesn't really want a solution he just wants to bitch, like you. Typical f wits.

skippy. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations.

Because labor should say they will can the carbon tax that the greens are forcing on us, if the greens do not support the malaysia policy.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Because labor should say they will can the carbon tax that the greens are forcing on us, if the greens do not support the malaysia policy.

What a retarded comment.

skippy. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:09pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Because labor should say they will can the carbon tax that the greens are forcing on us, if the greens do not support the malaysia policy. What a retarded comment.

Well you are known for it.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:10pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:09pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Because labor should say they will can the carbon tax that the greens are forcing on us, if the greens do not support the malaysia policy. What a retarded comment. Well you are known for it.

You wrote it. Only a moron would think blackmail were the answer, you didn't let us down.

skippy. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:13pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:11pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:10pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:09pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Because labor should say they will can the carbon tax that the greens are forcing on us, if the greens do not support the malaysia policy. What a retarded comment. Well you are known for it. You wrote it. Only a moron would think blackmail were the answer, you didn't let us down.

Oh, you mean the blackmailing for labor to gain power and greens offering up that blackmail in the order of the carbon tax?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

You think the Malaysia deal will be a deterrent, eh? Okay, lets examine that deal. Each year, in return for Malaysia accepting 800 illegal immigrants from us, we will take from Malaysia 4,000 people. So, when people smugglers get wind of this deal they will realise that the first 800 people they send a flotilla of boats with people crammed in like sardines. Currently, we get on average around 1,000 people come by boat per month. Under the Malaysia deal, this number is sure to increase - probably double. That would mean we'd reach the 800 quota within weeks. Then what? After those 800 people have been sent to Malaysia, what then? I guess we'll return to onshore processing of the others who come during the other 11 months of the year. Malaysia simply won't work and will increase the cost to taxpayers. Currently, the government is spending (wasting) about $1.2bn per year. Wayne Swan has budgeted for a meagre 450 arrivals per month. We see that many people arrive in little more than a week or so. No, the so-called "Malaysian Solution" is no solution. It is, in fact, an incentive for people smugglers to send more people more quickly on their leaky boats. That Gillard, Swan, Bowen and all the other Leftards in this country cannot comprehend this (yet people smugglers certainly do) just demonstrates how comprehensively brain-dead stupid you lot all are. Unbelievable!

So... 800 people get sent to Malaysia after which they don't know where they will end up. Good chance it won't be Australia because our intake is piss-poor. Great incentive to pay someone to get onto a boat to Australia there? I think not.

Nauru - pretty much everyone gets sent to Australia as happened before. Great incentive to pay someone to get onto a boat to Australia there? I think so.

Oh.. and for the Malaysia solution after the 800 we presumably go to onshore processing and most go to Australia. So no different to Nauru - as long as you're not one of the unlucky 800.

I think you need to revisit your idea of brain dead because there is a high level of deterrence in the Malaysia solution for a while at least. And virtually none ever in your much-loved Nauru solution.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:26pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board. It worked and even when they have gotten the UNHCR signage, it still isnt good enough. You lot are just pure partisan hacks. Malaysia solution is way more cruel than the previous liberal policy was without the UNHCR signage and now with the signage, malaysia solution is on a different planet. Like I say, I don't support the Malaysia solution. But YOU guys are the ones who keep talking about deterrence. Malaysia will stand a chance at deterring people from getting on boats. Nauru won't. So what is it you're after? Your choice: Deterrence? Or proper treatment of asylum seekers. You can only choose one. All of the above, hence the UNHCR signage

What the matter? Can't count to ONE?

skippy. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:07pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Labor is in government with the Greens. If Gillard wants a bill passed, talk to that lot. So you admit phony tony doesn't really want a solution he just wants to bitch, like you. Typical f wits.

Tony offered a solution yesterday. Gillard, being the partisan hack that she is, dashed to grab a six month-old piece of legislation gathering dust that was from Oakeshott instead and refused to allow Abbott to offer his bill for debate. Gillard actually dared the Coalition to vote against that very bill six months ago - but was too scared to put it up for debate at the time. Why is now a good time? She is only interested in scoring cheap political points because she knows that the Coalition will never support her toxic Malaysia non-solution. All this is fact and that just eats you up, doesn't it? You idiotic Leftards have no leg to stand on, with only arguments that are weaker than wet paper. Absolutely disgraceful and I hope that when Abbott becomes PM and reintroduces TPVs, offshore processing (the whole smash) and we see the boats stop, I hope he shoves that bill right down the throats of every Leftarded member of parliament and Senator who refused to support his bill yesterday!

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:13pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:11pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:10pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:09pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Because labor should say they will can the carbon tax that the greens are forcing on us, if the greens do not support the malaysia policy. What a retarded comment. Well you are known for it. You wrote it. Only a moron would think blackmail were the answer, you didn't let us down. Oh, you mean the blackmailing for labor to gain power and greens offering up that blackmail in the order of the carbon tax?

Labor negotiated to gain power, something phony tony was incapable of, suck it up,princess. :'(

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:07pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Labor is in government with the Greens. If Gillard wants a bill passed, talk to that lot. So you admit phony tony doesn't really want a solution he just wants to bitch, like you. Typical f wits. Tony offered a solution yesterday. Gillard, being the partisan hack that she is, dashed to grab a six month-old piece of legislation gathering dust that was from Oakeshott instead and refused to allow Abbott to offer his bill for debate. Gillard actually dared the Coalition to vote against that very bill six months ago - but was too scared to put it up for debate at the time. Why is now a good time? She is only interested in scoring cheap political points because she knows that the Coalition will never support her toxic Malaysia non-solution. All this is fact and that just eats you up, doesn't it? You idiotic Leftards have no leg to stand on, with only arguments that are weaker than wet paper. Absolutely disgraceful and I hope that when Abbott becomes PM and reintroduces TPVs, offshore processing (the whole smash) and we see the boats stop, I hope he shoves that bill right down the throats of every Leftarded member of parliament and Senator who refused to support his bill yesterday!

His bill was to restore howards inhumane solution and add in 10k more refugees to be accepted.

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:07pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Labor is in government with the Greens. If Gillard wants a bill passed, talk to that lot. So you admit phony tony doesn't really want a solution he just wants to bitch, like you. Typical f wits. Tony offered a solution yesterday. Gillard, being the partisan hack that she is, dashed to grab a six month-old piece of legislation gathering dust that was from Oakeshott instead and refused to allow Abbott to offer his bill for debate. Gillard actually dared the Coalition to vote against that very bill six months ago - but was too scared to put it up for debate at the time. Why is now a good time? She is only interested in scoring cheap political points because she knows that the Coalition will never support her toxic Malaysia non-solution. All this is fact and that just eats you up, doesn't it? You idiotic Leftards have no leg to stand on, with only arguments that are weaker than wet paper. Absolutely disgraceful and I hope that when Abbott becomes PM and reintroduces TPVs, offshore processing (the whole smash) and we see the boats stop, I hope he shoves that bill right down the throats of every Leftarded member of parliament and Senator who refused to support his bill yesterday!

The only one getting eaten up is you, princess,as usual, we chew you up and spit you out. So suck it up, you should be used to getting screwed by now, the weak, like you always are. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:14pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:13pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:11pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:10pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 1:09pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:29pm: Julia Gillard and Rob Oakeshott's bill is dead in the Senate, that's a given. So, what do you wanna bet that Gillard will single out the Coalition and Tony Abbott for her criticism while completely leaving out any mention of the Greens whatsoever - despite them also voting against this bill? The Greens have always had onshore processing as their policy, Labor know that, why would Labor expect the GREENS to change their policy when the coalition insist their policy is off shore processing? only a moron would argue that point, I see you living up to your expectations. Because labor should say they will can the carbon tax that the greens are forcing on us, if the greens do not support the malaysia policy. What a retarded comment. Well you are known for it. You wrote it. Only a moron would think blackmail were the answer, you didn't let us down. Oh, you mean the blackmailing for labor to gain power and greens offering up that blackmail in the order of the carbon tax? Labor negotiated to gain power, something phony tony was incapable of, suck it up,princess. :'(

We all are. Payback is a bitc..

That's the issue right here and now.

They want it back and they won't admit it was their fault

They want it back and they want to make it look as if it was their idea

They want it back and they want to score political points

This is the only reason why they doggedly want Malaysia to be included

So this thread is an attempt to gain political points from humans dying.

You lowlife ... unfortunately no one would be surprised.

____ wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 10:10am:

So this thread is an attempt to gain political points from humans dying. You lowlife ... unfortunately no one would be surprised.

Labor did not start this thread!!

____ wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 10:10am:

So this thread is an attempt to gain political points from humans dying. You lowlife ... unfortunately no one would be surprised.

It's a combination of Labor incompetence and Greens lunacy that is costing people their lives.

it is a labor/greens govt.

____ wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 10:10am:

So this thread is an attempt to gain political points from humans dying. You lowlife ... unfortunately no one would be surprised.

Despite repeated deflection, today will go down in history as the day The Greens failed to justify their no compromise stance. The stupid woman talking now just told a story about an assylum seeker who FLEW here.  This is about stopping boats, God she is thick.

Guildford wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

____ wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 10:10am: So this thread is an attempt to gain political points from humans dying. You lowlife ... unfortunately no one would be surprised. Despite repeated deflection, today will go down in history as the day The Greens failed to justify their no compromise stance. The stupid woman talking now just told a story about an assylum seeker who FLEW here.  This is about stopping boats, God she is thick.

Yeh and Hanson-young was crying because a 15 years old was held for processing for, god forbid, 3 months. He now lives in Australia with a family.

Oh heaven Hanson-young, how terrible lol

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Guildford wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:23am: ____ wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 10:10am: So this thread is an attempt to gain political points from humans dying. You lowlife ... unfortunately no one would be surprised. Despite repeated deflection, today will go down in history as the day The Greens failed to justify their no compromise stance. The stupid woman talking now just told a story about an assylum seeker who FLEW here.  This is about stopping boats, God she is thick. Yeh and Hanson-young was crying because a 15 years old was held for processing for, god forbid, 3 months. He now lives in Australia with a family. Oh heaven Hanson-young, how terrible lol

Honestly, that woman is thick as a brick. So are most of the Greens.

why do we need so many topics about the boat people?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/boatload-of-refugees-30th-on-rudd-watch-20090912-flhs.html

The Rudd Labor government celebrated 30th illegal boat arrival in September 2009

By April 2012 - Gillard celebrate 300th illegal boat arrival

Well Done Labor

Maqqa wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 26th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Never mind the PS numbnut. We're talking about today, not when your grandad was at school. TODAY. TODAY the Noalition demands that all asylum seekers be sent to Nauru for processing. No exceptions. My question to all you righties is - what happens to them once they are processed? PS. You can run but you can't hide  :D The same that happened back in 2007

THEY GOT SENT TO AUSTRALIA IN 2007. EVERY LAST FVCKIN' ONE!!

What a USELESS policy THAT is! YOUR LOT demands we spend megabucks running a detention centre in Nauru to keep them there for a few years just to bring them here? WE MAY AS WELL STOP DICKING AROUND AND JUST ACCEPT THEM HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU MORON!

Congrats to Rudd and Gillard on their policy to increase Illegal Boat numbers - spectacular success

How many illegal immigrants flew in on Howards watch?

Gist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 26th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Gist wrote on Jun 26th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Never mind the PS numbnut. We're talking about today, not when your grandad was at school. TODAY. TODAY the Noalition demands that all asylum seekers be sent to Nauru for processing. No exceptions. My question to all you righties is - what happens to them once they are processed? PS. You can run but you can't hide  :D The same that happened back in 2007 THEY GOT SENT TO AUSTRALIA IN 2007. EVERY LAST FVCKIN' ONE!! What a USELESS policy THAT is! YOUR LOT demands we spend megabucks running a detention centre in Nauru to keep them there for a few years just to bring them here? WE MAY AS WELL STOP DICKING AROUND AND JUST ACCEPT THEM HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU MORON!

61% ended up in Australia.. why dont you try getting some facts right..even your PM admits to getting that fact wrong.


as far as I know none of them ever came up as being the actual people smugglers???????during the Libs term..

you happy to send them to MALAYSIA in exchange for 4000  where they stand a good chance of being whipped by mega maniac police..and you call that being warm and fuzzy..

no they cannot just come straight here....that means them waiting behind a lot of others.. and having the right papers and all the stuff they dont want to deal with..

this way the people smugglers way and rickety boats means they get here by hook or by crook...and when they do they can make all sorts of demands and this govt has no choice but to comply..  legal aid will see to that.

if  you think they will all get in a nice queue in java and wait for Qantas to pick them up then I am sure you will be disappointed.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

How many illegal immigrants flew in on Howards watch?

Love to discuss about your alleged illegal that flew in - please provide the appropriate stats and/or article

In the meantime - these people must first pass immigration where their papers are checked. If they do not have the papers then they are on the next plane back to the port where they came from

Over to you

cods wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:41pm:

61% ended up in Australia.. why dont you try getting some facts right..even your PM admits to getting that fact wrong. as far as I know none of them ever came up as being the actual people smugglers???????during the Libs term.. you happy to send them to MALAYSIA in exchange for 4000  where they stand a good chance of being whipped by mega maniac police..and you call that being warm and fuzzy.. no they cannot just come straight here....that means them waiting behind a lot of others.. and having the right papers and all the stuff they dont want to deal with.. this way the people smugglers way and rickety boats means they get here by hook or by crook...and when they do they can make all sorts of demands and this govt has no choice but to comply..  legal aid will see to that. if  you think they will all get in a nice queue in java and wait for Qantas to pick them up then I am sure you will be disappointed.

You're right cods, I was using a bit of artistic license with those numbers. According to the Age:


Quote:

More than 95 per cent of asylum seekers who were processed at Nauru's detention centre under the Howard government were resettled in Australia, the foreign affairs minister says. http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/refugees-in-nauru-settled-in-australia-20100729-10xkz.html

So it was only 95% not 100% as I said. Mea culpa. I didn't want to quibble with small change.

And no... I didn't say anything about Malaysia. You're putting words in my mouth. If in fact you'd been following my posts these past week, I'm pretty sure I have mentioned along the way that I don't think Malaysia is an acceptable answer either. Although if the aim is to act as a deterrent then I'm pretty damn sure that Malaysia is a far bigger deterrent than Nauru.

Gross Labor incompetence doesn't come cheap.

And if the Liberal party could accept that they lost the election and behave like adults instead of spoilt children then they would have allowed the changes to the act knowing they can change it when they ascend to power as is their right.

nairbe wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

And if the Liberal party could accept that they lost the election and behave like adults instead of spoilt children then they would have allowed the changes to the act knowing they can change it when they ascend to power as is their right.

We accept it

And we love the way Labor is destroying the country

nairbe wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

And if the Liberal party could accept that they lost the election and behave like adults instead of spoilt children then they would have allowed the changes to the act knowing they can change it when they ascend to power as is their right.

Not according to the greens and the carbon tax. Actually not according to labor either.

Gist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 26th, 2012 at 3:31pm: Gist wrote on Jun 26th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Never mind the PS numbnut. We're talking about today, not when your grandad was at school. TODAY. TODAY the Noalition demands that all asylum seekers be sent to Nauru for processing. No exceptions. My question to all you righties is - what happens to them once they are processed? PS. You can run but you can't hide  :D The same that happened back in 2007 THEY GOT SENT TO AUSTRALIA IN 2007. EVERY LAST FVCKIN' ONE!! What a USELESS policy THAT is! YOUR LOT demands we spend megabucks running a detention centre in Nauru to keep them there for a few years just to bring them here? WE MAY AS WELL STOP DICKING AROUND AND JUST ACCEPT THEM HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU MORON!

Can't resist telling lies, eh? By the way, this year we passed 19,000 illegal immigrants since Rudd scrapped the Pacific Solution. That's one hell of an epic failure by Labor, and you know it!

A poll in the Daily Telegraph shows that the overwhelming majority believe Gillard should change Labor's policy on border protection, with just under 14,000 voting yes (to change ALP policy) while only just over 1,000 voted no (don't change ALP policy). Labor got it wrong, with the help of the Greens and continues getting it wrong. So let Labor talk to the Greens and fix this mess they created, because the Coalition had a working policy and the Labor Party under Rudd and now Gillard wrecked it.

If Labor was serious about fixing the problem that would put the whole Libs Pacific Solution policy back on the table.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

If Labor was serious about fixing the problem that would put the whole Libs Pacific Solution policy back on the table.

Yep, instead of an ultimatum that the Coalition support her illegal Malaysia deal. She knows Abbott would never support that no matter what (rightly so) and is trying to position herself as reasonable and to look like she wants to fix this problem. In reality, she's the one playing politics with people's lives.

Gist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

cods wrote on Jun 26th, 2012 at 5:41pm: 61% ended up in Australia.. why dont you try getting some facts right..even your PM admits to getting that fact wrong. as far as I know none of them ever came up as being the actual people smugglers???????during the Libs term.. you happy to send them to MALAYSIA in exchange for 4000  where they stand a good chance of being whipped by mega maniac police..and you call that being warm and fuzzy.. no they cannot just come straight here....that means them waiting behind a lot of others.. and having the right papers and all the stuff they dont want to deal with.. this way the people smugglers way and rickety boats means they get here by hook or by crook...and when they do they can make all sorts of demands and this govt has no choice but to comply..  legal aid will see to that. if  you think they will all get in a nice queue in java and wait for Qantas to pick them up then I am sure you will be disappointed. You're right cods, I was using a bit of artistic license with those numbers. According to the Age: Quote: More than 95 per cent of asylum seekers who were processed at Nauru's detention centre under the Howard government were resettled in Australia, the foreign affairs minister says. http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/refugees-in-nauru-settled-in-australia-20100729-10xkz.html So it was only 95% not 100% as I said. Mea culpa. I didn't want to quibble with small change. And no... I didn't say anything about Malaysia. You're putting words in my mouth. If in fact you'd been following my posts these past week, I'm pretty sure I have mentioned along the way that I don't think Malaysia is an acceptable answer either. Although if the aim is to act as a deterrent then I'm pretty damn sure that Malaysia is a far bigger deterrent than Nauru.

think you will find thats old news sport I would look it up but cant be bothered to be honest.. you believe whatever you want.hence my comment YOUR PM admitted getting it wrong.

however who would dispute the all knowing everything left!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:39am: If Labor was serious about fixing the problem that would put the whole Libs Pacific Solution policy back on the table. Yep, instead of an ultimatum that the Coalition support her illegal Malaysia deal. She knows Abbott would never support that no matter what (rightly so) and is trying to position herself as reasonable and to look like she wants to fix this problem. In reality, she's the one playing politics with people's lives.

So... when Lieberals vowed NOT to restore the Pacific Solution you have to ask - why won't they support their own policy? Hmm??

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:39am: If Labor was serious about fixing the problem that would put the whole Libs Pacific Solution policy back on the table. Yep, instead of an ultimatum that the Coalition support her illegal Malaysia deal. She knows Abbott would never support that no matter what (rightly so) and is trying to position herself as reasonable and to look like she wants to fix this problem. In reality, she's the one playing politics with people's lives.

As a cheerleader, you seem to know all about what Lieberals will and will not do. Could you tell us what policy Lieberals WILL support?

Gist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:24am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:42am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:39am: If Labor was serious about fixing the problem that would put the whole Libs Pacific Solution policy back on the table. Yep, instead of an ultimatum that the Coalition support her illegal Malaysia deal. She knows Abbott would never support that no matter what (rightly so) and is trying to position herself as reasonable and to look like she wants to fix this problem. In reality, she's the one playing politics with people's lives. So... when Lieberals vowed NOT to restore the Pacific Solution you have to ask - why won't they support their own policy? Hmm??

Where and when have the Coalition ever suggested they would not restore the Pacific Solution?

meanwhile, in that same 2 and a half years, close to half a million people have migrated here legally, with nary a peep from anyone.

Don't they put the same pressures on our infrastructure and society if they're legal?

... wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

meanwhile, in that same 2 and a half years, close to half a million people have migrated here legally, with nary a peep from anyone. Don't they put the same pressures on our infrastructure and society if they're legal?

Clearly not, because those legal arrivals are budgeted for and have or can easily find a job instead of sponging off taxpayers, as these illegal immigrants do when they arrive by boat.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 1:14pm: meanwhile, in that same 2 and a half years, close to half a million people have migrated here legally, with nary a peep from anyone. Don't they put the same pressures on our infrastructure and society if they're legal? Clearly not, because those legal arrivals are budgeted for and have or can easily find a job instead of sponging off taxpayers, as these illegal immigrants do when they arrive by boat.

Jobs, housing, water etc are finite resources, that are needed whether the occupnat is legal or illegal.  Thers also the consideration that not all migrants are skilled, and of those that are, not all are skilled in fields that are in demand.
The REAL reason is that asylum seekers are a mere distraction, while the true campaign of demographic replacement is being conducted with tacit approval.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 1:14pm: meanwhile, in that same 2 and a half years, close to half a million people have migrated here legally, with nary a peep from anyone. Don't they put the same pressures on our infrastructure and society if they're legal? Clearly not, because those legal arrivals are budgeted for and have or can easily find a job instead of sponging off taxpayers, as these illegal immigrants do when they arrive by boat.

Scott Morrison shadow minister for immigration, 7.30 on Monday night. Is that specific enough for you or should I dig out the transcript? I know how techno-challenged you righties are.

Leigh was aghast. Said something like "not even if they introduce your own policy?"

Gist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 6:03pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 1:19pm: ... wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 1:14pm: meanwhile, in that same 2 and a half years, close to half a million people have migrated here legally, with nary a peep from anyone. Don't they put the same pressures on our infrastructure and society if they're legal? Clearly not, because those legal arrivals are budgeted for and have or can easily find a job instead of sponging off taxpayers, as these illegal immigrants do when they arrive by boat. Scott Morrison shadow minister for immigration, 7.30 on Monday night. Is that specific enough for you or should I dig out the transcript? I know how techno-challenged you righties are. Leigh was aghast. Said something like "not even if they introduce your own policy?"

I think you've quoted the wrong post because contextually, your comment makes no sense with what I wrote...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 6:03pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 1:19pm: ... wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 1:14pm: meanwhile, in that same 2 and a half years, close to half a million people have migrated here legally, with nary a peep from anyone. Don't they put the same pressures on our infrastructure and society if they're legal? Clearly not, because those legal arrivals are budgeted for and have or can easily find a job instead of sponging off taxpayers, as these illegal immigrants do when they arrive by boat. Scott Morrison shadow minister for immigration, 7.30 on Monday night. Is that specific enough for you or should I dig out the transcript? I know how techno-challenged you righties are. Leigh was aghast. Said something like "not even if they introduce your own policy?" I think you've quoted the wrong post because contextually, your comment makes no sense with what I wrote...

Gads! Quite right. Sorry, dunno what happened there AP... I probably had a minor brain explosion or something.

I think the one I intended to reply to was this one:


Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 9:24am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:42am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:39am: If Labor was serious about fixing the problem that would put the whole Libs Pacific Solution policy back on the table. Yep, instead of an ultimatum that the Coalition support her illegal Malaysia deal. She knows Abbott would never support that no matter what (rightly so) and is trying to position herself as reasonable and to look like she wants to fix this problem. In reality, she's the one playing politics with people's lives. So... when Lieberals vowed NOT to restore the Pacific Solution you have to ask - why won't they support their own policy? Hmm?? Where and when have the Coalition ever suggested they would not restore the Pacific Solution?

Now, where were we.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 2:29pm: Bowen is currently talking in the House of Representatives saying that because the Coalition wants to send people only to countries that are signatories to the UNHCR, that this and future governments would send people to countries like Somalia, among others, which is a signatory. Does he really, for one second, think that a Coalition government would send a single person to one of those kinds of countries? The idiocy of what he just said is astounding! Not that I'm watching or believe they would, it is a nuance thing. Surely you can see this or are you really that black & white? Here it is, The coalition will not support sending refo's to Malaysia DESPITE the swap refo's having Australia & Malaysian guaranteed protection from caning, education for children & decent accommodation(not tents in camps) because they have not signed the UN charter. Inferring that they are in danger because these countries(Malaysia) have not signed & they will be safe only in countries that have. Well this is obviously wrong as you yourself have pointed out.

Quote:

No such protection from caning exists. Even the ALP admit that. There is also no education offered in these detention facilities and they are crammed in like sardines.

BY AP right at the start of the merged threads


Quote:

The transfer arrangement between Australia and Malaysia also provides that: •    Arrivals will be subject to pre-transfer assessments to ensure fitness and suitability for transfer, along with basic biometric testing; •    Transferees will be lawful in Malaysia and provided with exemption under the Malaysian Immigration Act and Passports Act; •    Transferees will be initially accommodated in a transit centre in Malaysia for up to 45 days, with support from the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration; •    Following initial processing, transferees will move into the community, with work rights, access to education and health care; and •    Transferees will receive no preferential treatment in the processing of their claims or arrangements for resettlement over other asylum seekers in Malaysia. The UNHCR has been closely consulted on the transfer arrangement, and both the UNHCR and the IOM will play a vital role in its implementation.

http://www.alp.org.au:6020/federal-government/news/australia-and-malaysia-sign-transfer-deal/

It's not hard to look things up, & before you deflect with it's Labors site.
To post false information on the party website would be akin to misleading parliament.

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

No one answered ... why if Abbott is insistent that he won't support Malaysia because it's not a signatory of the UN refugee convention, does he say if he wins government he will turn the boats back to Indonesia? Indonesia is NOT a SIGNATORY either ... at least the ALP has negotiated certain  human rights conditions with Malaysia, the libs want to send them back with no guarantee's that they'll be treated humanely

Simple….

Don’t pay people smugglers to bring you to Australia.

::)

FriYAY wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 5:13pm: No one answered ... why if Abbott is insistent that he won't support Malaysia because it's not a signatory of the UN refugee convention, does he say if he wins government he will turn the boats back to Indonesia? Indonesia is NOT a SIGNATORY either ... at least the ALP has negotiated certain  human rights conditions with Malaysia, the libs want to send them back with no guarantee's that they'll be treated humanely Simple…. Don’t pay people smugglers to bring you to Australia. ::)

Why stop there?
Go even simpler, just stay in a war zone, and wait for your family to be killed.
I am terrifically moved by the genuine concern for the welfare of refugees that the coalition, and it's supporters, have suddenly discovered.
Great humanitarians, one and all, with nary a thought of trading upon their misery for personal political gain.

I nominate Abbott for the Nobel Peace prize.
Maybe it should be Piece?

As in, what a piece of sh...?

Julia Gillard is about as welcome as a fart in an elevator...

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

Julia Gillard is about as welcome as a fart in an elevator...

Good analogy whiner.
Put in context, if this forum is the elevator, then you would be the f.rt.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 4:57pm: Julia Gillard is about as welcome as a fart in an elevator... Good analogy whiner. Put in context, if this forum is the elevator, then you would be the f.rt.

Stop bogarting my material...its copyrighted and not released for communist fair use.

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 5:45pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 4:57pm: Julia Gillard is about as welcome as a fart in an elevator... Good analogy whiner. Put in context, if this forum is the elevator, then you would be the f.rt. Stop bogarting my material...its copyrighted and not released for communist fair use.

Sorry, I never considered demented ravings might be claimed to be "material".

I have however found a photo of the shared accommodation used by you and your alter ego, prevailing.

---

Gist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board.

maybe he thinks it will work. and the reason? because it has worked in the past while labors pollicy has been an abject failure since day one with huge numbers of boats.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board. maybe he thinks it will work. and the reason? because it has worked in the past while labors pollicy has been an abject failure since day one with huge numbers of boats.

Howard did nothing to stop the flood of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan

Grey wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 12:39pm:

Nauru didn't work. There were less boats because there were less refugees in that period. And once pressure was on again and everybody who ended up in Nauru ended up in Australia it would've made no difference at all. Swapping 800 queue jumpers for 4,000 genune asylum seekers is a good solution statistically, but people aren't statistics, they're people. Neither is a good solution and the Greens solution of flying in everybody who wants to come isn't either. A good solution is possible. It requires some creative outside the box thinking.

seriously, who do you expect to believe that drivel? so  the day howard brought in his solution he was lucky that suddenly all the refugees dried up the same month? and miraculously the refugees suddenly became a problem again co0incidentally the monthe Rudd stopped it?

yeah, if you believe that then your opinion isnt really very worthwhile. The very fact that you are trying to desperately claim that teh paciific solutino didnt work discredits your entire positiion. NO ONE can argue that it didnt work because it plainly did.

Longweekend and Soren are truly examples of the morbid inhumane toxic, fatalism that has infected Australian Politics like a cancer.

why shoult the liberal party agree toa  policy they disagree with? why shouldt Gillard actually come up witha  policy with a proven track record?

just another Gillard idiotic move that is doomed to fail and it is because of her refusal to negotiate that is the cause. she is a s=disgrace as a PM

The reffo problem started when Howard, Bush and Blair bombed Iraq and Afghanistan and it didnt go away because he further abused the rights of those whos lives he helped destroy.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 6:12pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: It was pure partisanship getting rid of the pacific solution by labor in the first place. It is pure partisanship to not bring back the liberal policy that worked, but instead to bring in a far worse policy when it comes to human rights, in the Malaysia solution. Labor = partisan Labor = poor policies Well there ya go. Perfect example of what I was talking about. You illustrate it nicely - never mind a solution just try to score points. And then you pretend to care about asylum seekers. Yeah right. And for what it's worth, scrapping Howard's detestable offshore processing policy was not only the right thing to do, it was the inevitable thing to do. You see, for those of us who can read charts, there was a marked increase in the numbers of boat arrivals in the last years of the Pacific Solution. Your so-called "deterrent" wasn't much of a deterrent any more by then. We can see it. The Immigration Department can see it. But Lieberal cheerleaders are of course another story altogether. To replace it with the malaysian solution. lol good on ya. The malaysian solution is stupid and I've never supported it. But at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nauru is beyond stupid. It's a universe of stupid all of its own because there is no logic behind it at all other than Tony The Twat's perception that it'll score him points on the board. maybe he thinks it will work. and the reason? because it has worked in the past while labors pollicy has been an abject failure since day one with huge numbers of boats. Howard did nothing to stop the flood of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan

you can aleays tell when you lose an argument - you move the topic to something else. you deflect. this is about BOATS. try and stay on topic or admict that the labor party's policeis are a failure, the greens are simply surrender and the lbs actually had a policy that worked. AND they support increased refugee numbers, only that they come thru OFFICIALLY, not by boatas.

I know it is hard for you to stay with the topic zine your side of politics is responsible for the deaths of 1000s simply thru arrogance, ignorance and blatant political grand-standing.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:24pm:

The reffo problem started when Howard, Bush and Blair bombed Iraq and Afghanistan and it didnt go away because he further abused the rights of those whos lives he helped destroy.

The problem is globalization of Government and communism...

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 28th, 2012 at 12:39pm: Nauru didn't work. There were less boats because there were less refugees in that period. And once pressure was on again and everybody who ended up in Nauru ended up in Australia it would've made no difference at all. Swapping 800 queue jumpers for 4,000 genune asylum seekers is a good solution statistically, but people aren't statistics, they're people. Neither is a good solution and the Greens solution of flying in everybody who wants to come isn't either. A good solution is possible. It requires some creative outside the box thinking. seriously, who do you expect to believe that drivel? so  the day howard brought in his solution he was lucky that suddenly all the refugees dried up the same month? and miraculously the refugees suddenly became a problem again co0incidentally the monthe Rudd stopped it? yeah, if you believe that then your opinion isnt really very worthwhile. The very fact that you are trying to desperately claim that teh paciific solutino didnt work discredits your entire positiion. NO ONE can argue that it didnt work because it plainly did.

It did not quite work like that but we have all come to understand that you are not capable of understanding fact and concept only what Abbott tells you.

Whether you like it or not the refugee push factors and outright numbers fell dramatically at that very time that Howard put in his solution, and yes they exploded again at that very time so suck it up.

The problem was that the labor party did not formulate an alternative before they removed the status quo. this left a gap that could not be filled because the Greens have never supported it and Abbott is so power hungry he will sell human suffering to be PM.

Nauru will not work again as the bluff is gone. Over 80% got here anyway and there have been two decisions made by the courts that kill it. The most important part of Nauru was that it removed the asylum seekers access to the Australian Courts, other wise you might as well have them here. This has been removed and they will have access no matter where they are if we are the custodians. Secondly without change to the legislation Nauru is illegal so either Abbott changes the legislation or he is a hypocrite.

OH and don't bother with the UNHCR crap, it never mattered to Abbott and his goons when Nauru was formulated so don't pretent that you give a sh1t now. The Bali signatories will do and get the UNHCR to monitor the process. Hell thats all they do anyway.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

maybe he thinks it will work. and the reason? because it has worked in the past while labors pollicy has been an abject failure since day one with huge numbers of boats.

Have you been lending him your balls?

Labour never got to try a policy. Nobody knows if it would work or not

SOB

I have not heard one word from any of the major parties as to how they are going to stop the millions of refugees across the globe from leaving their countries in the first place.
All Abbott and Gillard want to do is to turn the problem over to countries that were never part of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.
The tears in parliament are nothing but crocodile tears

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

Labour never got to try a policy. Nobody knows if it would work or not SOB

This is all the nutalition - Governments doing, we know their policy does not work, they are a joke, a very tragic joke in terms of human cost, but they are a joke.  Julia Gillard and the Greens have the deaths of hundreds on their non existent consciences.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

I have not heard one word from any of the major parties as to how they are going to stop the millions of refugees across the globe from leaving their countries in the first place. All Abbott and Gillard want to do is to turn the problem over to countries that were never part of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. The tears in parliament are nothing but crocodile tears

Something I agree with... at last.  Gawd, but what a divided group of posters we have here. All very sad I'm sure.

I wonder if my reply #75 was censored.??