Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 9:28am:


Yes but what about the first few months after an election? My impression is that pretty much any government straight after an election will get some sort of honeymoon period sometime during the first few months of the new term. Even Gillard got it after the 2010 election. That is whats notable here - Abbott's getting no honeymoon. May or may not be significant though.

I have never seen a shorter honeymoon period in the time I have been watching politics.  Little wonder. In just over 2 months they've bungled everything they've touched. The way Abbott's screwing up from issue to issue I reckon we'll start hearing "leadership challenge" noises very soon now.  Look at the way Armpit and cods spat the dummy this morning.  And Matty the other day with his stupid rant (You want the government to fail; you do I know you do -  remember that outburst).  They know they backed a loser and cant stand that we told them so.  And look at  Long Wick End "I dont believe it, I dont believe, It cant be true".   Hehehehe, what a hoot. Oh and Armpit.  You tell that woman basher not to show his face on this forum or he'll be accounting to me.

Hey great news about the greens.  Go GREENS!!!!  DD   

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 11:07am:

This does happen, although I cannot cite specific examples from memory.

Quote:

It's also possible that Abbott's honeymoon period did occur, but it was missed because the first Nielsen poll occurred after it ended. A poll after the NSW bushfires would have been interesting.

Morgan has conducted five polls already, with the polling numbers bouncing around 50-50. The most recent Morgan poll had ALP 49%, Coalition 51%. There was no sign of a honeymoon period here.

Another possibility is that this poll is an outlier, but the chances of this being a rogue poll with the actual figures favouring the Coalition is only about 5%.

My theory is that the indecisive handling of the Indonesian spying revelations has influenced this poll result. Time will tell if this has a long-term effect or if it is temporary.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 6:44am:


No, they are classed as an "irregular maritime arrival"


Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 6:44am:


Which is why it is misleading to use the term illegal in any context surrounding them


Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 6:44am:


Which they cannot be punished for due to the treaty Australia has signed

Does that mean I can get people who call asylum seekers illegals banned?

Use of 'illegal' to describe arrivals and entry

The situation is less straightforward when the term "illegal" is used more broadly.

Any person arriving in Australia without a visa, including an asylum seeker, is an "unlawful non-citizen" under Australian law.

Mr Morrison can rely upon the definition of "illegal entry" in the people smuggling protocol, which Australia signed and ratified, so long as he makes it clear that he is doing so.

However, experts warn that the use of the terms "illegal" and "unlawful" in this context is potentially misleading, as they are words usually applied to criminal acts.

Professor Schloenhardt told ABC Fact Check that it is acceptable to refer to people coming to Australia without visas (including those who are not asylum seekers) as "illegal immigrants".

However, on a practical level, he says that "illegal implies that a criminal offence has been committed, which asylum seekers have not, and for that reason it is preferable to use different vocabulary".

Ellen Hansen from the Canberra office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees told ABC Fact Check that "the term 'illegal' is not one that UNHCR uses or encourages the use of in relation to refugees or asylum-seekers arriving without a visa".

Other terminology is available. Professor Schloenhardt said international organisations prefer to use the term "irregular migrant".

The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935...

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 7:58am:


You did not check very well. Care to offer an apology to me now?


Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has instructed departmental and detention centre staff to publicly refer to asylum seekers as ‘‘illegal’’ arrivals and as ‘‘detainees’’, rather than as clients.

The directive has been criticised as a ‘‘profound’’ shift by a leading asylum seeker agency, which says the new terminology is designed to dehumanise people.

In an email to detention centre staff, obtained by Fairfax Media, a department official writes: ‘‘The department has received correspondence from the minister clarifying his expectations about the department’s use of terminology. Accordingly we as [sic] that our service providers also adhere to the below instructions.’’

These include calling all people who arrive in Australia by boat ‘‘illegal maritime arrivals’’, a marked change from the more moderate language used under the previous government.

When it came to office in 2007, Labor dropped the Howard government’s description of asylum seekers who arrived by boat as ‘‘illegal maritime arrivals’’, calling them ‘‘irregular maritime arrivals’’. It said this was done in recognition of the fact it is not illegal under Australian domestic law or international law to claim asylum.The new directive reverses this.

The email to detention centre and Serco staff also instructs them to describe asylum seekers being held in detention centres in Australia as ‘‘detainees’’ rather than as ‘‘clients’’, as they had been called under Labor.

People being held on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island are to be called ‘‘transferees’’, not  ‘‘clients’’.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/minister-wants-boat-people...

skippy. wrote on Nov 25^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:


Big difference between Gillard and some dodgy financial transactions and Abbott and the unproven allegations saying he punched a wall near a woman that did not stand up in court and which no person is willing to sign a stat dec to back up.