One question postulated:

"Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?"

Given that the cost of border protection increased 4 fold after the closure of the off shore detention centres, a more relevant question would be:

Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this cost was immediately taken equally distributed from pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged, education and health?

The 'nice people' killed over a thousand asylum-seekers with their revolting display of moral superiority through the time of the Labor Government.

THey don't care, and pretend the deaths were not their fault. Its far more important that they show their superior morals, like showing off a shiny BMW or prestigious high-paid job at the ABC.

"Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?"

But Kellie, can't you see, those who support it are using exactly your methodology: "The government has a right to order everyone around, the government presumptively represents the greater good, the use of force and intimidation is always justified - so long as the government does it."?

You can't have it both ways. If it's a misuse of government to spend zillions of confiscated dollars on offshore detention centres, then by what rational criterion do you know it's not a misuse of government to spend zillions of confiscated dollars on handouts to pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health? All we have to do is employ your own answer to disprove you. Go ahead.

The way for you to win the debate on asylum-seekers is for everyone who claims to care about the refugees, to call for a policy that *they and they alone* will fund all the costs.

Would any Australian seriously contest such a policy, except those trying to force others to pay for their fake moral superiority?

>"Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?"

Would any Australian (other than the Loony Left) ADVOCATE FOR the closure of detention centres if they realised what the inevitable consequences would be:

- return to uncontrolled border, resulting in exponential increase in numbers of illegal immigrants

- huge welfare costs

- diversion of welfare from those who need it to supporting illegal immigrants, law and order and trying to prevent them causing harm in Australia

- inevitable increase in terrorism in Australia.

For Heavens sake, when will the Left get a clue?

KT: It's racism as a strategy.
It's not Racism. It's Religionism. Something completely different & from what's happening in the ME completely justifyable.
KT: minorities are threatening us.
Yes they are. But, are they good minorities, or just over sensitive gullible lost souls with some sort of mental issues. People who cry at the drop of a hat over anything.
KT: (The Government) maintain popular perception that their policy is working.
Their Policies are working, that's why you have written this piece .
KT: But people are always interested in what they perceive to be a threat to their own interests.
Of course, what do you expect?
KT: Perhaps that's why by and large there has been silence from the public about the colossal expenditure on offshore detention centres but public outrage about comparatively minor proposed cuts to welfare which involve direct personal consequences.
No there hasn't. The Issue has been raised often. That's why the Boats were stopped. The expenditure on Detention Centres was getting out of hand.
KT: Would any Australian seriously contest the closure of offshore detention centres if the money this saved was immediately redirected and equally distributed among pensioners, single parents, the disadvantaged and to improve education and health?
Of course not & that money would seriously help Australia's bottom line.
Cont.

cont.
KT: but they also need to perpetuate the fear by saying that the threat is always going to be there and you need them to contain it.
While there are problems in the ME over their Religious differences the Government is correct. Australia doesn't need to import their problems
KT: the government is creating a perception that they are the ones to effectively deal with a problem which plays on that fear. The fear is neutralised as long as the government maintains its stance. All cleverly portrayed as a service to society.
I have no problem with that. The Government IS effectively dealing with the Boat problem & keeping Religious fanatics out of Australia. It really doesn't matter how you analyse it the Islamic Religion is a threat to all Western peoples & Society. The problem isn't one of Race It's one of Religion.
KT: This month a Lowy Institute poll confirmed that more than 70% of Australians support the Abbott Government's Sovereign Border Policy.
Does that tell you something. Other polls have the percentage as high as 95%.
KT: 60% of voters say asylum seekers should be processed off shore.
I take it that that was another poll. Does that tell you something. Other poll have the percentage as high as 95%.
KT: Nearly half the population identify Asylum Seekers coming to Australia as a critical threat.
Does that tell you something. Other Polls have the percentage as high as around 80% or higher.
I seriously doubt that you will read any responses to your article or respond to any posts. Just another Do-gooder with a mental problem but no resolution to the problem other than let everybody with a sob story in to Australia.