Indeed Shadow, it was the same point I made at the beginning which seems to have unfortunately been overlooked.

But to answer CJ's question- I personally would never vote Labor because of how corrupt they are (I'm actually more inclined to vote Greens actually, despite their stance on refugees being more liberal than my own).
But I think what David Jennings said about the turn against Labor to the Liberals over refugees initially, and again to Labor over IR reinforces the possibility that it COULD win Labor votes as credible.

The Libs IR policy would surely hang over their heads for a while, and Labor's latest policy would definitely be an exciting enticement to those who would wish to prevent refugee arrivals (which is the ONLY thing the Liberals have going for them policy-wise in terms of popularity- better economics was more to Peter Costello's credit than the party's).

Of course, nobody will swing from Labor to Liberal over refugees if they hardened (losing votes to them is their biggest worry- at least for the moment)- unlike Liberal, who would be committing suicide by softening their stance.

Bruce Haigh made the following point about Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in his article:

<< For the Australian Government to declare that the security of Tamils in Sri Lanka is improving flies in the face of evidence coming out of the country. >>

Shadow Minister complains about being categorised as a hater. I'll stop describing him and his cohorts as haters when they stop posting hateful comments intended to vilify asylum seekers and refugees - like calling them "illegals", for example.

Around 90% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be bona fide refugees, and therefore not to be illegal immigrants. To obtusely continue to refer to all 'boat people' as 'illegals' therefore dishonestly vilifies the vast majority of them.

Why do the haters here want to vilify genuine refugees?

CJ,

As I have shown, the term illegals is not technically incorrect, it is also common parlance. While I understand that you would prefer people to use the politically correct terms, the use of illegals is no pretext for verbal abuse, and a clear breach of the terms of usage of this forum.

To this end I have recommended that your posts with this abuse are deleted. and I would suggest that others do too.

As the server is not taking recommendations the email

graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au is the avenue that should be used.

PS. If Bruce Haigh claims that the security of the Tamils is not improving, perhaps he or someone else could provide links to unbiased assessment on this issue, as all the information from the UN is that while there are still issues the situation is improving steadily.

And as I imagine that the Australian government does reserve the legal right, under Australia's own laws, to block entry to those who arrive without declaring their intent to do so, I imagine that 'Illegal' is arguably a valid label (albiet one I personally do not use) if Australian law does consider their method of arrival to be of breach of Australian laws- even if a different set of international laws state otherwise in regards to their specific motivation of what is normally a breach.
Of course, what then if they weren't, but the government changed the laws so that they then could?

Shadow Minister, I think you're being a tad precious. Why do you persist in vilifying genuine refugees by referring to them as "illegals"?