That last line looks obscene!

I meant members.

<< …the 1951 UN Convention needs updating by 60 years >>

It certainly does Yabby. It is full of fundamental flaws.

Here’s Greg Sheridan’s article that you mentioned:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/un-convention-misunderstood-and-its-not-working/story-e6frg6zo-1225889968841

Some quotes:

<< At the heart of the problem is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. It is not only not working any more, it is setting up positively perverse incentives and having all manner of unintended and destructive consequences. >>

<< A decade ago, [Jack] Straw pointed out: "The (1951) convention was designed for an era when international flows of people were on a much smaller scale than they are today. Intercontinental travel was rare, difficult and expensive. >>

<< Temporary protection visas are completely in accord with the convention. >>

Check out this paper: The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm#major

The biggest issues in Australia with the Convention are that there is an obligation not to penalise asylum seekers for entering a country 'illegally' and that there is no account taken of the impact (political, financial, social) of large numbers of asylum seekers on receiving countries.

This is hopeless, as the numbers of asylum seekers would absolutely skyrocket if we were to treat them all virtually as free Australian citizens as soon as they arrived.

Quite frankly, the Convention is a shocker! Gillard should be pushing for its immediate reform and pulling out of it forthwith, as a matter of principle that it is impossible to reasonably adhere to.

OK - we'll scratch Ludwig as someone who'll vote for either of the majors on the issue of asylum seekers. Is there nobody here whose voting decision on election day will be based on refugee policy?

If not, then what's the point of all this angst about a few boat people in the context of the forthcoming election?

Hello CJ,

Yep - here's one.

When I noted Julia swing into line with Howard/Abbott government policy on refugees, I realised that Julia's ascension to the leadership was just going to me more "me too" media driven/populist politics. Sad really - I feel as if my vote isn't worth a jot, so I'll give the Greens a vote in the Senate and I'll probably vote informally in the house of Reps.

Yes CJ, there sure are, me for one, but you knew that of course, & at least 90% of our bar-b-que mob, too.

The moment we saw her ladyship was trying to to ride two horses at the same time we knew she had a split personality, or at least soon would have.

She wants the western suburbs of Sydney to believe she is anti boat people, but still wants our elites in academia to believe she is all for open slather. How she handled this question was the big test of her, for many. What ever it takes, won hands down.

Well, if anyone needed convincing that she is a bare faced liar, she has cleared up that question. Now all we need is to see what percentage of Ozzies want a proven liar for PM.

Surely no one of sound mind could possibly suggest that Abbot should be Prime Minister of Australia. I mean wasn't 11 years of John Howard enough?

Of course, it depends which side of the fence you sit on. If you're wealthy or a miner and you believe in capitalism and the survival of the fittest (or the most cunning) then Abbot the Rabbit might appeal.

But if you're part of the peasantry, the salt of the earth, the ones that Howard screwed over and over, Julia is the only choice.

Don't let Abbot in the door! Vote for Julia!