The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A report on the Houston Report > Comments

A report on the Houston Report : Comments

By Kerry Murphy, published 20/8/2012

This view is misguided as it assumes that there is a refugee processing queue and you take a number and wait your turn.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Hangon a minute. This article opens with the comment

"the numbers arriving in Australia are small by international standards (Australia’s proportion is equivalent to 2.5% of all asylum applications internationally, including arrivals by air and sea)"

But it doesn't take an expert to calculate that Australia only has about 0.3% of the worlds population. Obviously we should be doing our fair share, but it seems we are taking far more than out fair share. In fact we are taking 8 times our share.

Surely if this article is this misleading in the first few lines, what more untruths does in contain.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:02:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kerry, I detect a fundamental level of wrong-headedness in this article.

You say:

<< There are proposals which may slow or even stop the boats, but there are greater needs of addressing protection for those forcibly displaced generally. >>

We (the vast majority of Australians) want the boats stopped! We want this whole onshore business terminated, decisively. Isn’t that what the report is about? Wasn’t that the motivation for commissioning it?

Apart from the fact that people die at sea trying to get here, we should absolutely strive to have full control over our borders.

We should be addressing refugee issues in an entirely different way than to facilitate or tolerate onshore (or fly-in) asylum seeking.

This is the thing that I just don’t get about refugee advocates. They seem to be hung up on supporting onshore asylum seekers, while paying very little attention if any to Australia’s efforts to accommodate >13 000 offshore refugees as well as contributing to aid programs in various places in ways that strive to improve peoples’ quality of life and hopefully reduce refugeeism.

Refugee advocates need to look at this, and suggest how we might improve it…. and for goodness stop making it difficult for us to deal with onshore asylum seekers.

They should be looking at Houston’s proposal to increase our refugee intake to 20 000 (later, 27 000) with great positivity, and with agreement that this should only happen if the boats are completely stopped.

Then they should be on the side of the big majority of Australian citizens in doing whatever it takes to stop the boats!

OK, so with a decisive policy, a few people are going to get caught in the middle and have to spend time in offshore detention centres, and then they should only be issued with TPVs if they are found to be refugees. (Big fault of the Houston report – no TPVs).

Please Kerry, for the greater good of refugees and Australia’s efforts to help them, strive to shut down irregular asylum seeking and to improve our offshore refugee and international aid programs instead.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:10:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kerry. You say: "One of the major causes of delays now faced by applicants whether in Australia, on Christmas Island or in Jordan is the slow process of security checks by ASIO."

My understanding is that one of, if not the main, reason for the slow processing is the fact that many of the boat arrivals have thrown away their ID documents (Passports, Licenses, mobile phones). This makes it a long and costly process to establish the identity of the applicant and to verify their stories.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to let intending asylum seekers know that if they arrive without documents, they will be held in an offshore processing centre until their identity can be confirmed. And that process could take years.

Some asylum seekers may have genuinely "lost" their documents. They should be advised to present themselves at one of the Australian Embassies, Consulates or Representative Offices (in 131 countries including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) and make their case. If sound, they can be issued with temporary Australian documents.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:32:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A quick search of the internet finds that Kerry is employed in the refugee industry.

"I am a partner in D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers and an accredited specialist in immigration law. Our firm specialises in onshore refugee and family category visas"

She basically gets paid to get these people into Australia any way she can.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:57:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I am a partner in D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers and an accredited specialist in immigration law. Our firm specialises in onshore refugee and family category visas"

Yes Kerry, this should have been a disclosure or at the very least part of your bio.

Is your only expertise in the area of Family reunion? I ask because you exhibit a detailled and frank knowledge in that subject but not in others areas. eg Why the UNHCR processes are less procedurally fair.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 20 August 2012 10:26:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As the Labor Party claims victory in the asylum issue it has lauded the: "We'll make these boat people wait the same amount of time that others in refugee camps do!"

I seem to remember that there have been many riots in Australian detention centers over the years with massive damage and injuries occurring.

Given that the wait-time varies from seven years to over twenty, what kind of riots will flare up then?

Why are our politicians so dumb?
Posted by David G, Monday, 20 August 2012 10:28:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Refugee advocates say that there is no such thing as a queue of people wanting to come here. That must mean that they see no difference between people whose lives are in danger and those who would prefer to live in a decently run country.

A report a few days ago that about 50 people are missing after flying from Palestine to Indonesia then engaging "smugglers" to bring them to W.A. highlights the fact that people see that it is better to pay much more than an airfare to come in that way. Most arrivals appear to be Moslems who one would think would be quite secure in the world's largest Moslem country.
We are indeed seen as a nation of simpletons to allow the present situation to occur.
Posted by Noelreg, Monday, 20 August 2012 11:04:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As has been pointed out, about the only group in Australia that still supports onshore process is the greens, and that says a lot about the greens.

Kerry Murphy has one valid point to make in that there is no immigration queue. Quite so, the analogy is closer to a crowd at the gate, all hoping to get in, and by coming here illegially the boat people are, in effect, forcing their way to the front of the crowd. Thjey should not be given an advantage in the immigration crowd, simply because they have the money to come illegially.

Thanks to immigration quotas, as noted by other posters, exactly the same number of refugees come whatever happens.

Murpy is simply pushing her own barrow with this article, and should have known better than to write it.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 20 August 2012 11:12:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We learned fairly recently that "ONE" of the criminal cartel of people smuggling criminals, came here as a supposed refugee; and then outrageously, got his family transferred under our family reunion policy!
We know why he threw all his identifying documentation overboard! He like others had something to hide!
We have a law that basically refuses entry to known/proven criminals!
Both Malaysia and Indonesia aren't signatories to the UN human rights charter. Designed in the fifties to ensure we never ever again turned our collective backs on criminal genocide, like that which occurred in the Nazi death camps.
Given a very different world and the way this charter is being patently manipulated by criminal organisations, perhaps we should abandon it?
We should still offer sanctuary/TPV's to genuine asylum seekers, always providing they arrived with some verifiable documentation or able to satisfy the rigours of space age lie detection tests.
As temporary residents they would be free to work assiduously to improve their permanent residency prospects.
Learn English, attend free TAFE/UNI courses to upgrade or learn new skills?
We could vastly shorten the so called queue or waiting time, by immediately repatriating those who arrived without identifying documentation; and or, then failed triplicate space age lie detection tests?
We need to stop people drowning themselves and or family members, by paying criminals to transport them.
I mean, it would probably be cheaper/quicker/safer, to travel by plane on a legitimate tourist visa! Then claim asylum on arrival?
This means would also prevent the applicant from being processed offshore?
Those like the Author, a paid advocate, who earns income from irregular arrivals? Clearly already knows this? Which makes a complete nonsense out of her evocations, for the continuance of illegal trade of people smugglers, and its often extremely sad results?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 20 August 2012 11:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If there isn't a que Kerry there damn sure should be, starting on the other side of the world, where we can chose who we give our help to.

Far from the assertion that the report recommends harsh treatment of these gate crashers, it in fact is far too soft in it's recommendations. If these clearance centers were built of old army tents, with limited facilities it would be about what most receive around the world.

I noticed in the report of the condition of the facilities, all the units had air conditioning. This is ridiculous. I & most of the people I know can no longer afford to run the airconditioning we have bought & paid for, with hard earned after tax money. Hell, I can't afford to run a heater either.

Interesting that we are paying for gate crashers airconditioning when we can't afford the power to run ours.

This is because of a government grasping every bit of money it can in taxes to pay for it's mistakes. Treating gate crashers as worthy folk is one of their biggest mistakes. Hopefully the next one will listen to it's citizens, not noisy people out of step with the majority.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 20 August 2012 1:39:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whole point of policy on boats should be to shut down the people smuggling trade which will happen if asylum seekers know that getting on a boat will not get them into Australia ahead of other refugees.

Had Rudd/Gillard not dismantled the Howard Pacific Solution in 2007, we would probably still have no significant smuggler trade, and no more deaths at sea. Having dismantled the Pacific Solution, the Gillard Govt has a mighty job to get the Genie back in the bottle. It can be done though.

1. Offshore processing: The benefit of offshore processing is that it is a deterrent. If asylum seekers know that they will be assessed offshore, and not allowed into Australia unless they meet stringent requirements, they will be less keen to get on the boats.

2. TPVs: An important element of the policy. Again, it is a deterrent in that it is designed to assist asylum seekers avoid immediate peril, but provides that should things in their homeland return to normal, they will be returned. TPVs should not be used by genuine refugees seeking permanent residency in Australia. Those refugees should apply under other programs.

3. Turn back the boats: Given Indonesia's policy, and the recent tendency of the smugglers to scuttle their boats, the turn back the boats policy has problems. A possible solution might be for Australia to lease from Indonesia an uninhabited island (there are plenty near the zone of activity) and install a wharf and initial processing centre. Then boats can be intercepted, and escorted to the island. Or rescued people can be taken there for initial processing.

To be continued......
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Monday, 20 August 2012 2:48:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.... Continued.

Those elements constitute the effective Pacific Solution of the Howard government. Today additional measures will be needed.

4. No entry without documents: Many asylum seekers throw away their passports, licences, and their mobile phones. This creates a problem for Australian authorities, since it is difficult and expensive to identify the people, and check out their stories. The right policy would say that if you arrive in Australia without documents, you will be sent to an offshore processing facility until your identity can be established and your story checked out. Given limited resource, that course of action could take years.

Be aware too, that we may require you to pass lie detector tests and to give up DNA samples so that your story can be checked out. If you are found to be lying, then you forfeit any chance of being admitted to Australia.

Some people will genuinely not have documents. They should be encouraged to approach Australian Embassies, Consulates, and Rep Offices (in 131 countries) to explain their situation. If convinced, officials would give them temporary ID papers to enable them to enter into processing.

5. Publicity program. Australia needs to publicise its policy on people smuggling widely, in many languages. It should explain that there are limited places for refugees and asylum seekers (currently 13,500, though likely to increase) and that there are many more applicants than places. As well, there are many refugees and asylum seekers who have been approved who are waiting for a place.

Asylum seekers need to understand that those arriving by boat will not have any advantage over refugees and asylum seekers that have followed proper process through UNHCR systems and the like.

There may be other measures that could be implemented. However, if the Australian government, and particularly the frontline officials, promulgate and implement such policy, we would soon see the people smuggling racket shut down.

Having said all that, we must ensure that genuine asylum seekers and refugees are catered for in a humanitarian fashion. The frontline, though, should be Australian Embassies, Consulates and Rep Offices rather than Christmas Island.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Monday, 20 August 2012 3:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For Christ sake, Kerry, of course there's a queue - not a simple, straightforward, put your name down and take a number, queue but with forty million refugees in the world, sone people (most likely in Aftrica) have had their 'name down' and have 'taken a number' for many years. I have to say I don't see too many Sudanese on the boats.

Of course people are desperate. Of course it must be miserable waiting and waiting in some dreadful camp, say in northern Kenya or Palestine or Malaysia or, these days, along the Turkish border. Of course people will do what they can to get out of those situations - some will put their name down, take a number and wait to get processed; some will pay whatever the market demands to short-cut the process, particularly if their applications are a bit more difficult, and time-consuming, to process. I don't begrudge anybody giving it a try.

But there is an annual quota of refugees, which the Houston Review recommended eventually doubling. Even so, we will never exhaust the queue, given the political instability in the world. For the foreseeable future, there will be a queue, even if we doubled the annual intake again, to 55,000. In fact, possibly the higher the intake, the more people may quite legitimately put their names down and take a number. And mostly wait their turn, in dreadful circumstances.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 20 August 2012 3:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“On a positive side, the report recommends an increase in the annual program from 13,750 to 20,000 and even higher numbers in five years if the boats stop. This is something that the Refugee Council of Australia has called for, for many years and in fact, was the program back in the early 1980s during the Vietnamese ‘boat people’ period.”

How about this being a negative, lets look at the per capita increase in numbers, I think you will find Australia is pulling more than it’s weight as previously noted and your obvious conflict of interest in this outcomes smacks of complete hypocrisy, and as to:

“They are all refugees, but only a few will ever be resettled. This is a fact unlikely to change unless the causes of forced movement stop or countries like Australia vastly increase their resettlement programs. Neither of these points seems likely in the medium term.”

…perhaps you can explain how all and I repeat all the refugees sent to Nauru in the Howard years managed to be resettled, either in Australia or other First World countries…answer me that one and I will be satisfied that you don't have an immorally professional and pecuniary interest in seeing the onshore processing of these so-called 'refugees' eventuate.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Monday, 20 August 2012 3:53:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no queue, different people arrive and move in and out of countries every minute of every day, it is not possible to predict who will be there from one day to the next.

Ludwig, you remain as disconnected from reality as you always have.

We already assess the claims of refugees in 36 off shore embassies, the problem is we do that so we can deny protection to almost everyone.

The criteria for this is that refugees have to be referred by the UNHCR, we decide then we only want those who can benefit us so we give them a massive advantage over everyone else.

Except they are always those in the safest situations living in big cities who can afford the shocking fees they have to pay and are safe enough to wait.

And we have to be the country of absolute last resort before we accept anyone under this voluntary program.

To apply for asylum though people have to be in a country that has laws that protects refugees.

Why do you so emphatically believe you are right? What is the point of letting people get all the way here - because we have zero legal right to stop them and less right to punish them - then spending $5 billion over a few years to build jails illegally in other countries to colonise them?

Those countries don't belong to us. Would you like Pakistan to decide to build refugee prisons in Australia?

I sincerely hope they send us the 3 million Afghans they are booting out of the country, that will give you something to whinge about.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 20 August 2012 5:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Marilyn,

Hmmm .... three million, when our annual intake is twenty thousand, suggests a queue of 150 years.

But there is no queue ? So some people didn't put their names down, let's say, ten years ago ? Five years ago ? A year ago ?

If some people put their names down before others did, then there's a queue, let alone UNHCR referral time, specific complications, ID hassles, irregularities, etc.

When demand exceeds supply, that's how it goes. Dreadful, but there it is.

If only political problems could be resolved at source ? Yes, indeed.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 20 August 2012 6:30:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn, that's just crazy talk, why are you so angry?
Support for refugees is a "Chick thing", it's a feelgood issue for sensitive White women, you're angry because your own self esteem would be threatened or you'd feel humiliated if we stopped Third World immigration.
If there were no sensitive White women in public life this issue would have been sorted out years ago and you could all go back to sending money off to Oxfam and Save The Children, you'd still be living in a fantasy world but at least people wouldn't be dying.
Don't feel bad and don't be angry, you've just been given bad information and you've been shielded from the truth about the overwhelmingly negative impact of Third world migration upon your own ethnic group. Marilyn do you realise that anyone who seriously tries to oppose Third World migration and the multi Billion dollar refugee industry is dragged before a tribunal or sued in order to silence them, now is that fair?
Here's one such article:
http://www.ironbarkresources.com/articles/fraser2005rethinkingwap.htm
Here's what happened to it's author:
http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/fraser/fraser5.html

Marilyn you are being manipulated because you are a sensitive and good hearted White woman, they're literally pulling at your heartstrings, now I'd like to give your conscience a little prod, ask yourself this question:
"Will my Children be safer if they live among Third World people?"
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 20 August 2012 6:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A chick thing? Old white women? What a cretin.

Malcolm Fraser was not an old white chick last I looked.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 20 August 2012 7:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn like a all Refugee advocates you're a very angry person, I'm being civil, so is Joe there's no need to be nasty I'm just trying to help you by educating you on the issues.
I understand that you need to feel good about yourself but at some point you have to stop relying on fairytales as a crutch and grab onto something real, as a White woman you have ethnic interests of your own yo need to to protect, you have your own posterity to think about, that's reality as opposed to the fantasy "gotta save 'em all" world.
Now are your White kids and grandkids going to be safer and happier living in a country that looks like Brazil or Iraq? Or would they be safer and happier among their own kind?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:46:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have reported this article to onlineopinion for the reason I mentioned earlier. I find it quiet deceitful that the author works in the area as a refugee lawyer helping them apply for visas and family reunion, yet in her biography fails to mention any of this and simple states she is a solicitor. I feel this is a obvious conflict of interest which should be declared.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 20 August 2012 9:36:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozzie,

come on, a biased left winger, including lawyers, will not let the facts get in the way of a determination to make a certain argument.

Of course, per capita data would not be used as gross numbers for a small population sounds so much more dramatic.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 8:56:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,

Have you seen old Mal without his pants?

It's better to poke fun at Marilyn than to take her too seriously.

We might take the same attitude towards 'solicitor' (What an apt label) Kerry, rather than resort to censorship.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 9:46:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I sincerely hope they send us the 3 million Afghans they are booting out of the country*

So let me see. The Pakistanis, with their support for the Taliban in
Afghanistan, are causing the problem. Now you think that they should send us 3 million Afghans. No need to invade Australia with their
military, just take it over with Marylin's asylum seekers!
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 11:08:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
There were millions of Afghan "refugees" in Pakistan before the 2001 invasion, Australians bear no responsibility whatsoever for the material situation of anyone in that country, there's no justification for the statement 'We should do more".
Furthermore we constantly hear the Mantra from anti White refugee advocates "We're a rich country", well obviously due to the racial makeup of the majority population our standard of living is better than a lot of other people's but their argument falls flat as soon as we ask:
"What about Poland, Ireland and Portugal, they're poor countries so why do they have to take non White migrants?"
This isn't about wealth, this is about race, in the eyes of our Lexis and Marilyns Australia is too White, not too wealthy, we are being asked to do more because of our race, not because of our bank balances.
They want to make wealthy White countries into something like South Africa, Brazil or Mexico, Marilyn still gets to live in a nice majority White suburb protected by armed goons and razor wire and hobnob with 'exotics" like Indian doctors while everyone else has to live in multiracial Favelas.
All we have to do in order to win arguments Yabby is keep saying politically incorrect words because the other side is scientifically incorrect, we're only fighting a very silly set of ideas and a fixed view of how things "simply must be!", they're fighting nature and trying to deny the real world consequences of their actions.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 3:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay, Australia seems to think that if we bravely accept 0.0001% of the world's refugees but we squander $1.3 billion a year trying not to do it.

We pay $3.60 per person per annum for millions of starving Afghans, we have soldiers watching the poppies grow and killing Afghans in their beds.

Our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 has forced millions more to flee to Pakistan and has spread our war to Pakistan with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides of the border.

Currently Pakistan is kicking out 3 million Hazara and other refugees - I think if we alone in the world can decide to dump refugees who ask us for help in other nations it is fair enough for other nations to dump millions of them here.

Here is a tip.

We do not get to arbitrarily throw hundreds of years of law on a whim.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 4:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 has forced millions more to flee to Pakistan and has spread our war to Pakistan*

Not really, Marylin. Millions had fled from the Taliban before and
millions more might flee, knowing that the Taliban will take over
once again, aided all the way by Pakistan, once we leave.

Fact is that without Pakistani support, the Taliban would no longer be
an issue.

Your motherly hormones are very sweet, but hardly factual.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 4:33:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,
There was no "We" or "Us" involved in war of agression waged upon the people of Aghanistan, are you a kinswoman of Mullah Omar, Abdul Rashid Dostum, George Bush or John Howard?
Lines on a map of Australia supposedly mean nothing to people like you, so why do lines on maps of central Asia matter?
What possible effect does it have on your children's lives if 3 million Hazara are living on one side of the Khyber pass or the other?
Can you explain to me in scientific terms precisely why Australia should take in one refugee let alone 20,000?
I can frame arguments opposing Third World immigration to white countries in either scientific or moralistic terms, as far as I can tell your side can do neither.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 7:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thank Kerry or Graham for updating Kerry's biography to reflect her interest in this subject.
Posted by ozzie, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 9:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, a typically Labor in action.

Never acknowledge an 'error of judgement' ... but adopt critic's suggestions without acknowledgement.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 23 August 2012 12:48:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Marilyn,

you'll be able, under Bowen's enhanced asylum community sponsership scheme, to take care of a refugee or two or all 42,000,000 of them, save them all and save the world.

Cheers and good luck with that.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 23 August 2012 12:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy