Is it honest to write on a topic, and not mention that you've been a player in that arena yourself ?

I see that Christian Kerr has written at Crikey.com:

"But the Kooyong Doc chose not to share some of the more interesting background with Hun readers. Donnelly is the serial pest of Victorian Liberal Party pre-selections, and most of his bids for a seat have taken place within the boundaries of Kooyong. They haven't succeeded. One of the reasons he is the past vice chair of the electorate committee is that he hasn't got the support of the local branches – or local state Liberal MPs Richard Dalla Riva and David Davis."

This is an illogical, poorly-researched, offensive, self-serving piece of ideological (factional?) twaddle - although thankfully Mr Donnelly spared us the 'ideological terrorist' sneer. Who does Mr Donnelly have in mind for the next preselection exercise in Kooyong?

Very few articles on this web site sink below the belt of ethical and intellectual acceptability. This is, alas, one such. Time to give Mr Donnelly the flick!

Hi guys,

As my grandmother use to say: take a bex and have a good lie down. How about addressing the issues. Simply look at why Kooyong is now known as the Kandahar of the south - falling membership, failure to raise funds, very few meetings and unable to assist marginals during elections. After 10 years, with a change of member, things could only improve.

Dear Doctor Donnelly

Of course your article in the Melbourne Herald Sun 21/6/05 is just your opinion. Poor and all as it was.

In fact you berate Petro Georgiou for standing up for Christian principles. Principles even devoted atheists support.

No worry to you that Petro Georgiou would not condone an outspoken Torture advocate who ironically was a member of the RRT

Not a worry to you that the loopy xenophobes ignited by John Howard’s politically contrived demonisation of people who are/were 90% proven refugees when armies of loopies are emerging and writing in this very ON LINE web page and advocate our navy use future boats as live target practice etc., I find that frightening and sickening. Obviously you do not . You are more concerned to denigrate someone who wants to stop the hatred so rampant now in our society

No worry to you that the same hatred Hitler fomented against Jews has now entrenched itself in the Australian psyche.

Not very flattering to Mr Howard and his spineless party followers who fear challenging him. No surprise people like you tune in to condemn champions like Perto Georgiou and his few equally concerned and brave friends. [Deleted for flaming]

Shame on you.

TIME TO GO KEVIN

Norm Bernard
26 Tarbenian Way
Brigadoon WA 6069
Phone:- (08) 9296-4323

"While the Liberal Party might be a broad church, the fact is the member for Kooyong's views on issues like mandatory detention and asylum-seekers are so out of the ball park that he would be better suited joining the Democrats or the Greens."
Unless he says we should accept people without any processing or accept everybody, (which would even then be more socially liberal than most Greens) his position is mainstream, so this is an untenable view.

"Political pundits argue that the 2001 federal election was won on the issue and last year the Australian electorate overwhelmingly endorsed the Government's stand."
Overwhelming endorsed? Yeah sure, the election was just about immigration policy, nothing about interest rates or the economy. No scare campaigns at *all*.

"As adviser to Malcolm Fraser and as head of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Mr Georgiou strongly supported multiculturalism. This was the time when millions were being wasted on the multicultural industry promoting diversity and difference at the expense of what we hold in common; when Australians were told they were racist and our Anglo-Celtic heritage was belittled and ignored."
He supports multiculturalism. Big deal, I didn't know xenophobia was a core value of the Liberal party. (Thought maybe, presumed even, didn't *know*)

"with a swing against Mr Georgiou of 1.39 per cent"
I don't know the district, but isn't it possible that it is more left-wing than others? That the support among moderates for Georgiou was countered by increased dislike for the current government?

After 3 more years of mandatory detention, with detainees being in there for another 3 years, there would probably have been a significant backlash against the Liberal party. Georgiou and others' early action may end up saving the party in the next election.

I agree with Deuc and would add that "has passed his use-by-date" hardly seems apt for one who has just proven how effective he is at changing government policy !

What a contradiction you are Kevin. At one moment you're raving about "values", the next you're quoting percentages of votes as if that's all that counted. Do you choose to watch television programs based on their ratings ? Desperate Housewives, Super Nanny, Big Brother ? - all very popular.

You say that Liberal Party membership is "static" in Kooyong - I would have thought that both major parties would be happy to have static membership figures because what I usually read is that membership is declining. What's the overall figure for Victoria ?

You didn't say whether it was intellectually dishonest not to mention that you were a player (apparently unsuccessful at pre-selection ?) involved in this Liberal Party business ?

I agree with most of what Kevin Donnelly says in this article. But the fact is the Liberal party supports the multicultural policy (to their shame). Many Australians who are sick of multiculturalism being forced down their throats can take refuge in the fact that Australia is not a true multicultural country. Multiracial, perhaps, but not multicultural.

If we were truly multicultural, certain cultural groups would not have to pay taxes. Certain cultural groups would not have to participate in the economy. But particpation in the economy is the primary condition of the illusory 'multiculturalism'.....

Perhaps Petro is a mole?

Norm29 [deleted for flaming]Christian values huh? Where does Mr. Georgiou sit on abortion? How did he vote on the embryonic Stem Cells debate?

The government is already giving them food, shelter etc. They are 'illegal'. Good Christians obey the laws of the land too.

Petro is a small 'l' liberal of the worst kind and should be 'purged' from the Liberal Party.

Hear Hear Mr. Donnelly.

PS. Norm29, how many Christians are in the detemtion centres. If we aren't careful we will be the new Mecca.

[Deleted for flaming]

What historians are you reading? I'm sorry, I may only be 20yrs old but I do have a sound knowledge of Nazi Germany.

Hitler had some kind of idea about extermintaing Jews from day1. Regarding the Nazi policy of eugenics, where they were killing non-Jews because they were not racially 'pure', it was the Catholic Bishop of Munster that had the program stopped. He incited outrage among the German people.

What outrage do you see regarding the detention of illegal immigrants? The 50-60 dirty hippies that protest every long weekend.

Hardly an accurate comparison seeing that Jews and the 'racially impure' were for all legal purposes 'Germans'.

Maybe you should also read the May or June Spectator where there is an article claiming the Green Political Movement is responsible for more deaths than the Nazis or Soviets.

Another indignant spank-fest...... Why doesn't the Liberal party just batch process a stack of John Howard clones? Freedom of speech is only supportable when it's not exercised, right? And diversity is only good when difference remains at heel.

Pathetic. And uninspiring.

I would call federal Liberal under Howards leadership, 'a very very broard church indeed'. As a christian teacher and writer, I assert that Howard is a very cunning (deceitful) politician, and has hurt alot of people in this country. Petro is simply exercising his democratic and constitutional rights (sections 7 and 24) to freedom of speech, as all politicians should. A politician is elected to represent constituents. The fact that most are only there to 'toe the party line' is evidence that Australia does not currently function as a true democracy. Petro is simply doing his job as a politician, unlike Howard who only serves his own interests, and that of a minority.

TooRight, why have you gained such a good knowledge of nazi history? For hints? The people in detention centres are not "illegal". This can't be stressed too many times. They have a right to enter the country and seek asylum. But this, of course, is not something those who fear becoming the "new Mecca" want to countenance. And as for Christian values, isn't tolerance one? Isn't helping those in need one? And isn't conscience one? Try not to get too hung up on the abortion/stem cell debates, son. There are plenty of good, practising Christians who can see more than one side of the argument. In fact, a Jesuit priest has presented one of the most compelling arguments that early embros, long after the stage they need to be for stem cell experiments, cannot be considered people.

For those who critise the practise of mandatory detention in Australia I ask this question:

Would you prefer the detention of asylum seekers by the Australian government or the exploitation of human rights by those who truely benefit from sending illegal immigrants to Australia.

Australias hard line stance to illegal immigrants has significantly reduced the level of illegals entering this country. It has sent a clear message to those who formally partook in the trade of illegal immigrants that Australia is not a easy target.

No one likes to see women and children behind 'wire fences' but the reality is that the alternatives are often far worse.

I hope Petro Georgiou has thought long and hard about the precedent he is setting. Ultimately, the blood will not be on his hands when things go wrong.

Illegals would not be in detention if they had followed the 'legal' channel. If they can't respect our laws entering, how are we meant to enforce our laws if they immigrate?

I am not against multiculturalism, indeed I embrass it, but like any activity it has to be regulated and not shadowed by subjective bias and political point scoring.

marlo:

"I am not against multiculturalism, indeed I embrass it, but like any activity it has to be regulated and not shadowed by subjective bias and political point scoring"

what, like mandatory detention? well the government certainly scored with people like TooRight on that one.

TooRight, care to explain how you reconcile 'the green movement killed more people than nazi and stalin combined' and ridiculing the '50-60 dirty hippies that protest everyweekend'?

that seems like a lot of work for a few hippies even if they have got the weekends free. but perhaps they are hidding WMDs in their lattes.
you never know.

sorry, couldnt help stoking your paranoia.

on a more serious note, i often hear exponents of mandatory detention claiming its sucess as a policy as some sort of justificaiton on locking people in what amounts to as worse than prisons.

but at what cost? is it worth their freedom, their health and their sanity? and if this is, as the government claims, a pragmatic not a xenophobic policy, i want to know how many, or how long is enough?
how many children are you prepared to lock up to ensure you can watch big brother in peace?

i am yet to hear an argument that this policy is morally right, or if not,whether it is a position worth abandoning morals for.

Petro Georgiou has bought the best of our political system, democracy,freedom of speach and freedom of conscience to an area of this government that has been lacking all of those.

What an interesting subject the policy of mandatory detention is. In all my years of watching the Australian political scene, I know of no other instance where the principal supporters of a government's policy is the opposition's heartland. The chardonnay sipping labor elite seem unable to grasp the idea that their political power springs from the fact that on most issues the voters are apathetic. This issue concerns the ancient principle of territoriality, that strangers entering your territory may only do so by leave, and that entry without permission constitutes invasion. This aspect of human nature is so old that it pre-dates humans, being shared with most of the animal kingdom. The spectre of a mass incursion into Australia from asia has been a recurring nightmare in the Australian psyche since well before federation, and won't be going away any millenium soon. After years of effort with children overboard, refugees harming themselves, etc., the australian people resoundingly re-endorsed the policy at the last election. When will they ever learn?

Hi plerdsus,

Your comments take me back to sitting by the Mekong River in Vientiane with work friends from Hong Kong, Thailand and Malaysia during the time that strong John decided to stop the boats from arriving in OZ. They all agreed that it was the right move as up until then they had let the boats keep coming - they were simply passing the problem on to us until the Australian Government finally made a move to protect our borders.

I'm sick of hearing the word "tolerance" and its variances? The true meaning of tolerance has been lost by those who wish to accept anything just because "society" has apparently asked us to accept it. We shouldn't tolerate people breaking our laws to come here. They should be placed into secure environments, such as detention centres, so that they can be processed and their character determined.

Further in regard to tolerance, just take the recent conference in Victoria by Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot who, as Christian ministers, were explaining the Koran/Quran and much about the religion of Islam. They were not there to attack Islam, but rather, explain how we as Christians might understand Islam. But instead of reasonable debate and TOLERANCE, the Islamic Council of Victoria decided to take action against these two pastors under the so called Religious Tolerance act (Vic). Unfortunately, they were found guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Now that's real tolerance isn't it!! NOT

Now to detention. The processing time should not take as long as it has - that is the only good thing that I've heard from Petro Georgiou. I agree completely. Yet to blame the government alone for that is foolish, as many of the asylum seekers have either destroyed their papers or simply don't want to be honest about where they truly come from - the Bakhtiyaris, for example.

Now, what about Cornelia Rau or Vivian Alvarez? Sadly for them and their families, they were both very ill and should have been treated by State Government mental health institutions. Thus, the issue here is in fact a State Government one. But of course, when these two cases came up, the immediate blame was launched at the Federal Government by the left. "Never mind that Labor State Government mental health services failed these women - let's just blame Amanda Vanstone and John Howard" they cry.

Quite simply, the system we have now is working fine. As PM John Howard said "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" - Hansard, 2001. Hear! Hear!

I ran as an endorsed liberal candidate for the seat of Reid against Laurie Ferguson in 2001, when the Children Overboard affair arose.

I recall in those days being told by the NSW State Director, Scott Morrison, that the strong policies on mandatory detention were designed to attract the Hanson vote and destroy One Nation.

During the campaign, I was fortunate enough to meet a man who lost 2 nieces in the incident where over 100 asylum seekers lost their lives. I was stopped by the Party HQ from speaking a word. And so I said nothing.

Now I feel ashamed. Especially after visiting 2 detention centres and seeing how inmates live there.

I also feel ashamed after having acted for at least 2 former ACM guards in relation to OH&S-related matters.

Mandatory detention is not a liberal or even a conservative policy. I am no small "l" liberal. I have handed out how-to-votes for conservative MP's and former MP's such as John Howard, Ross Cameron and Tony Abbott. I also edited a conservative youth magazine called "pro-Action".

I haved no loyalty toward Bruce Baird, Marise Payne or any other supporters of Mr Georgiou's position. Bruce Baird defeated my branch patron (Stephen Mutch) in a preselection for the seat of Cook. I actively campaigned against Marise Payne during the Senate preselection in which she won.

Of course, this issue is not about me. Nor is it about you, Mr Donnelly. It is about people, human rights, good conscience and solid conservative values. There is nothing conservative about locking people up until they succumb to reactive depression. There is nothing conservative about keeping kids in detention.

In 1930's Germany, it was considered popular to attack Jews. In 1990's Serbia, supporting an army that engaged in gang-rape of civilians was popular. In Pakistan, few politicians have the incentive to advocate for the rights of Christian and Ahmadi minorities.

Must everything boil down to popularity? If politics is just show business, perhaps Mr Donnelly should join Pauline Hanson on stage.

I Yusuf

While this thread has quickly passed the point of reasoned and reasonable debate, I'll just observe that it's good to see a few Libs who have hearts, and the guts to stand up to the cynical hardliners who dominate their party.

Maybe it's time for Howard, Ruddock, Vanstone & Co to move on.

I have read quite a number of Mr Donnelly’s articles now.

The only thing that really stands out is that he has the inability to actually consider another point of view. The best arguments/debates validate the logic in another’s point of view and then suggest why one’s own logic/position is better. Mr Donnelly relies on fear, elitism and ‘Christian superiority’ (like it actually exists!).

I grow tired of contributing to debates where there is no truth, open-minded discussion and logic. For example, there are compelling reasons both for mandatory detention and against. I have seen no logic applied as to why one is better over the other – or even a middle ground, which in my amateur opinion, can exist.

As to this article, if Mr Donnelly thinks that democracy means towing a party line and not considering one’s conscience, then he is nothing but a hypocrite and a fraud. A Christian will always place conscience over personal gain. What is wrong with believing in one’s political party as an ideology and disagreeing on an issue within that party?

Typical *whatever you'd like to call it*-mongering by Mr Donnelly for personal gain. If you can’t see it, the brainwashing is complete… have another valium…

JustDan

Kevin, it may just be that Liberal's such as Petro are exactly what the party needs to break the image that dissent is not allowed.

The image of a coalition party room where serious dissent is stifled is not healthy. Many coalition voters will breath a sigh of relief at such an obvious challenge to the PM's views. Even some of those who agree with the PM but value freedom and diversity. Petro Georgiou's dissent is not a sign that he need's to move on, rather a sign that the party room has some life left in it.

In case you had not noticed there are many coalition supports who care about social justice, compassion and the environment etc who do not support the destructive versions advocated by the left. We've seen the destruction wrought by the lefts policies and think the right can meet many of the same objectives in a manner which does not destroy peoples lives. A welfare system which cares for the needy but does not discourage people from working, an environmental policy that recognises how dependent we are on the environment. Industrial law which protects the weak not the manipulators.

Social justice, compassion and environmental concern are not the sole domain of the left. Your article would suggest that you think that they should be.

R0bert

Any party that supports the indefinite detention of people (including children) who have been convicted of no crime, and which then seeks to silence or intimidate a member who opposes such a policy on grounds of conscience, has lost the right to call itself “Liberal” on two counts (or should that be “l”iberal, tooRight?).

According to Wikipedia:
“Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

And according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission:
“Whether labels are required by law, or are voluntary, they must accurately reflect the product contents because consumers depend on this information to make informed and better choices” http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/503366/fromItemId/5961

Maybe those of us who’d like to vote for a party espousing the brand of Liberalism described by Wikipedia should seek to reclaim the name by pursuing a case against the false and misleading labelling of the current users?

Thank God Australia is still, despite everything, a democracy. This means giving politicians enough rope to publicly hang themselves before a massed crowd, or, in this case, before a mass of readers. Mr Donnelly has provided us with the most perfect example of this phenomenon. As Bob Hawke in his heyday might have commented, "It couldn't have happened to a nicer bastard."
Long live the Petro Georgious of this world!

Kevin Donnelly argues that it is time for Petro Georgiou to go. Another colleague has likened Petro to a terrorist. In the meantime, we are told that the Liberal Party represents a broad Church. These would appear to be mutually exclusive views, the Party is seeking to scotch any dissent. The Liberal Party appears to be idealogically driven at present; the Prime Minister claims that he is governing for all Australians; the statement is different than the reality. The Prime Ministers statement is an oxymoron. Luckily, members like Pedro are an impediment to the Prime Minister's extreme policy proposals.

We need members like Pedro Georgiou in the Liberal Party, not sycophants like Kevin Donnelly et al.

ant

Someone mentioned Petro's Victorian colleague.

I remember the days as a young Liberal student activist attending conferences of the Australian Liberal Students Federation (ALSF). I have fond memories of young Sophie attacking us nasty NSW Right-Wingers for refusing to cooperate with nice decent Victorian moderates. These were the days when Petro was definitely Sophie's choice as a political pin-up boy.

Amazing what a little ambition can do.

Seriously, divergent viewpoints within the broad church of the Liberal Party are - as of July 1st - of vital importance to the quality of democracy in this country.
With both houses of parliament in the hands of one political party, the Senate's raison d'etre behoves its members to act and to vote according to their conscience.
Even more so, the government's members in the House of Reps are called upon to exercise their power with due probity, integrity and accountability.
It must be obvious to all that, should dissenting voices from the backbench be silenced in the Liberal Party, both the quality and the future life-blood of our democratic institutions will suffer.

Hello?? Guys?? The Government was democratically elected and democratically have a right to the Senate majority! You elected the Senate we have now whether you like it or not.

I personally think that Coalition would be much better off id they kept bickering to the party-room. Nationals like Joyce should keep their mouths shut on issues they don't understand fully (ie VSU and industrial relations). The first steps should be inside the party-rrom Coatition at a) understand the bill b) change the bill or do a deal (on the VSU this would be something like an extra few thousand dollars to rural uni's to fund their sports) c) don't get your way and there is considerable support for change in the party-room GO PUBLIC THEN.

The Senate was originally set up by the fathers of the Australian Commonwealth to defend the wishes and needs of individual States. The expectation of the major parties now is that Senators will toe the Party line. The Party line may not necesarily be in the best interests of a State, or Australia as awhole, for that matter. So, in response to tooRight; yes, Senators do need to have as much knowledge about particular legislation as they as they can gain. However, they need to vote for the interests of their State rather than what the Party decrees.

Labor Federally has lost its impact, it is now time for backbenches and Senators in the Coalition Government to push against the exccesses of an ideologically driven Howard Government. The Howard Government is not pushing "l" reform but very conservative disempowering legislation that the Iron Lady, Margarett Thatcher would be proud of.

Yes, the Coalition government was re-elected; tooRight, that does not mean that individuals can not now have an opposing opinion. A very dangerous notion; its a notion that goes against the tenets of democracy.

Bail up,

don't worry, even with senate control, you will still be able to get your weekly quota of XXX porn from Canberra by mail order, (should you be interested in it) as a letter from Philip Ruddock to me, outlined that the Feds when in full power, will not stop that flood of filth because they believe adults should be able to 'choose' etc. Notwithstanding that ALL STATES have outlawed sale and display of the material.

Irfan, I note with interest (and some surprise) your liberal connection. I tend more to family oriented parties :)

Plerdsus

When will they ever learn WHAT ? That your preamble about 'uninvited entry=invasion' is a fact of human nature and history and that nothing has happened in the last 100 yrs to show any different ? They already KNOW that mate. You made the case yourself, then you seem to jump into fairyland and deny it, with the unspoken suggestion that those who don't 'see' this are kind of out of it. I think you need therapy :) Plerdy, go down to Redfern, and ask the indigenous inhabitants how they feel about 'uninvited entry=invasion'. Wait.... they are on planet earth, I'm wondering if you are.

FIONA.. time to spank you again :) "Difference, if not at the heel, is all over you like a bad rash and will put YOU at its heel" has 5000 yrs of human history taught you NOTHING ?

Norm29
IF you had said similar things in Sadaams Iraq or even little BRUNEI, (about Islam) and given your real name and address, the Special Branch would be on your case b4 u can say 'multicultural'. You would be incarcerated, probably tortured possibly executed
Wake up.

Sometimes one dispairs for the way this country is heading. Petro Georgiou has restored some of my faith. We need representatives of conscience to stand up, not just follow a party line, if we are to preserve democracy. I don't want 'yes' men/women in our parliaments.
I want to see a healthy debate, not a rubber stamp and certainly not a dictatorship from the Leader of which ever party is in government.

That said, to those who agree with the governments current policy re detention of those who would dare to breach our borders, I ask, should those from Iraq and Afghanistan have stayed to be bombed by the allies?

Our Prime Minister took every opportunity to say how evil the former regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan were, yet these people and their families were suppose to stay and endure such evil? Think about that while you enjoy each day with your families.

And here's mean thinking the REDNECK was a dieing breed. Maybe we should try culling them.

Kenny, you are sounding very much like a tyrant: kill those who disagree with you. As for refugees, Australia already has a quota, a certain amount that we can accept. We cannot let them all in, and if we did, it still would'nt solve all the problems of the world. There would still be wars, poverty, famine etc etc.

I found Kevin Donnelly's article to be a refreshing change from the one eyed bigotry displayed from the anti-howard camp.

So it is Liberal policy to lock up children who have come to this country to seek refuge and discard those with a conscience. What is their crime? Wrong place wrong time?
How do the Liberals and their supporters justify this cruelty to children? Orwell said " In our time, Political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible." Today the Liberals dole out the euphemisms and PR to defend the indefensible. For instance: "mandatory detention" is really imprisonment without trial; an "illegal" is a mother, a child, a person - flesh and blood with feelings. The main argument that we get to counter refugees and others who protest against this cruelty in Australia is the "question-begging", the "what if" nonsense comparing the treatment that they would get at the hands of dictators without conscience (that most refugees are escaping from). These mothers, fathers, sons and daughters are denied our help because the humanitarian conscience that they are appealing to no longer recognises their humanity - the "sheer cloudy vagueness" has swallowed up their humanity. Vague, desperate, fleeting images in the distance behind bars.

According to KD, the Liberals have "legitimised" gaoling children and their parents in prisons to discourage other refugees from entering our shores. A terrorist is a person who uses extreme fear to govern or coerce government or community. So, I think, those condoning this method of coercion, that is, locking up refugees to coerce boat people into staying away is based on the similar thinking as a terrorist uses - it is wrong.
Moreover, political conformity of the kind KD encourages, engenders the machine-like responses Orwell talks of in his essays. Those in favour of gaoling the mums and dads from afar who seek our help to scare others have no conscience, or more precisely , a sense of justice. Conscience reminds us of our humanity - without it you are just cogs in a machine.

Well Kevin, not much sympathy with your fascist extremism attitudes in this forum. Maybe its time to limp away on three legs like another notable fascist , Bjelky Peterson.

boaz david, why are you surprised by my political background?

Perhaps Irfan, you haven't quite fitted the stereotype that had been mapped out for you. Most people don't - but then stereotyping is irresistible to people who are lazy, unimaginative, unable to empathise, or just plain bigotted. And then there are people who find themselves caught by surprise when facts come to light; who knows why....?

Shallow Ideology Dr Donnelly.

For some perplexing reason I had thought that you may have prepared and submitted an interesting topic regarding the member for Kooyong, Petro Georgiou.

However, despite your alleged qualifications, and I am sorry for placing it in this context, your views regarding Mr Georgiou are nothing but flawed.

And this is the perplexing part: one could safely assume that as a member of society with what appears to be an outstanding academic record concluding with a Phd in History or English, you would have provided an in depth analysis on the topic at hand.

Yet at the end of the day the topic that you submitted is nothing more than a character assassination on a member of parliament who has stood up and formally questioned current immigration policy. And what’s the Liberal response when this occurs? Get rid of him!

As a student of both history and political science you represent a shallow ideology Dr Donnelly but then again perhaps this is the Liberal way.

Shame Sir, shame.

Regards,

Brendan

Sorry, Kevin, what we need in Parliament is more diversity of views, not less. The Liberal Party has already purged many of its 'wets' during the Howard era. To lose more would make it increasingly unrepresentative of the Australian people. We need more MPs who will stand up against the party bosses for what they believe in. And the election results showed that it was the middle class blue-ribbon voters who are disturbed by the harshness of the refugee policy. So Petro is in fact being a good local member and representing the views of his constituency.

Good on you, Petro - you have won my vote!

no - he should stay!
it is the first time I have seen kind of a liberal wind in the liberal party. (What a fake name anyway - has the liberal party ever been liberal?) There should be open discussion within the parties. We do not have to clap hands for everything the MP is doing like in China!

It is time that the governments immigration shop is cleaned out and it's employees told what fairness, equal rights for all applicants world-wide, ethics and competence means.

The incompetence shown in the cases of Australians in detention are only the top of the iceberg. Setting different thresholds for visa applicants depending their origin and twisting the rules seem to be common. You take a lawyer and they stick to the rules.

I read it twice: .... is not convinced that your intentions are genuine.... And then you find out, that the reasons given for the denial of the application are not the same as in the governments internal papers.

I am now not convinced anymore, that the intentions of the Immigration Offices are genuine. I caught them lying and it's for sure not an exception.