If they go to Christmas Island than as the name implies its a Christian island and for theses women and children all their Christmases could come at once. BTW why has a remote island in the Indian Ocean got this Christian name, was it a case of another zealot spreading Christianity throughout the world. There is also the very remote Easter island in the Pacific.

Why did Christians when colonising, force the local inhabitants to renounce their "Pagan" religions and take up Christianity on the pain of death. My wife tells me that as a child those who even mentioned the Maori gods would be severely reprimanded. Although a practising Christians, the wife still says a prayer to Tangaroa when boarding an aircraft, a bit of extra insurance. BTW, it is the duty of Christians to spread the "Word" to all nonbelievers, missionaries, why do they keep banging on your door, or accosting people in the street.

Bezza, as someone who admits he knows jack sh!t about Islam, you do like to pontificate on the subject. Yes religious zealots of all descriptions would impose religious law on society, given the chance. Just imagine what Australia would be like if the entire parliament was made up of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Another example of the joys of multicultural mass immigration is Indian-born Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman. Not only was he appointed to his job by the Labor government, rubbing it in by deciding to have minority race person making pronouncements on race relations, Sivaraman uses his lucrative position to make personal political statements.

In a discussion on SBS about Australia Day, he said, “When it comes to January 26, it becomes so difficult … you’ve just got to, on January 26, you’ve got to kiss the flag, love the country, otherwise go away.”

He rabbited on with, “We’re all on stolen land and we actually need truth-telling about the history of this land.”

And the real cracker, “Systems and institutions… were built to really privilege colonialism and whiteness.”

It's bad enough that he makes aspersions about the “white people” who granted his family entry to Australia; but he also uses his powerful job to do it.

What an ignorant, ungrateful prick! One we could well do without.

On the matter of bringing back ISIS brides as though we didn't have enough dangerous people here already (thousands of them on an ASIO watch list) Albanese's claim that they have to be issued with passports might be just another one of his lies.

An AFP counter-terrorism expert has revealed a discretionary clause written into the Passport Act of 2005. It allows the government to refuse passport requests to citizens.

The government can refuse passports if it “reasonably suspects” doing so would prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country or endanger the physical safety of other persons, among other separate criteria.

The government is bound by the rule of law. It would be a terrible situation if without a substantial legal reason the government was to deny an Australian citizen a passport.

"discretionary clause written into the Passport Act of 2005. It allows the government to refuse passport requests to citizens." In the totalitarian police state that this bloke supports, then without reason the minister would deny passports, or detain people entering the country without trial, we already do that.

Paul1405,
So, you have no qualms about the costs of bringing in terrorist associates but you vehemently oppose old age pensioners their dues ?
Tell us please, who has thus far cost the Australian taxpayers more Albo got to power, the pensioners who have already contributed or the thousands of Islam followers who with 90 % likelihood never will contribute.
You seem to have all the figures any other times.

Indy,

Those who contributed in the past, through a non-contributory superannuation scheme, presently 12% should progress to 15%, or invested wisely for their future should not be penalised. The past taxes paid were used to provide at that time the necessary benefits to the taxpayer, and people like yourself. When you arrived in Australia, you received immediate benefit from the taxpayer, correct. The reality is Australia cannot continue to pay aged welfare and support the ever increasing number of elderly non contributors, non productives.

I support sustainability, not simple handouts, everyone should be made to contribute in some way, either as an investor, or if that's not possible, then with some form of labour. When you reached 65 and claimed aged welfare, I think you should have be paid in the form of non financial benefit, in return for a non financial contribution to society, a Seniors National Service would be ideal, what's wrong with that.