I am so impressed!

I saw the post count was up to six, so I checked in, expecting the usual rants with the usual references to bleeding hearts, do-gooders, illegals, queue-jumpers, etc, etc.

But to my utter amazement, there they were - four wonderfully sane and reasonable voices. To mikk, CJ, examinator and Foxy, I salute you all. You've made my day!

A big warm hug for you, Foxy.

And good to see you back, CJ, as always.

onya? yes indeed But I can not say what .
Julie is a pain in the bottom.
With zero doubt as unpopular within her party as outside it.
So very many know this, from within her party.
A golden shower for Julie yes indeed onya Julie.
Any chance this total failure can be replaced before the election, come to think about it I have a list.
It is long but the first step in rebuilding the conservative movement.
15 golden showers for a better future for that party

Be careful what you wish for Ludwig.

I cannot see Julie B or any of her cohorts pushing a strong sustainability agenda despite the politicising about asylum seekers.

Wayne Swan recently came out suggesting that Australia's population would grow to 34M by 2050 - even higher than India's growth rates.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/growth-head-and-shoulders-above-india-20090922-g0m6.html

Ridiculous when you think of our water situation and the rampant growth of our largest cities and we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the US, Europe and Britain.

I think we should change our immigration policy to a one-in one-out basis if we are to seek sustainability with obvious humanitarian responses to asylum seekers.

We should also rid ourselves of middle class welfare in the form of baby bonuses. Tax relief for the lower income earners is all that should be necessary in a modern economy IMO.

Bronwyn Bronwyn Bronwyn, how on earth can you condone people jumping in leaky boats and making the awfully risky trip across the open sea to Australian waters, to try their luck in being able to stay here?

How can you?

Surely there is a much better way of doing our bit for the world's desperate people.

How can you possibly support Rudd in his weakened border protection policy that, despite whatever other drivers of asylum seeking there might be, has undoubtedly added to this horrible onshore asylum seeking movement (horrible for those caught up in it)?

I don't get it at all Bronwyn.

You agree that we need to boost our international refugee efforts, but it seems to me you just brush over this and are hell-bent on supporting the continuation of hazardous boat-people movement to our northern waters.

The number of arrivals is tiny compared to global refugee movements or to the numbers that would come here if our border protection policies were to be considerably further weakened.

So in the bigger picture, in terms of the numbers of people involved, it would surely be eminently sensible to strive to completely stop this movement, which Howard had effectively done, and redirect the enormous costs involved into our international aid efforts....where it would be enormously more effective in dealing with refugee issues at their sources, or in boosting our offshore refugee program.

It seems to me, with the greatest of respect, that your concept of perspective in this debate is highly off-track.

"Be careful what you wish for Ludwig. I cannot see Julie B or any of her cohorts pushing a strong sustainability agenda despite the politicising about asylum seekers."

Quite so Pelican. I admit I'm on a totally unrealistic wishful thinking fantasy ride here! No chance in the universe of Ms Bishop or the Libs realistically addressing sustainability.

And yes I was of course utterly disgusted by Wayne Swan regarding his recent comments on our population projections.

Dear Ludwig,

Malcolm Fraser, on the Howard Government:

"We now know that many of the things we have
been told about asylum seekers and boat people
are untrue. The most notorious claim was repeated
many times: that asylum seekers were throwing their
children overboard. We were told these were not
the sort of people who should be allowed to find
a home in Australia. In a most tortuous fashion the
truth emerged and that claim is now known to be
false. We know many people in the defence machine
and in government departments knew it to be false.
We know the then defence minister knew it to be false.

How is it that the truth did not emerge? Quite apart from
the blatant unseemly deception, it represents an
extraordinary breakdown in government administration..."

Ludwig, you question the safety of people coming by boat.
People fleeing terror have no choice but to flee to other
countries to find protection. They can't be penalised
for their means of arrival in a country, however
irregular that arrival may be. Malcolm Fraser
says: - " Article 14 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution." "The 1951 Refugee
Convention makes it clear governments should not
discriminate against asylum seekers. All asylum seekers
should be treated in the same manner, no matter how they
arrived in Australia."

Fraser corrects the Howard Government's stand
on mandatory detention, " We are told there is no
alternative to mandatory detention. That is not true.
Australia is the only Western country that mandatorily
and without appeal detained all asylum seekers, including
women and children, while their claims were heard.

Mandatory detention was very expensive, at $120 a day
per refugee. Community-based alternatives were found
internationally and within the Australian parole system.
In Sweden, which took as many asylum seekers as Australia
despite a population half Australia's size, detention was
used only to establish a person's identity and to conduct
criminal screening..."

The current Libs rhetoric of border protection is rhetoric
unrelated to the reailty!