Oakshot has before the house a private members bill.
It proses a regional solution to the refugee issue.
A follow up from the Bali regional groups talks.
It would let Australia , maybe other country's , send refugees for processing to country who are a signature to that group.
Some 50 plus nations.
We currently are bleeding funds and increasing boats.
No end in sight, both Conservative/Liberal, and Labor share the blame.
And sneaking around under their feet, like a nasty little dog snapping and snarling, effectively keeping the boats coming are the Greens.
Conservatives will scream Labor did it, in part they did.
But Labor took the high moral ground in conceding to the wishes of Abbott, he then changed his wants.
It surely is time, for solutions not harping about the past and who is and was wrong, both sides share the blame.
I Would ask this, how is Australia served by a continuation of these boats.
And will CONSERVATIVES AND LABOR get our interests first and deal the minority greens out on this issue.

Belly,
He'll probably betray you lot this time round.

Indy your comment adds nothing to the subject.
Unless the further evidence of your lack of understanding is counted.
We have a problem,a National one.
Few would not be aware this issue divides us, I am not claiming minority views should not be considered.
In fact if all views do not have value free speech can not exist.
So the Greens have every right to their view.
As do those within the ALP and Liberal party.
Some great men and women out side politics too hold similar views, refugees deserve better.
However, just as the views they hold need consideration the majority's wants and wishes surely do too.
John Winston Howard, like him or not, won elections by reading publics wants on this issue.
The proposal before the Parliament seems to be a regional one, supported by over 50 country's.
We must not bog down in who is to blame, it changes nothing.
Abbott wants, or tells us he wants, to defie Indonesia's wishes, turn the boats back at sea.
He will not do that in office.
Both sides want offshore processing, it is clear most Australians do.
If this issue was not of eminence use to the opposition as a weapon , I think they would agree with it.
Billions of our dollars spent, hundreds of deaths at sea, we are told.
A solution is the needed out come.
In time as Liberals take power remember, they will need and use something not far from this.
I hope one day Conservatives posing as Liberals, the same crowd who defame Labor as being owned by the greens, stop pandering to greens, only they win while Abbott's ambition rules over good policy.

Belly,

"But Labor took the high moral ground in conceding to the wishes of Abbott, he then changed his wants."

Absolute rubbish. Labor conceded nothing. Having come up with the Malaysian solution that made the pacific solution look like a picnic, and having failed, it was always their way or nothing. Labor had the choice of the coalition solution with a proven track record, or that of the greens, and they chose the greens.

The pacific solution is always available when Labor has the courage to swallow their pride.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for this thread.

Both political parties support offshore processing
of asylum seekers. It's time that they both took
a constructive approach and
saw this implemented through law.

If the Coalition doesn't support Rob Oakeshott's
Private Bill - they should:
1) Put up amendments to the Bill.

Or -

2) Bring in some detailed legislation of their own.

That is, if they are serious about the national interest.

The debate will continue on March 19th. It will be
interesting to see what the final result will be.

refugees deserve better.
Belly,
If everyone thought the way I think then there wouldn't be any refugees. As to refugees deserving better I agree but how much better I ask. So much better that the hosts are expected to bow to their every whim ?
So much better that our coffers get emptied to please them ? I have absolutely no reservation in helping a refugee but I will not give toward & aid a silent invasion of this country.
I am all for not having refugees in the first place but hey, who listens.

Lexi thank you and nice to see you.
I could engage in spin with Shadow Minister, he may well own one of those circus merry go rounds, but it is always pointless.
Labors back down, that is exactly what it was, did gain it the high ground morally.
And it clearly, gave Conservatives the return of, in part their PACIFIC SOLUTION.
Now for purpose of debate, say all blame is Labors.
Let us claim, for the same reason, Abbott's turn them back plan is not insane, not confrontational in the eyes of Indonesia.
Then is it time to resolve this issue, or has CONSERVATIVE politics in Australia become a spin machine not policy or interests of the country driven.
SM will continue to look to the past, ignore the present, and ignore advice his plan no longer works.
We should take a stand here write to our members and give our views, what ever they are.
But demand an end to squabbling and a fix this now approach.

Dear Belly,

All this "wedge politics," - that deliberately creates
a division between sectoral interests - is an outmoded
name of the game. People are getting sick and tired of
it. It destroys trust, and the feelings of a caring
society. It shouldn't have to be "them" and "us."
It should simply be "us." A middle way has to be
found. And it won't be a moment too soon.

is an outmoded name of the game. People are getting sick and tired of it.

Belly & Lexi,
Well, you'd better tell that to your Labor cronies, you're the ones practising this abhorrent tactic.
So far as turning back the boats is concerned the Conservatives (if in Govt) will need to think up a radically new policy. Don't just think things haven't changed & we can continue along the present ruined policies. When the loop holes became easier to find the tactics of the boat people have changed too. People smuggling, unlike policies have evolved quite significantly & it'll be up to the next Government to become smarter also

This private member's bill is essentially another attempt to bring in the Malaysian solution.

The governments original legislation would allow the minister to deport anyone to anywhere, and the coalition simply added the requirement that the recipient country be a signatory to the UNHCR.

Oakeshott's legislation simply replaces the UNHCR requirement with being a member of the Bali process. This Bali process essentially means that the countries need to attend meetings on people smuggling, and no humanitarian protections are required or enforced.

Even Wilkie thinks this plan stinks.

If I understand any thing then this not well patronized thread is descriptive of not only public debate on this issue.
But the state of Australian politics.
Lexi I congratulate you on your understanding.
Individual to you too, thanks.
I truly see in your post a special blindness, fueled by a deep unintended maybe, BIGOTRY.
This issue, two sides, Labor once totally wrong, now following public wishes.
Want off shore processing.
Both blame the other side for not haveing it.
Oakshot has put a plan , one that covers all options.
One BOTH PARTY'S can find their required out come in.
And one other regional country's, more than 50, are to be involved in.
Those country's ,members of the Bali group, are already talking, about a regional solution.
Look yes at me, at the stand of Shadow Minister, and the words of Individual.
Understand the verbal combat, the pure spin, my reluctance to consider the greens capable of consensus.
In the end, as it always is, more so in a hung Parliament, a compromise must be found.
Right now we spend BILLIONS on on shore processing, any understanding person should see less boats is the outcome of offshore processing.
But more refugees saved in Malaysia.

It would appear that for labor, the requirements of either the UNHCR or the coalition's humanitarian protections are too onerous for their refugee dumping policy.

When Labor wanted to introduce a law to strip all rights from refugees by revoking the coalitions protection clause, the coalition compromised by requiring that the recipient country of Labor's dumping policy was a signatory to the UNHCR.

Labor simply refused to compromise. It has no plans for any middle ground.

You are forgetting one very important fact, the boats were not coming, then, enter one K Rudd.

It is 100% labor's fault that we are in this mess and, as the imcombent government, it is thier responsibility to fix it.

Now if they can't fix it, then step aside.

Labor should have a huge poster in every room, office, lunch room, even the toilets, that says, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT!

It seems to me that part of the overall problem in
our current political situation is the continual
finger-pointing and not being willing to find
"the mean" between two extremes to solve the problem.

Rob Oakshott's Private Bill is an attempt to try to
find a solution to the problem of asylum seekers.
If our political parties can't come together and try
to find "the mean" between two extremes - they shall
be in continual dispute and they won't be able to seek
and achieve a consensus - which is the operational
principle for a sustainable policy.

Creating divisions - should not be the name of this
outmoded game and the self interest of interest groups
and antagonism between political parties should not
permeate policy-making. This "them" and "us" scenario
which is currently employed in partisan politics could
be much better used in positive pursuits.

This debate will continue in Parliament on Monday, 19th
March. We can only hope that something positive will
eventually come out of it. Although, judging from the
comments on this Forum to date - it's difficult to be
too optimistic - if attitudes here are anything to go by.

Rob Oakshott's Private Bill is an attempt to try to
find a solution to the problem of asylum seekers.
Lexi,
The Howard Government's policy was the closest to such a solution & only needed to be built upon not tearing apart. Oakeshott was part of that demolition team.

Dear Individual,

Regardless of what you believe - the Pacific Solution was
a very expensive exercise that ended up costing Australia
a fortune - and was an exercise in futility when most of
the asylum seekers ended up here anyway - with very high
costs not only financial - but in humanitarian terms.
It is very hypocritical to continue to suggest we go
down this path again - while at the same time expressing
concern on humanitarian grounds - which is what the Coalition
is doing in rejecting the government's policies. It is time
that both parties came together - to try to work out
a new solution that will be acceptable to both - it is time
to move forward - not backward - which obviously is not
acceptable to both. Repeating the same old, same old,
only results in going around in circles and in the "wedge
politics," that I was talking about previously. We need to
move on - you included.

moving on is exactly what I'm proposing, instead of progressive regress.
Let's to a deal. Let's give wheelbarrows & shovels etc to those countries which produce the refugees so they can build up their lives again. Those who get stopped we supply guns to.
That should cut back the refugee production.
The fishermen in indonesia should get paid for not bringing people across the Arafura. Imagine how much money & misery could be saved.
Those whom we do let into Australia could be sent to abandoned communities & let them build them up again. They could be become showpiece communities for many indigenous to model their communities on rather than bureaucrats.
Benefits all round. I have asked several times on OLO whom the indigenous would prefer to come here & I got no replies. I could possibly mean they wouldn't object.

Lexi you best see the humor, the gut busting belly laughs in your opponents posts.
Rechtub if you used that logic in your business no wounder you had difficulty's.
Now lets sit down round table no seat higher than another.
Union settlement time, modern day not yesterday.
I open for the employees/voters,
First let us agree, we come to this table in good faith, to resolve an issue.
All agree?
Ok that said, lets put our grievances then agree they stay in the past during further debate ok?
I say openly blame, much of it but not all, is on my side.
I openly admit that, but resolve to end this issue by consensus.
Haveing thrown our stones for the last time.
I now offer this solution we all vote for the Rob Oakshot resolution, with special agreement both the Liberal plan and Labors one will be implemented for 12 months trial.
With the single exception of turning boats around at sea.

No chance of our opponents agreeing exists Lexi, one wants to use the issue, one does not understand it and the other would rather flog the ALP than fix it.

Dear Individual,

Well said. We can only hope that
consensus can eventually be reached by both political parties
on this issue.
It all begins in Parliament on Monday 19th March.

Dear Belly,

If only ... one can live and hope.
Fingers-crossed that there will be enough members
in the political parties who will resolve to bring
a solution to this complex issue. We'll have to wait
and see what develops. Whether the national interest
can outweigh party politics.

BTW - nobody has mentioned -
Vale - Margaret Whitlam. A lady who was in the public
eye for several decades. She was a household identity
in her own right and was greatly admired by so
many people. As she once said:

"It's absurd, just because you're a politician's wife,
to sit around like a dummy saying nothing, or echoing
him. You might as well give up living...
I came to represent all the ungainly people, the
too-tall ones, the too-fat ones, and the housebound,
as I had been, who'd never get the chance to go to
China or Buckingham Palace, and who experienced it all
through me."

She'll be missed.

While the pacific solution was expensive, it cost a tiny fraction of what the government's on shore tsunami of asylum seekers is costing now.

As Labor is in power, it is their responsibility to find a solution. The coalition has offered a compromise, yet the Labor government has not moved one Iota.

I invite readers to truly look at the post of Shadow Minister above mine.
Surely it avoids truth.
Labor has moved its position, in fact it has been all over the shop.
But its latest move has been an attempt to do very nearly what my last post said.
It offered both ends to this growing problem.
We should remember, harking back to the past, even highlighting Labors inability to cast off its mistakes, will not fix the issue.
It will feed Conservatives electioneering , but betray us all.
Worth consideration, a by product of this hung Parliament, Polling in the NSW channel 7 site is 84% in favor of towing the boats back.
Remember the manipulative greens too can isolate Conservatives by just giving this a chance.
As the QLD landslide is about to take place, and SA next, Greens inability to consider views other than their own , remind me in life you reap what you sow.
Fix this the public demands it, Enter office on a Confrontational ticket and see support turn to mud.

Dear SM,

You're only proving my point. This
should not be a political game of "wedge politics."
It's well and truly time that a solution was negotiated
by both parties that would be acceptable to all.
Continual dispute is not the answer.

Lexi,

Labor is always calling for compromise, however, it always wants the coalition to compromise, and offers nothing in return. For the greens they were prepared to break a promise to the electorate, but I cannot think of one single compromise that they have offered the coalition since 2007. Every thing was take it or leave it.

Dear SM,

That's not true. From memory Labor has been willing to
negotiate and discuss issues to reach an
acceptable solution to many problems. However,
the Coalition under the current leadership has
simply refused to discuss anything. All they
seem capable of doing is condemnation and trying
to undermine the current government.

For example - off shore processing of asylum seekers.
Both parties agree that it should be done offshore -
but the Coalition will not accept any solution but
Nauru. Whereas the government had suggested -
Malaysia, East Timor, and Papua. Now who is trying,
and who is not?

The way that Mr Abbott behaves in a school-yard or
in the street - would be classified as "bully-tactics."
It certainly fits his behaviour.

Lexi,

I seriously question your memory. Please mention one compromise that Labor has offered the coalition.

On Fair work - nothing,
Climate change - nothing,
Mining tax - nothing,
asylum seekers - nothing.

Labor has claimed to seek a negotiation, but has never put anything on the table.

There are only two solutions presently on the table, the Greens on shore processing or the coalition compromise, which could include the pacific solution.

So far the Pacific solution is the only tried and proven solution, and it can start very quickly.

We must know we can not know what came first the chicken or the egg.
Oh for sure something came before both and became both.
SM has dug deep in to a pot of nothingness, to produce nothing.
His list of Labors failures is unfounded gossip.
But it was not meant to be true, its purpose is to take the spotlight away from this.
Conservatives, side with the only party they dislike more than Labor, the Greens.
To say to the majority of voters *this is too good a political weapon, to fix the problem, and not be able to use it*

Dear SM,

Would you still be spouting the same old lines
if Malcolm Turnbull was the leader of your party.
I very much doubt it. And my memory is better
than yours obviously. However, this is not about
my having to prove anything to you about Labor.
This is about finding a new solution to the
asylum seeker problem and Rob Oakshott's
Private Bill is what's up for consideration.
Will Mr Abbott be able to either submit
a list of amendments to the bill or come up
with a better newer solution. I very much doubt it.
But here's his chance to prove me wrong.

But here's his chance to prove me wrong.
Lexi,
I believe he can but, are you willing to acknowledge a coalition policy ? The situation re asylum seekers has changed so much in the past couple years that it'll take some serious & callous thinking. No room for fashionable compassion. It'll have to be realistic & affordable compassion. Also, are you willing to give the coalition as many terms as Labor had even if they just bumble along as Labor did ?

Dear Individual,

The Coalition has to firstly give me at least
one good reason as to why I should vote for them
under their current leadership. And so far they
haven't done so. I have to have more than just
"aspirations." They now have an opportunity to
negotiate a solution regarding the asylum seeker
issue with Rob Oakshott's Private Bill. We'll
see how that goes.

one good reason as to why I should vote for them
Lexi,
that makes two of us. However, with all the evidence at hand now from Labor's performance what makes you still support Labor then ? Aren't you a little hypocritical here ?

If the asylum seek issue was the only issue that labor had stuffed up, well they may get a little sympathy but seriously how can anyone forgive this incompetent government any support what so ever. ,

Voters prior to the next election will need to
pick apart both Labor and the Coalition's
policy platforms and decide which offers Australia
the brightest future.

If the Coalition will present robust policies to
answer Labor's that's what people will ultimately
decide for themselves.

Unfortunately to date we haven't had any political
discourse all we've had from the Coalition has
been a ludicrous slanging match with easy point
scoring.

To date - slogans like
"scrap the tax," or "stop the boats,"
followed by censure motions to shut down
"Question Time," in Parliament, seems to be all
the Coalition has been capable of.

The policy debate needs to
move to the front pages of our newspapers -
and let voters see the full picture.

Pity the electorate never had a chance to pick apart Labor's carbon tax policy.

We can do no better to find out the state of Australian politics than read this thread.
While bitter and biased as usual, Individual at least admits this is an attempt to fix the issue.
I truly think, yes honestly, SM only trys to mask the issue, even changing direction of the thread.
This is, an attempt to FOREVER put in place a scheme, that both party's can live with.
A regional one.
If not this what?
If not regional, supported by the region what.
What would be the outcome if we ignore Indonesia stated opposition, by sending boats back to their country?
Or if they walked on our wishes like that?
Say what you will, while some are unaware of the details,SM knows Howard's advisers are Labors advisers, and say Nehru will not longer work.
Dennie it, but it is true, Rechtub, other than blame Labor,mostly true, what value in ignoring a possible long term solution do you get.
If we find the rubbish bin tipped on our front door do we forever argue who did it, or first clean it up.
Sir Winston Churchill said words to the effect a five minute conversation with a voter is the best argument against democracy.
Here in any conversation about politics he has his point proved for him.

Sir Winston Churchill said words to the effect a five minute conversation with a voter is the best argument against democracy.

Belly, what he would have said was something like, "if you don't stop sending these ILLIGAL boats to our shores, we will sink them, along with the people on them."

But back then, men were men and political correctness was not even a word, let alone a hand brake for every day life.

Often the best way to honestly assess a situation is to reverse it's effect and see how they would deal with us turning up there, in the thousands, uninvited.

They would most likely shoot illegals, or at least lock them up in some whole in the ground, where as we put them up, pay them three times what our own retirees get paid and expecting them to contribute towards society seems to be a dirty word.

Now while I am not suggesting we shoot them out of the water, we must turn/tow them back and, if their boat doesn't make it, well, that's not our fault because they all knew the consequences of their actions before boarding.

We are as weak as water in this joint, evidence being in the fact that we take so much notice of every piss fart little minority group that decides life is not fair.

Now if you don't believe me, I invite you to turn up on their shores illegally and see how you fair.

You must remember a couple of things here.

One, they didn't come like this prior to labor, and two, the only reason they come now is because we are as weak as water.

For god sake, give us someone with some balls!

rehctub,

Nonsense! - Britain accommodated many refugees (as did other countries) during the Great War, the inter-war years, and in the onset an outbreak of the Second World War.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/refugees-minorities.htm

How big of you not to suggest that we shoot them out of the water.
"...if their boat doesn't make it, well, that's not our fault..."

Your represent petty, officious, small-minded and pitiless humanity - the middle-class scourge of modern society - sickening in the extreme.

Dear SM,

As you know circumstances changed and the PM
became part of a minority government. Decisions
taken had to be done with consultation of the
Independents and the Greens. Public policy
innovations such as the carbon tax that would
have gone through with Malcolm Turnbull as leaderr
of the Opposition struck obstacles with Mr Abbott.
This was unfortunate - as even today Mr Turnbull
supports the carbon tax. However, as we all know
public policy innovations such as the carbon tax
often struggle (as did the GST) to become widespread.
They are not at first eagerly applauded.

This is because communicating innovation is no easy
task. The PM has learned from her mistakes - and
will continue to provide the necessary information for
the public so that they can fully understand the issue.
I think once the scare tactics disappear and with time
positive outcomes result - the public will see for
themselves that there's little to fear and that we shall
all be better off as a result.

This is a PM "with balls," who is prepared to take the
hard steps for the national interest. Possibly that's
why she won so many votes to the Party Leader challenge.
I wonder how Mr Abbott would have fared under the same
circumstances in his party.
He barely scraped through by one vote
the last time.

Circumstances changed? You mean that it was now convenient to break a promise to the public, and once the vote was counted, there was nothing the public could do about it. I notice that she quietly shafted Wilkie when it was convenient.

Why are all Labor's innovations great big new taxes.

I think the public do understand the issue and the lie, and the opinion polls are a direct indication of this.

Rechtub, if your wish was granted war could be a possibility.
Are you aware Indonesia its self is not the home of these folk.
Do you want to destroy our relationship with them.
Not balls,not murder,just brains.
That is all that is needed.
Can you describe just what Abbott will do, not what he says,that is a different matter.
Considering you want mass murder ,thats what it is, calm down think and learn Oakshot has offered and end to the boats, just that, no deaths both Liberal wishes and Labors.
Your hot headed rant,that mate is what it is, is to silly to be considered .

Dear SM,

Putting it as politiely as possible - you're
now simply stirring. If Mr Abbott would have
succeeded in convincing the Independents and
the Greens to form a minority government with him
he would have been in exactly the same position
as the current PM was. She was forced to
negotiate on every decision and try to achieve the
best possible outcome for the nation. Which is
what she did. And as Mr Howard explained -
with his "core and
non-core promises." In other words -
situations change in a flash in
politics.

However, back to the topic - Rob Oakshott's Private
Bill on asylum seekers. One can only hope that both
parties will be able to negotiate a solution to this
problem. A bit of give and take would not go astray.

As for opinion polls - these also can change very
quickly - as we saw with the PM winning
her leadership challenge. Communication is vital
in politics - and the PM has learned that.

The voters will get a chance to decide which political
party offers Australia the brigtest future - based on
their policy platforms prior to the next election.
The people will ultimately decide for themselves.
And they usually get it
right in the end.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. As I am
to mine. I may possibly see you on another thread.
That is if I continue to read your posts.
They are a bit predictable.

SM, butch, and arjay. What a treo;
Palmer has pulled out of the debate. I think he has seen the light.
Abbott is still his non conformist self, nothing to say and no ideas.
Pledges in blood, crap, no, I honestly believe this will be his downfall.
Big Joe not impressive, nothing of substance to say.
Julia is taking the fight right up to them, all the noalition can come up with is disruption and cat calls.

Abbott offered the independents funding for pet projects, not the job destroying carbon tax, the idiotic pokies licence, etc, ie. no broken promises.

Juliar won the leadership ballot, because electing Rudd would be tantamount to saying "Rudd was useless, but Juliar is worse"

As for Oakeshott's plan it is woolly and essentially a dressed up version of Labor's original rights stripping legislation.

One minute its profit destroying and now it's job destroying.
The Lady has substance, and the man has nothing.
Women and revenge are close to Tony's heart, if he has one.
A nice new MRRT, was born last night, for the betterment of the country.
A cost on carbon pollution, will kick start the green energy future.
We have a progressive govt;

Let us face it ,there is no substance in SMs claims.
I doubt he wants other than to muddy the waters.
Oakshots plan is not Labors over again.
It is all encompassing, within it every possible solution lays.
Abbott himself, in government must take one of the paths within it.
He would not dare turn the boats around.
He has both views,yes and no, and maybe on any issue.
579/Lexi, no joy for me here, but do not look for miracles.
In 1975 Labor, after years of press bigotry, and fools within the party, was thrown out on its ear.
ONLY a new leader, close to elections can save us.
I hurt, but self deception is just Ostrich it, burying our heads in the sand.
Far too many buy the propaganda, yes wake up after, and return Labor.
But only after defeat.
It is strange, silly, but true Abbott clings on to his job because the public see Gillard in no better light.
One falls both will.
Remember, never forget, some vote on newspaper headlines not truth.

Belly,

If you are an expert, Please tell us how the plan differs substantially from Labors original stripping of all rights bill.

I guess that the coalition will support it with the amendment that the country is a signatory to the UNHCR.

I want folk to understand and remember, not every post, mine included are right/true.
We fail ourselves, and the point we wish to make, if we let our words be nothing more than propaganda, an attempt to gift wrap our views and wishes.
It should be clear, in the bill, a proposal that is wide spread, not focused on the Malaysian solution only, exists.
AGAIN the proposal is,that membership of the Bali group.
A regional group of about 53 country's, set to resolve this issue.
Be enough to receive or send boat people, to country's agreeing to except them, under this regional agreement.
Offshore processing there.
Shadow Minister, now lays the UNHCR on me like a rock to the forehead, but did not tell us his turn around target country , is not a member of the UNHCR.
Was Nehru? SM? in Howard's days of using it?
IS it SM true the same folk who advised Gillard did so too for Howard?
And that they say it , post high court ruling will not work.
Australia be aware, it may seem silly but a massive pea and thimble con is being played.
Conservatives care little for policy's out comes truth, taking advantage of a hung Parliament,a not well liked leader they push and pull us away from looking at them.
And twist and turn every issue.
In the end, this country is about to elect a team of con men and spin experts.
And in doing so replace policy's far better than the few they have not based on NEGATIVITY.
Trust SM? no more than the greens trying to impose the views of not much more than one tenth of voters on us all!

Belly,

I thought so, Oakeshott's proposal has no legally enforceable human rights protections what so ever.

As far as turning the boats back, Australia has no responsibility for those that don't make it to Australian territory whether they are intercepted before leaving, or are turned back.

Patrolling another country's water boarder, provocative.
Human rights from an Abbott, see no evil person.
This noalition camp are taking the AU people as stupid.
Scare tactics are all they have.
No substance what so ever.
Turnbull would be a far better opposition, after getting rid of the abbott's and bishops.

The Labor supporters here are promoting a scheme put forward by Oakshot, yet there is no link to what he is actually stating. That again shows sloppy work by Labor.

Perhaps there was something in the MSM but, being the fool he is, who would bother reading an article about a scheme by him, including me. Have kept abreast of this thread but so far there is little about what his scheme is.

What makes anyone think that the other 50 countries would be interested in illegals trying to get to Aus. There is very little, if anything, in it for them so why should they waste their time and money on a purely Aussie problem.

The illegals are shonks and con artists, who take advantage of our generosity, and the only way to stop them is to NOT give them what they seek. Simply do not give them what they want and they will stop coming. Does not matter where they are processed.

Since 2008, Labor has shown it does not have the guts to take action. They prefer to let the illegals die trying to get here.

Dear Banjo,

You owe Labor and posteers on this thread an apology.
You're the one who's "sloppy." If you aren't capable of
doing some research and can't find what you're after
you should ask for help rather than ranting against
people and parties. That's not only sloppy but ignorant.

Try the following link:

http://roboakeshott.com/node/1251

For your information the Bill is called -

Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012

You can Google it to see a copy.

lexi,
Why should I waste my time seeking out what a fool like Oakshot has to say. If somebody here thinks what he has to say is worthy of reading they should post a link to it.

I ignore any articles that refer to Oakshot in the MSM as I do to posts by 579 and OUG, and most of Runners, here on OLO.

But typical Labor sloppiness, promoting a scheme without saying what it is and expecting others to accept it. No wonder they have so many stuff ups. School halls or pink bats anyone? No business plan for NBN! Why should other countries be interesterd in Oakshots scheme?

Dear Banjo,

Sorry - but you don't make any sense.
Go back and re-read your early post.
I don't understand what you're on about.

You've been provided with the information
that you stated wasn't available. It is.

However, if you don't want to read it -
that's your problem. Certainly not
Rob Oakeshott's or Labor's.

Blind in one eye, and can't see out the other, is Bango.
Treating the AU people as stupid, brainwashed for sure.
Mr oakshot's proposal has merit. There could be a chance of the greens going for that one.

This new bill only requires that the country to which the asylum seekers are sent gives assurances that the human rights will be observed. Nothing legally binding what so ever.

This is Labor's original bill with some toothless and totally unenforceable provisions.

I bet Oakeshott didn't even write this, but was given this by Labor to put his name on. What a weasel.

Dear SM,

Have you actually read the Bill?

Because what you're saying is not correct.

Kindly read it.

SM only has eyes for Mr abbott. Some people don't have any common cense at all.
Labor will surge ahead and do the hard yards as normal. Just as well we have a resilient leader. Far to good for tony's unused brain.
Doesn't say much for the noalition having to put up with the three stooge's.

Lexi,

I have read quickly through it, and have failed to find anything that legally guarantees the rights of the asylum seekers after they have left Australian custody.

Perhaps, with your vast legal experience could enlighten all of us to the clause that I have missed that required the destination country to pass legislation or sign up to the UNHCR to enforce the rights of Asylum seekers.

Otherwise the rest is just meaningless verbiage from a notorious windbag.

Banjo I consider you a mate, but Lexi has it right, on this issue you are just about as wrong as you can get, anyone post a link here please?
Question time, those who watched will have noticed the opposition had nearly as many out side in the sin bin as in.
And Abbott turning his back as the minister spoke about this bill, often quoting Howard legislation.
Reading from that,we heard it was Howard's policy to send boat people for offshore processing *Only* to country's agreeing to take them.
Far from agreeing *Indonesia warned us against it 2 weeks ago*
And is not a member of the UNHCR!
Abbott has not intention of destroying our relationship with that country.
It was J W Howard who placed great value on that relationship, his policy said this.
*Any solution has to be Indonesia based*
SM knows this others do not but spin is spin even if its some uninformed with head spinning, miss information.

lexi,
The link you posted does not give any further information about Oakshots scheme. As I said, little info is posted about the scheme, yet Labor supporters are seeking public support. The nuts and bolts of what he is proposing has not been posted.

Belly,
You gave very little info in your first post, except you claim 50 countries would be part of it. What makes you think these other countries would be interested in taking the illegals either for processing, let alone permanently? Nauru is the only country to so far offer its area, with the proviso that we run and operate the detention centre and pay a substantial benefit to Nauru.

You said."Billions of our dollars spent, hundreds of deaths at sea, we are told.
A solution is the needed out come".

If Labor really wanted a solution and was concerned about the hundreds of deaths, they would start with the previous governments policies which worked, because it denied the illegals what they were after. But Labor will not admitt they were wrong so the monetary cost and the deaths will continue.

Again I ask, why would other countries be interested in forming a large committee to process and settle illegals, when Australia is the destination of the illegals? Especially those who have not signed the UN refugee agreement. If that is the basis of Oakshots scheme, he is having himself on.

The solution is not to give the illegals what they seek and they will stop coming.

Dear SM,

Kindly go back and read the link I gave earlier.
It explains things in detail. Of course I can't
be responsible for your comprehension skills.
However I repeat what you are saying is not correct.

Dear Banjo,

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously
when there's no rhyme or reason for the nonsense
you're spouting. I expected more from you.
You're behaviour does you no credit. Go back and
read my link again. It's self explanatory - and
makes a great deal of sense. A solution to the
problem of asylum seekers needs to be negotiated
by both sides of Parliament. And this Bill is a step
in the right direction.

Lexi,
The link you provided is simply a letter from Oakshot to other parliamentarians. It makes some vague references about various matters. I does not outline anything specific about how a body would operate, who does the processing or where. Not even what countries he reckons would be willing to participate. These things are the nuts and bolts of a proposal.

As I said before little is posted about his scheme. The only thing that can be gleamed from Belly's first post is that a body of 50 countries is to be set up to facilitate offshore processing of illegals. Who pays for this and how it would operate is not mentioned as well as many other essential matters.

One would think that any serious proposal to facilitate any processing of illegals would outline the practical and working aspects. At least the Malaysian proposal was claimed to be a deterant and gave some details (not very good for us) about how it would work.

Australia's aim should be to deter the illegals from attempting to make the trip to Aus. There is absolutely no reference to this.

Or is it simply viewed that to allow these illegals to continue to make a hazardous trip, be intercepted and then taken wherever for processing and then given permanent residence visas and transport to our mainland.

When will you and Labor realize that the illegals are liars and cheats who have bribed their way here knowing what they do is illegal and then lie to our officials to get what they want. We are being conned by them and we are paying for it.

Banjo,the Bali group has I think 57 members.
Yes know I said less, wanted to be careful.
It wants a regional solution to this problem.
REMEMBER while Australia is the destination,more often than not.
Other country's, including Indonesia, and Malaysia, but not only them, are being hard pressed by these folk.
YOU not me, or any one,should research, at this hour I have read goggle news, for England Australia NZ and the US.
SMH followed then local and northern NSW papers.
Stodgy old TV site next.
I followed all links that interested me.
Later if well enough will read Politics then watch question time, so basically bit informed here.
Am I lying? no,
See in the end Oakshot is not offering a Labor answer,I do not back away from my party's mistakes, Oakshot is offering something out of fashion.
He, in his plan, in my view, gives EVERY SOLUTION POSSIBLE and and end to these boats,AN END by offshore processing.
BOTH sides only answers, no other exists,are in this plan.
You Banjo, should understand, if the fence is broken, sheep on the road, get them back fix the fence.
Asking why the fence broke can wait till that is done.

Dear Lexi, with respect, Malcolm Turnbul did not support a carbon tax, he supported an ETS, huge difference.

You can put it any way you like, the fact remains, the PM lied and the people did not get a say and, how on earth can anyone be better off with a new tax.

As for madam PM having learned from her mistakes, you're kidding, one or two perhaps, but multiple stuff ups.

Perhaps she should do the honorable thing and hand back some of the million$ or so she has earned, after all, had she been a business owner, she would have lost money, not earned it as is the case.

Now as for winning so many votes, most know that was only due to the very short lead time, as she knew that her only chance was to call the ballot sooner, rather than latter.

As for having 'balls', you're right, the caucus holds them though and tugs them in the direction THEY choose.

579, just how will a price on carbon kick start green energy.

After all, the tax is simply a license to pollute, as so long as you pay the tax, you can do as you wish, as it will simply be passed on.

Banyo, it is my understanding that one key problem with the illegals is that we can't prove their age, as it is against their rights for us to perform a bone marrow density test
So, most of them are either 40+, or an unaccompanied Minor, which I again believe gives them more rights.

Lexi, Belly,

I assume by your inability to provide even one clause in Oakeshott's long winded policy that shows any legal protection for asylum seekers once they have left Australian custody, that you have cannot, or that you have not read it, and simply wish to swallow the Labor line that it is in some way middle ground.

In all the reams of waffle, there is nothing of substance, and is simply a piece of spin by Juliar's lap dog.

Belly,
I never said you are lieing. I said you did not provide information about Oakshots scheme, and neither has anyone else on this thread.

It does not matter how many papers you read or if you watch parliament on TV, if you do not give details of a scheme you support then how can you convince anyone else of its merritts? Why not outline the concept and list the favourable aspects you see.

For my part, I do not see how a group of 50 nations talking in Bali is a deterent to illegals and what is more some have a vested interest in keeping the present set up. e.g. landlords and food supppliers in Indonesia and Malayasia, and others, make good money from the illegals. The illegals are our problem and it is up to us to deter them. This can be done, as has be shown before this government stuffed it up, and can be done again.

There is no need for an international body, just put in the deterents and the illegals will stop coming.

The idea of some internation group is simply to cover the wrong decissions by our government.

I challenge all of you Liberal supporters to come up
with anything positive just once for a change instead
of consistently attacking and condemning everything
that is being proposed by others in the minority
government.

Any body can criticise but it takes some intelligence
and creativity to offer alternatives that are in the
interests of the nation. Forget about what was proposed
in the past by the Howard government and present anything
new and positive if you want the voters to pay attention
and support you at the next election .

From my experience recently - all our friends and a few
family members - who have been
strong Liberal supporters all of their lives are now
beginning to turn away and are looking at Independents
and the Greens as an alternative.

If you guys did not like the link I gave - how about Googling
the actual Bill - where if you take the time - things
are explained in full detail. I have given the full name
of the Bill in a previous post - but of course I realise
that involves a bit of effort - which is something that
may be in the "too hard basket" for many of you.

cont'd ...

Just to help you out, the name of the Bill is:

Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012.

Google it and you will find quite a few websites to choose
from. As I stated - it does take quite a bit of effort
not only to read the entire Bill - but its Amendments as
well and digest it before you can know what it is that
you are so willing to condemn.

Anyway, I have nothing further to add to this discussion.
Everyone has the right to criticise and condemn -
however you guys are abusing the privilege.

A carbon tax will help dirty companies to become clean, the tax will work as a disadvantage. By passing on the costs, especially power, people will change to a green power provider. There is no tax on green power.

Lexi,

I read the full bill not just your headlines. Again there was nothing of value. Obviously you haven't read it or you would have come to the same conclusion.

This bill is a feeble attempt to provide smoke and mirrors for the same pathetic Labor bill.

Lexi you will have to not be nice to get past this lot.
Rechtub, you should know but seem not to.
Labors tax is to become a trading scheme just as Howard/Turnbull wanted.
Shadow Minister, I find your comment Gillard or was it Labors lap dog,
HAD TO BE REFERRING TO ME, quite unbalanced! I am on record as not being a fan of her.
And unlike your self, quite often let it be known not every thing my party has done is right.
Banjo, silly stuff,EVERY POSSIBLE SOLUTION every one, has to be in part from those available within this bill.
KNOW Indonesia is not the home of these people, sending them there, our problem, when told they do not want it, is madness and maybe an act of war.
SM bleats, no other word is worth while, about UNHCR but with deliberate forethought dos not tell Nehru was not a member when Howard used it.
Indonesia is not and this phoney as a 11 dollar bill opposition says it will send them there.
Most DREADFUL Abbott knows, he does, he has no intention of EVER turning boats around at sea.
Saturday Labor will be destroyed in QLD.
And one day Conservatives will suffer for turning our politics in to a breathless game of lies.

Dear Belly,

Speaking about "niceness."

I remember reading Margaret Whitlam's biography
a few years back - written by Susan Mitchell.

In it Mitchell stated that Margaret Whitlam
always prepared in advance for whatever she
agreed to do. Even is she was going to an opera
or a concernt she would play the music beforehand
just to set herself in the groove. This was as a
result of her upbringing, her parents, her
schooling and her understanding of what constituted
proper bevaviour.

That is why many Libs regarded her as a sort of
Australian class traitor. "After all Margaret was
the daughter of a respected lawyer, she had gone
to a "good" school and what did she go and do
but get herself involved with the "Bolshevist"
Gough Whitlam and live out there in Cabramatta
amongst the indecent garden gnomes, Hill's Hoists,
and fibro villas. I mean, one does take a jet
if one is going anywhere further west than Grace Bros,
doesn't one."

There had been many comments apparently at a Menzies
"seduction dinner," and Margaret recalled a similar
exchange at her first official dinner in Canberra for
the Coronation in 1953 when Liberals and Labor Party
members were seated together and she sat next to Billy Snedden,
who eventually replaced McMahon as the Liberal Party leader.

They were all having a very jolly time when a Liberal
sitting opposite Margaret asked,

"God, Margaret, what's a nice girl like you doing in the
Labor Party?"

Margaret replied, " I belong to the party that cares about
people, and I don't see any of you lot doing much of that."

And that, as they say, was the end of that conversation.

butch,
Assessing the age of the illegals is only an incidental issue. Stop them from coming here fixes that, simple really.

Belly where am I lieing? The previous government had the boats stopped and the current mob started it all up again. That is fact, no question! Would not the practical thing to do is to go back to what worked a few years ago and start there? If that does not deter the illegals, then make it tougher still. They will eventually get the message. If my sheep get out I put them back and not only fix the fence, but strengthen it.

Lexi,
I was critical of the previous government for taking so long (years) to deter the illegals from coming. Finally they got it right (probably by accident)and the boats stopped coming.

That is where the present government should start. Failure to admitt to being wrong has cost hundreds of lives and cost billions, as Belly said. They have the hide to claim the previous policies were inhumane.

Get it together my mate Banjo! I was referring to any one questioning MY HONESTY not yours.
Are you aware I want the refugees stopped as much as you.
Not enough to drown them, and look at Rechtubs rant, surely you can think with me here.
The world, most of it, has a far bigger problem than us, and in time we all must confront the issue.
I think, honestly, regional solutions, not one or two country's but all ,are the answer.
We dither about here on the subject of population growth, some totally refuse to admit we must stop growing.
We further fail to look at this issue boat people refugees yet it can be assured it will grow experientially world wide without rules.
I would be the first to buy a beer for you and Rechtub but firmly wish you both would take the blinkers off.
Lexi Whitlam too came from such a background, he was disliked for being a traitor but in fact had guts.
Billy Mackie Sneddon, he was an average bloke who died under a bit of a cloud, maybe he was not the best company for our Margret.

A carbon tax will help dirty companies to become clean, the tax will work as a disadvantage. By passing on the costs, especially power, people will change to a green power provider. There is no tax on green power.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 22 March 2012 10:51:51 AM

Yes, about the same thime we see a flying pig!

Lexii, in answer to your question about one policy from the libs, I will give you two, the repealing of the carbon tax and the repealing of the mining tax.

The carbon tax will not make any worthwhile difference in global emissions and, that is what really matters.

Secondly, this tax simply would not pass any cost/benefit test as it will drive prices up, which is most likely goimg to cost jobs.

The mining tax is simply a tax grab at about the only sector that is creating jobs.

Now while madam PM is off sprouting about how the majority support this tax, well of cause they do, because 99.9% of them dont live in mining towns where the wealth is generated.

Go and talk to the businesses in these towns.

1, they find it almost impossible to retain staff
2. Most businesses don't get anything from mining as mining companies bring most of what they use in, with exception to the motels, workshops and pubs.

But worst of all many locals can't afford to live there anymore due to inflated rents.

This is why the tax is wrong and shoukd not be collected this way.

Of cause there is the tax cuts on offer to some small businesses, about $30 per week, but this will be swallowed up In Increased super, which by the way the gov is making out that this extra 3% is being funded by the tax.

And what about the increased costs associated with the carbon tax.

It is simp,y a desperate move to plug the HUGE hole the have made in out money.

This link describes the Bali group, in detail.
http://www.baliprocess.net/index.asp?pageID=2145874806
Why would Australia not want to be part of it?
I if no one else does it find the proposed bill in the next few days

http://roboakeshott.com/node/1209
Now if say Rechtub reads it, understands it,and wants an end to boat arrivals if not this what.

http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/on-qt-attacks-tax-and-semantics.html
This Rechtub is for you.
Because you do not understand, clearly you do not.
Please do not jump in lam blasting Labor, it a Liberal site.
Worth understanding, worth reading.
Worth knowing Howard Turnbull, once Abbott and Hockey believed it the best way to go.

Belly and Lexi,

All you two is waffle and repeat the Labor party line.

None of you has been able to point out where Oakeshott's "new policy" differs materially with that of Labor's as far as protections afforded to the asylum seekers.

Until you actually do the hard yards, read the policy and comment on more than the Labor party spin, you are just mindless drones.

PS Juliar's lapdog is RO.

So I am a mindless drone.
I except your right to that opinion, and take no offense at it.
I however want to expand on my views about you.
The following is in no way meant to offend.
I truly believe every word.
It is my view you are not capable of true debate, not able to look at politics from other than your views.
This may, I remain unsure, be because of intellectual limits.
Or it may be that you are indeed a spin manager for your party.
No chance exists, not a grain of sand in a beach chance, you can talk politics without a bias that is blinding.
You refuse, every time, to tell of the faults in your side.
Tomorrow another Labor government falls,so be it, I understand voters get it right.
And that Labor learns from its defeats, much like NSW Labor won one election too many.
Now be honest, I KNOW, you could never utter words like that about your side.
I see here you,paint in hand, trying to cover up the intention of this Bill.
To end the boats, to do what both party's and most Australians want.
Your wish seems to retain this issue as a weapon.
Tomorrow, in QLD, Labor goes, but while it has only its self to blame, lies, take a place of dishonor too in their fall.
My ALP brothers and sisters we must under stand defeats strengthen, when change follows.
Greens are not the answer.
They are the problem, at least if they do not do well, I will have one thing to be pleased with.

I wish to revisit the threads intent.
I wanted to look at the Bill.
And too highlight the dreadful state of this stalled issue.
I saw and see,it as a chance,just a chance, to resolve it.
Yes greens and others will be found full of contempt for me and my views.
But they too, must review theirs.
Are my rights, the majority's rights,to our opinions as worthy as theirs?
A hung Parliament,it cripples public debate, it cripples our Parliament on this issue.
I want and end to the boats, an end to illegal entry refugees from any mode of travel.
And with my heart think the links above show this bill is not just ALP propaganda.
Still,a STRONG chance exists, that Tony Abbott will never be PM he miss uses us all.
He wants only failure on this issue.
CONSENSUS negotiations, tell me why only Abbott's plan will do?
Why except a policy that Abbott talks about BUT WILL NEVER IMPLEMENT? turning the boats around?

Belly,

You do little for your cause by pontificating on a policy you haven't even bothered to read. If you simply recycle the Labor spin on the issue, then you aren't actually contributing to the debate.

I would welcome labor's first ever effort to compromise with the coalition, but this collection of waffle masquerading as new policy is not even close to a compromise.

Abbott won't even put the noalition's name on help for auto makers. 30,000 jobs at stake.
Abbott's motley lot don't want to compromise, they are stuck in a hole.
IT's up to Labor to do the hard yards, almost 300 bills passed, in record time.
Tax reform, and clean energy, has been kick started.
A progressive govt; and a fearless leader.

I have had my say SM in truth I consider further slanging match's with you uncalled for.
I have no confidence you will ever be a balanced or understanding debater.
Put if you have the intestinal fortitude, your plans to fix the problem.

" I consider further slanging match's with you uncalled for."

Especially if you have no idea of what you are talking.

The solution is Pacific.

The argument that because an official in Chris Bowen's department does not think it would work is ludicrous. What has changed?

Belly, you say,
A hung Parliament,it cripples public debate, it cripples our Parliament on this issue.

A very valid point, so why not end it by calling an election now.

If labor looses, and most certainly rob Oakshot, it will no longer be their problem, so what's the problem wit that.

579, so where to when the billions pledged to save the car industry.

You must remember, just saving jobs is no guarantee profits will follow,which by the way, is what is required, unless of cause we just want to keep throwing money at the problem.

Education is wasted on some.
I remember graduating from reading the historical page in the Sydney daily mirror.
Cutting them out and keeping them, as I learned to read.
The joy of buying my first books.
I soon found not every one thought as I did.
And too, the ideas I once had , in fact had been wrong, that in truth with understanding,I did not think like that.
SM/Rechtub may never have had that joy, i was in my teens before I learned to read, learned to learn,every day.
The best SM can do is tell me my views are phony, not just wrong, he says I am slave to my party.
That I am unable to think for myself.
Rechtub,like a sparrow in a shopping mall picks up the crumbs.
Telling me,plaintively, Labor should surrender,call an elect mid term.
Give government to a man unfit to clean the halls of Parliament.
Gentlemen, if my thoughts are those of others.
What am I to make of yours.
I find it difficult to even consider thought is involved.
Rechtub, currently reading the life story of Ken Aurthorson, NRL great.

Any thing Oakshot say is fodder for Conservatives slanders.
But lets watch.
This issue is to become heated and headlines again, soon
Such an issue,one day, will become the single thread of wool that grabs on to something.
And unravels the Abbott leadership.
Bound to happen, what a good day!
For even his party, who could put politics first,country second and if not Abbott and his mate Brown who?

Belly,

In 2 years Oakeshott will be a distant memory, and a lesson to those that betray their electorate.

Talking about distant memories and lessons to be learned ...

How many Prime Ministers were tossed out of
their own electorates - most recently? One
name comes to mind - Mr John Howard.
First his own
party wanted hin to step doen as PM, and he refused.
Then finally he was thrown out of his own electorate.
And with time - people will forget him.

How many Opposition leaders will go down in history
for sloganeering, "scrap the tax," "stop the
boats," of obstruction, and no ideas or
policies of any substance - having become famous
for the two letter word - "NO!" ?

That's the problem with finger-pointing - it's never
one sided.

As for Rob Oakshott's Private Bill. It's only an attempt
at finding a olution to the asylum-seeker issue - and it's
an attempt that tries to accomodate the "Nay-sayers."
But of course the problem is that the man is doing
something intelligent - he's looking for answers.
Which is something not everyone understands.

"Ignorance is a word that is constantly heard
Intelligence is a word that is not.
Intelligence I am told is more precious than gold
Intelligence, I have read, is hot.
Intelligence is a word that to me is superb
And ignorance but a drug on the mart
And some pollies in Parliament can act like fools
But intelligence, old chap, is an Art."

Lexi,

The clause in the migration act that Labor is trying to erase in full is the only clause that gives the asylum seekers protection. The only amendment that the coalition has asked for is that the country to which the asylum seekers are sent to sign up to the UNHCR minimum requirements. That Malaysia refuses to shows that the "assurances" given by Malaysia are worthless.

Given that Juliar herself said in 2010 that she would only send asylum seekers to a country that is a signatory to the UNHCR shows that Labor is fully aware of the risks of doing otherwise.

"As for Rob Oakshott's Private Bill. It's only an attempt
at finding a olution to the asylum-seeker issue - and it's
an attempt that tries to accomodate the "Nay-sayers."

Given that Oakeshott's bill does not ask for the asylum seekers to have the rights under the UNHCR or any other legally binding rights, means that it is Labor's plan with some flowery language and good (but unenforceable) intentions.

I'm sorry, but this is a joke, and I am surprised that you are happy to endorse the Malaysian plan with no further protections.

It will be an issue such as this that unseats Abbott.
He and SM like to talk about Labor as if in one of those circus distorted mirrors.
Note the references to UNHCR, but find me a destination Howard sent refugees to that was then a member.
Look at the death toll from one ship turned around that sank.
Tell me SM will your funny leader truly destroy our relationship with Indonesia, one Howard worked so hard to maintain?
By turning boats around against their wishes.
Rob Oakshots bill contains, bet on it, the very solution Abbott would use in power.
Are you SM a fan of letting the UNHCR tell us what to do?
Lexi we feed this man, we weed his garden giving him an audience.
You will not find understanding or even true concern for boat people, they exist only to be used to defame us.
It will indeed be an issue like this, or one of many,that Abbott's on the run, therefor untrue, comments, brings him down.

Dear Belly,

You're right.

We should stop giving the man a platform.

Belly,

Even you have to admit that the pacific solution worked. When Labor took power there were 4 asylum seekers in detention. The pacific solution complied with the requirements of the UNHCR treaty, to which Australia is a signatory, because Australia had complete control of the detention centres.

Talking about ruining relationships with Indonesia, Juliar has done a wonderful job with the live cattle trade fiasco.

However, it is clear that neither you nor Lexi have actually read RO's policy, or if you have you are still unable to point to any clause that guarantees the asylum seekers any legal protection.

Answer please.
What protection did they get under Howard's system.
What nation then, was a signatory to the UNHCR?
Yes Lexi see you in another thread.

Belly,

As the high court acknowledged, the detention center in Nauru was run fully under Australian jurisdiction and according to UNHCR guidelines.

If Labor was proposing to open a detention center in Malaysia run by Australia, I am sure the Coalition would have no objection.

Well done! you walked around that as if you feared getting it on your boots.
Nehru was not a signatory in your Pacific solution days, there said it for you.
What has changed.
No answer coming there, because it would, if honest prove the high court changed every thing.
Step back, take a few of your supporters with you.
Look at some post history, yours, but certainly worse your fellow travelers.
PLEASED?
As we roll toward your victory, are you, any thoughts about the slanders.
How about the torn fabric of our country.
Has it been worth the lies.
The fabrications, the non core promises?
QLD is my party's warning, even if mirrored, and without change it will be, by the federal election.
Conservatives will face such a day.
The death of honesty is going to be seen, bank on it.

Nauru was not a signatory to the UNHCR.

Full marks for stating the obvious.

If the detention facility is fully run by Australians who are a signatory, then the status of the host nation is irrelevant, as recognized by the high court ruling.

The requirement for the host country to be a signatory is for those parties who wish to simply dump asylum seekers, not process them.

Yes but why are you not telling me the high court ruling has seen Nehru set to become a signatory?
No stirring, just truth, after your victory this issue and other back downs planned such as NBN will black your party.
Above all it questions voters who are uninterested in the truth, till it bites them.

Belly,

Nauru was signed the charter before the high court ruling, early in 2011, just after Juliar said that she would not send anyone to a country that was not a signatory. (yet another lie) It was at the prompting of Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott so as not to give Juliar a feeble excuse.

I am aware of why and when it took place.
And have no better opinion of Gillard than you.
But Abbott would not like the truth to come out he is aware as are Morrison and you.
Without changes no offshore processing can take place.
Even now, if Gillard went, and she will, Abbott could fall on such an issue he is not an honest man.
I see your factory of propaganda News Corp is in more trouble.
Abbott may get a job there.

Belly,

"But Abbott would not like the truth to come out" Are you kidding? all of this is discussed every day.

Dear Belly,

Here's another point of view on the asylum seeker
issue that you may find interesting:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-asylum-seeker-policy-stalemate-hope-robert-manne-3938

Lexi,

The premise of the article is that now Labor has no chance at re election, it should go back on Juliar's off shore promise, and follow through with on shore processing, and scrapping mandatory protection.

I wonder how many Labor MPs would exist after that?

This from the same author is interesting:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-long-goodbye-explaining-gillard-s-collapse-robert-manne-4815

Lexi here is a simple truth.
It may be unpleasant, unpalatable to some.
But we should never avoid truth.
I give no special understanding to your links author.
He watches the country from a different tree than me.
Here is the truth, Australians, no more or no less than any other country, are a bit racist.
NO! not to every one, but some.
Unpleasant as it is, hurtful too, a few Muslim Refugees/Migrants, concern us.
Truth is always of value.
Enough voters are concerned enough to change governments on this issue.
They are not the greens,not true Liberals who take on even their party, not Labor voters.
But all of them.
Malaysia, was 800 and take 4.000.
I think it would be the first block, repeated often.
And I think,true, Australians will take more migrants, but are not EVER going to see boat people as other than unwanted.
Here is the heart of the matter,greens and nice folk, will be upset with me.
It will change nothing.
Australians put Howard back time and again, partly because he stopped the boats.
Harsh? Hard? True those wanting an open door, any easing up is that, are the minority.
Now I must defend again, my self and my country men and women.
We told Labor post Howard's first victory, in meetings, PC was unwanted.
We know migration built our country, we know most migrates just want a new life.
Lexi, and others, say as you wish, but men walking our city's calling me Kangaroo, carrying guns are no help.
A fact, walk in my youthful living away from home work place Granville, feel the fear, tell me then I am to blame, for being in the growing majority.