Bob Brown has resigned as Leader of the Australian Greens Parliamentary Party. He will also resign from the Senate, after 16 years' service, when his Tasmanian replacement is available in June.

Senator Brown, who is 67, made the announcement to his Greens Party Room colleagues this morning at 10am.

"I am sad to leave but happy to go. It is good knowing that the Greens have such a depth of talent and experience lined up for leadership - I could only dream about that a decade ago.
It is prime time to hand over the reins. I offer a huge 'thank you' to the 1.7 million Australian voters who elected our Green team, and to my 9 colleagues: they have made each Green year in this parliament better than the year before - though the best is yet to come.
Senator Brown said.

I know, like me, everyone on the Forum will be saddened by the news of Bob's departure from the Australian political scene. But are we not blessed to have such wonderful talent to take over. The new Greens leadership team of Christine Milne and Adam Bandt no doubt will do a splendid job

Dear Paul,

Thanks for this thread. It's a great tribute to
a great man. Ben Eltham has written an excellent
article which summs things up very well:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/13/bob-brown-resigns

It is a sad day and a great loss. And I fully
agree with Eltham when he tells us that Bob Brown
"has conducted himself with a decency and courtesy
sadly rare in modern politics. Australian public
life will be poorer for his departure."

He shall be greatly missed.

Bob Brown will be missed but I am sure he will continue with other projects close to his heart. What a great inspiration from his early days as an environmental protestor and doctor to leading the Greens to where it is today.

Equally, Christine Milne will no doubt rise to the role with her usual commonsense and no nonsense approach.

I wish them both well.

Why would you resign at the peak of your political nemisis and not see your vision being realised? The Greens and labor are finished.

Bob Brown is an enigma. A great environmentalist, but never able to put the whole environmental picture together.

Not a sustainabilityist! Which really is quite bizarre given his background and the apparent charter of the party that he has led for so long.

Not interested in lobbying for a stable population in Australia, despite us having very high population growth, predominantly due to record high immigration.

The Greens have good policies on this, but they just don’t act on them.

They have been extremely remiss when it comes to the overwhelming environmental issue of the ever-increasing pressure on our resource base and environment. This is the way it has been for years under Bob Brown.

Now hopefully (although I don’t see much sign of it), the Greens can start to become a truly green party.

Bob Brown is a leader of rare integrity. We will be poorer for his exit from political life.

Arjay,

The onus is on leaders to prepare the next generation to take up the reins - and to hand over at the appropriate juncture.

This is something that the likes of John Howard failed to realise - his "ego" being his prime motivator, and his "party" a secondary consideration.

Well that's another ratbag gone, just another couple to go, & we may get back to some stability in Oz.

Being considered a "ratbag" by Hasbeen and his ilk is a true indication of a person's soundness and integrity - a veritable badge of honour!

Bob Brown and the Greens are Commmunist New World Order ideologues.They want to save the planet by making us serfs to global banksters.Brown is leaving since he has not the courage to face his failures.He has destroyed Labor and our country in just a few short months.

Arjay,

Are you saying he's a mixture of Green "and Red"?

Surely not, for that would make him "Brown"...hang on....

"Why would you resign at the peak of your political nemesis and not see your vision being realised?

Ajay....Iam disappointed in you, the man has served his time.

Question Ajay, who will continue his work.....that is the question.

cc

Planet 3 we may agree on somethings but the Greens have totally lost their way.Last yr a spoke to Jo Nova and her husband David Evans.They used to be part of this Green movement.They know the reality of how large corp interests have taken over the Greens.They are pushing this AGW lie to bring in CO2 tax and make the UN the centre of their totalitarian world Govt.

The world has not warmed since 1998 and there have been much hotter periods during the Middle Ages without such increases in CO2.

Who creates all the money from nothing for our Govts to function?It is a cartel of the Banking Military Indrustrial Complex and as Clive Palmer notes ,the CIA an arm of this complex,has infiltrated the Greens.

In the World of Billionaires they too have their conflicts of interest.The Western Elites are now trying to demonise China and restrict it's energy supply like they did to Japan WW2.The Western Elites are led by the Rothschilds,J.P Morgan,Rockerfeller,Goldman Sachs etc.They see their empire crumbling with the rise of China,Russia and India.

With a following of 1.3 million, Bob brown has done a great job for what he stands for. That is what our politics is all about.
Abbott couldn't even bring himself to congratulate him for his 16 years as parliamentarian.
There should be a conspiracy here somewhere. CIA, ASIO, RSPTU.

You people are strange.

579, I would not congratulate Hitler, or Starlin for their time in politics, why would anyone congratulate Brown? He has been about as much use, & green ideas, such as the abandonment of DDT, have killed about as many innocents as either of them.

Only when I see greens, actively fighting against some of the nuttier ideas they continually generate, will any of them gain any respect from me.

The fact that he has pushed a bad ideas well is not something to be happy with, it is something to decry, & be sorry about.

Dear Hasbeen,

A closed mind is like a closed book -
just a piece of wood. Why don't you
read the following link - you just
may learn something about what Bob Brown
has actually achieved:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/13/bob-brown-resigns

Just the fact that Bob Brown has conducted himself with
a decency and courtesy that is sadly rare in modern
politics will make Australian public life poorer by
his departure. But I guess to each his own.

There are certain men with one-eyed views
Who persist in proclaiming everything's askew
They post on forums for all to see
Sadly their messages contain - only N E G A T I V I T Y.

As a Grate Australian he is responsible for more social-economic damage to our nation than even Gillard.

Whatever it was the he stood for is now a minority issue for Australians. The CAGW issue is being dismantled internationally and here in Australia. He is right to take option 2. “Bail out now” and Christine Milne is too stupid to realize that the glass of chardonnay she holds is actually the poisoned chalice, dumb and dummer.

We can be forever grateful that whatever he stood for will be obliterated politically at the next election. The Greens primary support is in decline from a high of 14% to a flat line of about 9%. They cannot survive a 30% loss of support, neither can they survive the changed flow of preferences that have emerged since the last election.

They will lose their only lower house seat and they will lose the balance of power in the Senate. They are delightfully gone. RIP

Bad bloke that I am I find myself nearer spindoc and hasbeen here, not tightly, but nearer than the nice warm cuddles.
Arjay, Nemesis it not a word to describe Peak.
Abbott is Gillards Nemesis.
I hope to be for a long while,hasbeen, and spindocs Nemesis,
It infers something like ability to beat every time.
Brown changed as he went along he deserves his time at his age out of the spotlight.
Ajay's view of him is far from balanced, but not alone here.

Belly,

It's understandable that you would find yourself aligned with Hasbeen and spindoc on this one. Bob Brown's Greens represented a haven for disaffected Laborites when Labor lurched to the right. You've made it known often that you see Brown and the Greens as threat to Labor's base.

It's kinda like the way the lower middle-class mercilessly criticise the working class. They feel threatened by a group that has similar origins, attractions and aspirations - a group to whom they feel superior and a greater sense of entitlement.

Arjay where do you get this stuff from. The Greens are the least likely party to be swayed by corporate interests. That is why most people vote for them (well one of the reasons anyway). If they were so influenced by corporate interests they would not be wasting time ensuring that business interests do not always win over important environmental protection - something that ultimately affects us all

Hi Poirot You said:
"It's kinda like the way the lower middle-class mercilessly criticise the working class. They feel threatened by a group that has similar origins, attractions and aspirations - a group to whom they feel superior and a greater sense of entitlement."
Another example of this is when the slaves were freed following the American civil war, their biggest enemy was not rich conservative whites but rather poor whites who seen the blacks as competitors for jobs housing etc.
I often shock some within the Greens when I raise this very point. Greens who see Labor as our 'friends' and the Liberals as the enemy. Its not always so clear cut and its something we Greens need to address at times. I often find myself agreeing with small 'l' liberals on issues, particularly social justice issues where I cannot say the same for conservative Labor people.

Poirot, Paul 1405 can I be clear, and honest?
Greens are indeed the home for disenchanted ALP voters.
Paul it seems was one of them.
I see most, not all, of that part of the greens as the very left,and very uninformed.
It is all very well to lament Labor moving from its Socialist path, but if the greens did so well, and Labor lost ground because of it?
Why is the green vote 12%
Fact is Australia is not buying Socialism, opening up a shop to sell left handed shoes limits potential sales.
The end result of greens is Conservative governments 12% of the vote 50% of the reason for unhappiness with Labor.
I have no fear of greens, the exit of Brown hastens its fall from grace.
Is it possible, tell me please,to hold a view different than yours, and not be biased?
I wait with unshaken certainty, for the decline of the greens beginning next federal election.
Not nasty not haveing a shot, just considered thought.

Peilican,"The Greens least likely to be swayed by corporate interests?" You cannot trust any of the parties now in Parliament.They were all bought out long ago.Billy Hughes changed parties more often than he changed his underware.Billy Hughes scuttled the power of the Commonwealth Bank to create new money debt free for Australians in 1922.

The elites control us in two major ways.One is the counterfeiting of our productivity via fractional reserve banking and the other is energy.The urgency now to bring in a World Govt is that new technology will make energy really cheap and abundant and people will be free of their debt scams and energy cartels .It has nothing to do with saving the planet.It is all about absolute power.

Belly, I consider you are wrong on a number of counts. You say "Greens are indeed the home for disenchanted ALP voters." This is a misconception, an easy error to make due to our closeness to Labor, something I feel is a mistake on our part. I favor a far more independent course to the extent of favoring some Liberals over Labor. At the next Federal Election in the seat I am a branch member, which is held by Labor with a margin of 6% I expect to be on the election committee and knowing who the Liberal candidate will be and having a fair idea who may well be the Labor candidate, not the present member but a right wing catholic, I will again make the case 'not to preference Labor' if that gets up it will most likely see a Liberal win, not a problem for me.
You say: "I wait with unshaken certainty, for the decline of the greens beginning next federal election." I can only go on the recent results in NSW and Qld where there was a massive swing against the Labor Party. NSW saw a 16% swing, a conservative avalanche when right wing conservatives deserted Labor on mass, with little affect on the Green vote. In fact we picked up our first lower house seat and did well in the upper house, however overall there was a small decrease in our vote, to be expected with a conservative avalanche. I expect much the same at the next federal election.
I know you will find this hard to believe, despite the Murdicks and Jones of this world, there are many voters who actually agree with Greens policy, and vote for us, I expect they will do so again at the next election. We hold 10 seats in the Federal Parliament, how many seat does your party hold in Queensland?

Surely not, for that would make him "Brown"...hang on...
Poirot,
That comes from something else.

I suppose the Greens have one saving grace.

It gives us somewhere to file all the nuts, so we can at least keep track of them.

But Haz, you condemn politicians of all persuasions as nutters!

In fact, there isn’t a single pollie that don’t totally deride, is there??

I’ve asked you this a couple of times before with no answer ensuing: who do you support? Anybody?

there are many voters who actually agree with Greens policy, and vote for us,
Paul 1405,
Yes they vote for you but who supports you ? The australian taxpayers who don't vote for you, that's who !
How many members do you have who actually make their own living away from the Government purse ?

I would love to know of which particular Greens policy the Conservatives disagree. So far all we hear about is global governments and the like which, c'mon we all know is shite.

Other than the usual protests against the Carbon Tax (a one-time Abbott policy) which policies do you particularly dislike.

The major parties could take a leaf out of the Greens book on many issues including diplomacy and war prevention through a fairer and more egalitarian approach.

What is so bad about denouncing self-serving interests for the sake of reducing poverty, protecting the environment of which we all depend, and a fairer distribution of resources. We are not talking through force but through cooperation and assistance rather than the 'take take' mentality of which the world is afflicted.

individual
You are obsessed with public servants. There is nothing wrong with earning a living from the public purse. The public service is called that because it provides a service.

I am sure at some stage in your life you have utilised those services in hospital, using the roads, public transport or calling for help from a policeman not to mention a defence force that will defend our shores in the event of an attack.

Sure there is waste, unfortunately when governments go on a wastehunt it is not usually the dead wood that goes but the very essential frontline people that provides services direct to the public. They have the least power and no influence on decision making.

Rather than generalising about public servants overall I reckon your views would be better served by providing more detailed objections rather than a full frontal attack.

Ajay...your words are well understood and the Greens still have a long way to go. Bob Browns work in saving the Franklin river plus, I would of thought Australian of the year should be appointed. 67 years old....and to move aside for others with his passion is a holding point for all Australians that love the fair-go. The Environment.... (which should come before all matters concerning money and wealth, which the Greens supporters understand fully well)......and all can be cynical of pollies movements from time to time, but over all, I think a standing ovation is the least we can do for him.

cc

OK Ludwig, you asked. I don't support anyone, but here's my take on some.

Brown is an arrogant disgusting little nutter, who with the rest of his mob have destroyed the lives & dreams of many in Tasmania, & are now spreading the disease to the mainland.

Rudd was obviously an idiot disgusting slime ball, from the moment he started destabilizing Beasley.

Gillard got rid of the slime so had one tick, however it took only a few weeks to see her total lack of morals. The mere sight or sound of her turns my stomach today.

Your dream man Carr is an arrogant old fool who did great damage to the people of NSW, who are still suffering. He should be handcuffed to that other old fool Fraser, & the pair put out to pasture where they can do no more damage. They deserve each other.

Beattie was a Qld Carr, a bl00dy catastrophe, & Anna was an unfortunate hiccup on the way to someone better we hope. She was about as much use as that noisy little girl they has in NSW for a few months.

Newman has started well, but has a tough road with our mess. He'll have to be good to sort Qld out. How he goes from now will depend on how good he is at sorting the advice he's given.

I wanted for years to see the back of old Joh, then realised how good he had been after we got the wish. Memo to self, be careful what you wish for.

Kennett looked pretty good, from a mildly interested long range. Victoria has certainly gone down hill since him.

Abbott comes across as a real person, who wants to do the right thing. If he can tell good advice from bad he could be as good as Howard, the best we've had in my time.

Bob Brown was a consummate fringe politician, pushing causes with ideological cache but eminently impractical. His party has largely been responsible for the de industrialisation of Tasmania, where about 50% of government revenue comes from the GST from other states.

Every one of us should make time to truly look at our past.
And truly in depth the policy's of the party's we oppose and the one we support.
Paul talks about my party as it was 75 years ago.
Liberals of that time best resembled what my party is today.
We each of us, talk about our wants and needs, in Paul's case dreams.
A far more important group exists.
We call them voters.
12%, knowing our system lets us have two choices, hence two two party preferred, a second vote,is not evidence of mainstream support.
Such as I , in a Conservative like denial, am told it is fear/bias/or ever betrayal of my class to say greens are bound to decline.
How many understand Browns biggest win,Franklin dam,was only possible after Bob Hawk did it for him.
We , even many greens, do not want the very yes very, left unions and refugees from Labor to hold any power.
Harsh, but in my view true, tell me please why it is not! far more fear the greens than have ever voted for them.

A natural conservative would be happy with the cozy two party system. Like the US where there is little difference between the big two, there is nothing more than a slight difference of emphases between Labor and Liberal in Australia.
Belly a question or two. What does the Australian Labor Party stand for in 2012? What are the major differences between the ALP and the Liberal Party in 2012?

Thanks Hasbeen. That certainly helps me to understand your perspective. I’m surprised; you do actually support one or two people….well, sort of…..to a small extent!

<< Brown is an arrogant disgusting little nutter >>

Whoa! He has certainly been one of Australia’s best and most sincere politicians, with much of the right sort of philosophy in an era with so much terribly misguided political activity.

But his genuineness and passion was just so awfully compromised by his lack of expression on continuous growth.

At the time that concern and expression about this was at an all-time high – following Rudd’s demise, with discussion about a big Australia - Brown remained silent.

While Dick Smith and a host of other high-profile people were talking about the stupidity of very high immigration with no end in sight and engendering a lot of debate, Brown issued a single statement, no doubt under great duress from the media wanting to know the Greens’ position.

He broadly supported population stabilisation. And that was the end of it.

He had all the opportunity in the world to move the Greens strongly behind David Attenborough, Kelvin Thomson, Bob Carr, John Coulter, Ian Low and Sustainable Population Australia Inc, but kept his distance and therefore effectively supported the massive Liberal and Labor antienvironmental antisustainable momentum.

Hopeless!!

So….. I wonder if Christine Milne and Adam Bandt have got any inclination to try and fix this gaping hole in the Greens’ politics.

Probably not.

at some stage in your life you have utilised those services in hospital, using the roads, public transport...
Pelican,
Of course I have and, I have paid for them a lot more than many others who use them a lot more also.
I am fed up with the Public Service because it's a service in name only. I witness the insane spending sprees by many Public Servants on a daily basis. People who really aren't doing their job, many don't even what they;re supposed to be doing.
My gripes with the likes of the Greens is that just about all of them are quite ok with other people losing their jobs because of some airy-fairy Green idealist policy. Most woodcutters or industrial workers would rather not be in those jobs which affect the environment. But, because we have such a huge Public Service which screams out for better pays/conditions etc. & other hangers-on, these workers have to do what they do.
I have proposed this before but got no takers; For every job lost due to a Green policy, a green should forfeit employment as well. Let's see ho long they remain green before turning brown.
Ideaology is nice but being able to provide for your family is more important.
Why do the Greens condemn us for being negative all the time ? Why don't they ever come up with practical, workable policies ? Give us a reason to support the Greens.
The ball's in your court.

I agree Bob's a person of rare integrity and I thought his resignation speech was one of the most gracious I've seen.
Unfortunately the Greens remain on the nose in consumer heaven and we get satire like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM73CRgUPiY

Ludwig, while I agree with you completely on limiting or in fact reducing Oz population, I disagree just as completely on resources.

It is only a little too strong to say that I believe every tree in Oz should be cut down at least once every 200 years, & most every 25 to 50 years, & the timber put to some productive use. Anyone who professes belief the global warming scam, & doesn't want to tie up all that carbon is either a liar or a fool. Which is Brown?

I believe in making full use of our resources for the betterment of all Ozzies, but only Ozzies.

I would not like to see into the mind of those who claim to be green, I don't think I would like the level of hate that must be there, for them to behave the way they do.

I have to admit, I never saw it before. Brown had (until the last election) the rare perk of being able to lead a party without ever having to follow through with his policies - the Greens were always one of those 'fringe' groups that could nag and nitpick but never had to provide solutions. The last election must have been a shock, catapulting them as it did into a position of actual responsibility!

My impression of Brown was always one of a man who presented the most ridiculous suggestions with absolute sincerity. And I'll give him that - he is sincere. And diplomatic. And eloquent, which is something lacking in most of our other politicians. Sadly, his replacement looks set to follow the trend. Hopefully this is just an uncharitable media piece (consider the photo!), and she isn't actually a nasty piece of work.

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-pathetic-says-new-greens-leader-christine-milne/story-e6frfkvr-1226326823688

That said, if this is just a sign of things to come, she will do wonderful things for Bob Brown's reputation.

Indeed, *GreenBrowny* a truly great Australian who certainly appears to have differentiated himself in a big way from the mainstream if not by the "Laying down of the Sword" then in part by passing it along.

..

I again find my self irritated by the individuals in the ABC and specifically I refer to a line quoted from *GreenBrowny's* speech which they have been repeating ( and we have the ABC News, followed by the ABC News followed by, you guessed it, another regurgitation of the ABC News - what a waste of a dedicated channel that it is not more fleshed out) which went something like this:

" ... I will be GREEN till the day I die and maybe a long time after. ... "

But it has been clipped to only:

" ... I will be GREEN till the day I die ... "

..

At times, though rarely in the history of the world, some truly great individuals arise from amongst the people. Prototypes, one might say, and indicative of that which may yet come to pass, though admittedly often rather unpopular in their own time.

..

To *GreenBrowny* and words do not suffice.

Paul in your own way you give evidence you are in denial.
Labor Vs,Liberals, remember that is their name but currently Conservatism their game.
Labor for Carbon tax, Labor for plain packaging of tobacco products, for Disability upgrade.
Labor introduced Superannuation, protection of our northern national park.
Labor twice, tried to implement Medicare.
Labor introduced the child care leave,Liberals intend giving it to the rich.
Pension increases best for decades, GFC Liberals claim jobs did not have the importance Labor did.
Labor, not Liberals gave Brown his Franklin dam.
It is pointless to continue,I never thought or think, of Brown as Heroic.
He lacked/lacks the ability to use the power he holds wisely, in that the decline of the greens is assured.
In stopping Labors offshore processing, he actually, truly hands the issue to true Conservatives to resolve, far worse that conceding some points and a waste of his power.
And his supporters votes,delivering far worse for future arrivals.

Well, time will tell no doubt *Belly* and thereafter, I would remind you that both the Red and the Blue, as of old in the case of the Original Australains, are guilty of knowingly inflicting mental harm on people, including children, and destroying the principle of "Habeus Corpus" which is to say, that they no no longer produce the body (of evidence in this case) to justify prolonged incarceration.

And what are they *Belly* if not just self intrested career professionals who want to be poms and stand under their genocidal rag of a flag?

*GreenBrowny* I am reasonabley certain never predicated national and border security on child abuse, amongst other depravities, including shackling the working class of this country through the enforced social bond and the obscene price of property.

How do you justify this to a new, working class family with regulated wages who end up in many cases paying more than double and above 1 million dollars for a crappy little house on sh!tty piece of land (which they invaded and stole) whilst they themselves indulge in gratuitous waste and gluttony?

..

Still, as said, I agree with you that they risk the fate of the democrats if they do not pull back from the brink visa vi the carbon tax.

And what do you think the carbon tax is going to do to you. No doubt the price of baked beans will rise by 25% as Toni says. But his figures are very rubbery.
The carbon tax will come and then things will go quiet like Thompson, and abbott's reliability on the australian news paper, to tell Julia what she said.

One of the objects is to get rid of the coal fired stations. But, they must be replaced in advance, as the jobs of the existing workforce must be replaced, as well as creating a whole lot more for those without currently, and those that will lose theirs as mining slows and increasingly replaces people with remote machines as is already well under way.

Everyone needs food/drink, shelter, medical, transport and legal from their work.

So rather, cradle in the new green industries with no or low tax and other incentives to ensure their viability and once up, tested and reliably able to supply in abundance, then just shut the polluters down in toto and be done with it. Alternatively, there are many ways to tackle this economically and matters about which the public must be engaged. Regrettably, for right or for wrong, this was not afforded to the public in the case of the carbon tax.

But if the *Greens* and *ALP* strong arm the population and increase the price of living for an already over strained base, then they will resent you, and unreasonably punish the Greens along with the ALP, i.m.o.

Aiding this, and notwithstanding the importance of the position that the *Greens* hold in the Senate and the also the independents for that matter, how much of a go with the footy do they really get in the m.s. media? Very little based on my observations which is deplorable.

In the future, the inflamed members of the public at large, consistent with base human behaviour will seek to lay blame.

And, tactically, the likes of the LNP are assisting them to make that decision.

Now, right or wrong doesn't come into this. Sometimes one must lose a battle in order to win the war.

I think you have Milne in one Otokonoko.

A thoroughly nasty bit of work, who, with just a little bit of power, from such small electoral numbers, is going to go mad. She will enforce her nasty ideas on everybody if she possibly can, & be damned to what they may want or dream. God the hair is going to fly in the cat fight between her & Gillard, unless Gillard rolls over & begs.

The sooner we see the back of Milne the better. I have never wanted to dance on the political grave on any of them, but I am getting close with Gillard, & am polishing up my shoes for Milne.

She's about as nasty as they come. I wonder what it is about that funny little island down there that generates so many ratbags? Is it the small population that makes them inflect them on the rest of us in our parliament? Do you think the Kiwis would be silly enough to accept it if we were to give it to them? No I guess not.

I've been reading some interesting articles on Bob
Brown's resignation and one of them
reminded voters that "under Bob's leadership the
Greens have grown from a small band of committed
people with one lone representative in the Senate
into Australia's undisputed 3rd political force."

No small feat by any standards. We're told that
the Greens - "have 10,000 members, many more active
supporters, and 1.7 million voters represented by ten
Federal MPs holding the balance of power in both
houses; advocating for and delivering action to
build a better future for us all."

Impressive.

The Greens "recognise that protecting the environment
is essential to feeding, clothing, and providing a
good quality of life for people everywhere."

Who rationally can argue with that?

Of course ruthless hostility will naturally come from
shock jocks, Big Business and all who favour the
rule of markets over safeguarding of the environment.
No surprises there.

As to what sort of leader Senator Christine Milne will
make? We're told that she is " one of the sharpest
minds in Federal politics in any party... schooled in
the bitter politics of the Tasmanian Forestry debate..."

Sounds like a good choice to replace Bob Brown.

Politics is not about our individual dreams and wishes.
In fact it is not about us.
On polling day voters vote for many different reasons.
Can any tell me straight faced, Dream Ons interpretation of detainees is one shared by most?
Or that even with the mass deaths in one event ,John Howard did not have more for him than against.
Tell me, am I wrong, in saying the 2010 election was a low point for Labor and a high point for greens, any nastiness there? or just truth.
The experiment has failed, Brown departure has marked the high tide mark for greens.
No one, not a single poster has addressed my two claims
1 more dislike and never will vote greens than ever will.
And 12 months in to a conservative government.
After, maybe a DD election puts them FIRMLY in control of both houses.
As they implement a refugee policy, will the greens,the few left, be held accountable for not seeing a less painful policy in place?
Who can tell me, be honest, they ever thought Don Chips Democrats would die.
I say this, look at NSW look at QLD tell me why the greens did not increase in big numbers as Labor was almost destroyed.
Greens are gone.

I've been doing a bit of reading too.

From a Psychiatric text;

But there is in society today a disguised type of narcissism that masks itself in a selfless, compassionate concern for others, yet is really all about fueling the need to feel superior and to exert control and power over others.

This second type of narcissism is more subtle, but equally (if not more so in human history) destructive and dysfunctional as the first [selfish narcissism - RB]. It derives from an aggressive idealism/utopianism which is pursued despite the misery it causes in other people’s lives; and despite the dead bodies it leaves behind. This malignant narcissism is always justified because it is “for your own good”; or, “for the common good”; or, “to make the world and people better.”

Along with the selfish narcissist (whose overt preoccupation is “ME, ME, ME!” and using others for their own aggrandizement and reward), the selfless narcissist (“LOOK AT HOW WONDERFUL I AM FOR MAKING YOU BETTER!”) does not see other people as distinct individuals with needs and desires of their own, but only as fodder for the expression of some IDEAL; or as pawns to achieve the utopian fantasies of their own ideology. And because they think they are the “superior” ones who know what is best for all, if they happen to benefit financially, socially and culturally–all the better! They deserve it for their extraordinary compassion and good works.

People with this malignantly narcissistic defect completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to the service of their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement–whether religious or secular–snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy, self-esteem, and life. These mindlessly malignant “do-gooders” do far more harm than good and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of an IDEAL or GOD.

Says it all about greenies really.

I take comfort when I read and hear the hateful comments from the sycophants of big business. The paranoia of these mindless conservatives, with their fear of others, their loathing and mistrust of anyone who would dare to be different, their total lack of compassion and understanding of their fellow man, their greedy obsession with materialism. These people constantly pander to their own self indulgences. When all else fails they fall to their knees and pray, to the non existent god, "please lord save me". Their conservative rantings reinforce my belief that the right path to follow, is that path which these narks of society detest. Please, keep up the 'good' work, your guidance is invaluable. And if you can, one day, come out of your dark and dingy economic cave, breath the freshness of the air, feel the sun shine, smell the flowers, join society, it will cost you nothing, we love you all.

Bob Brown is a Communist, dressed up as a Green, as are all the Greens. It is just not accepted or popular today to be a Communist as it was back in the days of the Hippies and so they hide under the banner of Green.

I read in the other article under discussion about Bob Green, that a poster was puzzled by Bob Greens shying away from any kind of debate or policy on overpopulation, which you would think being a Green that he would wholly support.

He does not support it for these reasons:- His basic philosophy is that of all the never grown up old hippies, and that is that we should have a World Government and everyone on the planet, the whole 7billion of them should be allowed to flood into every country in the world and all of the people in these countries should make room for them. This is of course the ultimate Communist belief system.

He is not actually trying to lock up all the environmental, (read rich areas) in this country to benefit the people in this country but trying to stop us having them so when his Utopian idea of World Communism comes into being he will have saved those areas from the Capitalists to provide for his Communist dream.

It makes sense that he wouldn’t take any measures to stop illegals or any immigrants flooding in here, because that is his idea of a Hippie World Utopia. Communism.
The whole world will hold hands, and sing Kum Ba Ya.

sorry had a bit of a computer hiccup and ended up posting in this Bob Brown article instead of the other, (but, 1/2 a dozen of one and 6 of the other. (It doesn't really make any difference)

Hasbeen-- I just read your post above, and I think you have nailed it brilliantly. This exactly describes people like Bob Brown and their motivation. For once we are in agreement. Probably because we are not engaged in a battle of the sexes.

Cherful,

Bob Brown is a Communist dressed up as a Green, blah, blah, blah....

Your rant was highly entertaining for all the wrong reasons. It's fascinating that you ascribe all those evils to the one politician in Australia in recent times who actually possessed ideals - and stood by them.

It's called integrity.

But don't let me hold up your game of Ring a Rosey with Hasbeen - you're made for each other.

Conservatives seem not even to understand communism.
Use the word to describe anything they fear or dislike.
Room exists to be against Bob, I am, but communists?
How many such remain, even in the Nations once ruled by it, can China be called communist? North Korea?
No answer still.
So here in a different form are my questions.
IF YOU had next sitting of Parliament, the balance of power.
Would you bend, to put as near as possible unacceptable refugee policy in place.
Or firmly stand on your view.
Wasting your power.
And inflicting a Liberal policy.
Is that productive use of power.
TWO
Is it true, such policy's and actions,see, far more for ever against the greens than for them.
Chuck in THREE
Is it true without Labor, and its need to be in harness with them the greens have no power.
That Abbott has found a way to benefit from greens voters.

Count me out, Paul1405.

>>I know, like me, everyone on the Forum will be saddened by the news of Bob's departure from the Australian political scene<<

In my view, Australia will get along very well without him. The Greens as a political entity undoubtedly owe a great deal to his character and motivation, but that doesn't actually mean it has been a force for good. In fact, in recent weeks we have seen some of the more loony-tunes aspects of Greenery emerge, which underpin the wilful destruction of our economy upon which the Party is focussed.

"Let Australia take the lead in peacefully establishing a global parliament."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/global-democracy-alone-will-save-us-from-ourselves-20120330-1w3s9.html

Only someone who is totally blind to the political realities of such a venture could suggest the complete dereliction of the government's responsibility to its own people that it implies.

Has he not noticed what is happening in Europe? The well-intentioned gesture of a common currency now has the entire continent in financial turmoil. Far from encouraging togetherness, it has set every country against each other, with a bitterness that will take an entire generation to resolve.

Even without this fanciful and futile world-view, we can see that the only possible role for the Greens is as "spoilers", to muddy the waters of each and every policy designed to improve our society. Just as they have done, so brilliantly, in their destruction of the Gillard-led government-of-abject-compromise.

History will not, I am afraid, view him kindly.

The morbid paranoia of the ardent conservative. Par for the course with such nonsense as:
"Bob Brown is a Communist, dressed up as a Green, as are all the Greens." To their way of thinking this is the ultimate insult, brand the 'B' a communist. Such people are devoid of any rational thought, needing to be spoon fed, their political wisdom, by the likes of shock jocks and others from the bias ultra right media. They firmly believe, "If its printed in the Daily Telegraph, it must be true."
I never agreed with the conservative politics of John Howard, but I never believed the man was a Nazi, I can differentiate one from the other.
Yes Cherful, all us Greens are communist, holding clandestine meetings in dingy basements, plotting and scheming the ultimate overthrow of government, when we seize political power, its off to the gulag with the lot of you, where we will force you to eat tofu. Does this rant by me help to reinforce your paranoia, I hope so, I would not want you to rest soundly in your bed. oh! you can't do that anyway. the Reds are hiding under the bed.
Cherful, the Vietnam War is over, are you still expecting the yellow commie hordes to invade Australia? Please.

Paul it is the fervent wish of the greens, to force your ideas, [those of a very small minority] on the rest of the population that gets you labeled as communist. Not even you could argue that your numbers have not been swelled by a very large number of ex communists.

It is hard not to see a birds of a feather syndrome, when you wish to force your ideas on the vast majority, a communist technique, who see you as ratbags. Surely it would be reasonable for you to actually convince that majority of the truth of your ideas, before expecting them to comply with your wishes.

I believe it is good that you have overreached yourselves in taking advantage of circumstances to force through some radical rubbish. The carbon tax has shown people you are not just the nice tree huggers, but a malevolent movement committed to taking much of their dreams from them, & forcing them into an impoverished way of life, when ever the chance arises.

Well done greens, how is that foot with the bullet in it?

Paul1405, could I solicit your views on my last post.

What’s your feeling about the Greens’ position on population growth and sustainability?

Do you think that Milne and Bandt might possibly improve the ‘real green’ part of their agenda by lobbying for net zero immigration and a holistic political change towards a sustainable society?

Or will every feral pig in Australia sprout wings and fly out to sea and become shark food before this happens?

I strongly suspect the latter!

Brant is not to be in Parliament much longer.
Even a brief look at how he got there warns of his impending removal.
In a seat more often Labors Liberals preferences him, against the wishes of some.
Some Labor preferences to, and he won, but only on the second votes of many.
I can find NOTHING to support the view Brown is a great anything.
Must have missed the answers to my questions.
Surely in such a rising party, ha ha, as the greens some one can defend those points?

Dear Hasbeen,

Again with the carbon-tax scare.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott has taken up every
possible position on climate change - from skepticism
to warm embrace to horrified opposition. In his latest
phase - any discussion of actual policy has been
displaced by a concentration of Gillard's
trustworthiness as he accuses her of having broken
an election promise not to introduce a carbon tax.
And Abbott offered one Independent a $1 billion
hospital if he backed a Coalition minority
government - he's also accusing Gillard of selling
out to the Greens. How hypocritical. Abbott keeps
going down a base-level political path - and people
are getting sick and tired of it.

Economic experts have stated that there should be
a penalty on carbon emissions and that a market-based
system is the most effective way to do this.

Malcolm Turnbull has held his climate change position
even though it cost him the Liberal leadership.
At least Turnbull has stayed true to his beliefs.
Once the tax is implemented in July - and people
begin to realise after a while that it's not as
horrendous as they were led to believe - (just as
it happened with the GST), perhaps they will
realise that its substance over sham that should
matter in politics. Silly political debates, hyped
grandstanding stop working eventually.

cont'd ...

BTW - the "communist" scare doesn't work
anymore - only those political throwbacks
to the 1950s - believe in it.

But like so many others in the past they
belong on the dung heap of political history
along with their mentors.

Lexi, your statement 'Economic experts have stated that there should be a penalty on carbon emissions' is one of the reasons that we should reject it. You can't call objections 'silly political debates' when economists are dabbling in science.
You really need to be more objective instead of always seeing only the Labour parties version of reality.
You were guilty of that when you were Foxy.

Juliar offered the same independent half that amount of money and a law that would cost Australia billions. She offered the greens what she had promised the voters what she wouldn't do etc. She offered more because she was prepared to sacrifice the voters.

I found this while looking for some thing else
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-clawback-in-sight/story-fn59niix-1226326196527
I was looking to see what senators would face election next year.
Mirrors the thoughts I have been putting here.
What a waste!
A pointless one at that, so very much the greens have stopped or held up.
Soon almost for sure, Liberals get the rails run, the easy path, sponsored by the greens.

It seems it doesn’t take much to fool some, practically all of the time, all one needs do is issue a few motherhood statements—like this:

<<The Greens "recognise that protecting the environment
is essential to feeding, clothing, and providing a
good quality of life for people everywhere."
Who rationally can argue with that?

And a few crack-pot statements –like this:

<<For comprehensive Earth action, an all-of-the-Earth representative democracy is required. That is, a global parliament. Let us resolve that through global democracy we shall save the Earth from perishing.”>>

Then bingo, one can be said to have “integrity” and is declared a “great Australian” --- move over Saint Mary MacKillop!

I’m with Belly. I can’t wait to see both Labor and Liberals direct their preference away from the Greens.And watch as the Greens delusions of popularity disappear down the plug-hole.

If the debate re-focuses on the Opposition's
costings and plans - including its 'direct
action carbon plan' and its internally divisive
new tax to pay for some strange and expensive
parental leave scheme - the certainty on an
Abbott victory is lessened. The $70 billion
black hole argument will keep getting
regurgitated - because there's no answer. It
won't stop - and will intensify after the May
budget.

Economic credibility counts in voter-land.
And as stated previously - all the petty political
and hyped grandstanding will eventually stop
working. When it comes to winning in politics
it's real policy debate over economic issues
that matter.

Belly, Why should you be concerned with an Abbott led conservative government their policies suits your conservative political philosophy. With every post you make you move closer to the reactionary right, now calling for a Labor/Liberal deal to 'get the Greens'. Your party has little option other than to direct Senate preferences to the Greens otherwise you would loose Green preferences in the lower house. If that was to happen Federally Labor would be another 'Queensland', you can not have it both ways. Give the Liberal/National coalition control of the senate with the Mad Katters support and they will give you what you want.

Well done Bob Brown, for at least being principled. Is all I have to say.

Ludwig,
Population growth and sustainability needs to be addressed. With a low birth rate and aging population Australia can ill afford to neglect the need for population growth, to do otherwise would, in the longer term, spell disaster. Naturally our immigration policy must be geared to both our economic requirements as well as our humanitarian obligations.The Greens formal policy on immigration can be accessed on the web site.
I agree with Bob Browns 2010 assessment that our population has mushroomed to the point where growth now substantially exceeds expectations and all previous projections. The cause of this spike in population growth is down to the demands of big business for skilled migrants to fuel the mining boom and other skill shortages. If government bends to the whims of big business we can not expect to have a sustainable population.
As migrants in the main are here for life, as will be their children, we need to be careful that our migration policy is relevant to population sustainability with the best possible long term outcome for Australia, while still meeting our international obligations.

By the same token, Austin Powerless, it would be a scary world if scientists attempted to dabble in economics. What we need is definitive answers from science followed by definitive action from both the scientific and economic community. Unfortunately, neither is likely to happen. Science by nature is rarely definitive, and economics by nature is rarely proactive.

Thanks Paul. That all sounds pretty good, except for one bit which seems to be in conflict with the rest:

You wrote:

<< With a low birth rate and aging population Australia can ill afford to neglect the need for population growth, to do otherwise would, in the longer term, spell disaster. >>

Why do we need any further population growth?

<< I agree with Bob Browns 2010 assessment that our population has mushroomed to the point where growth now substantially exceeds expectations and all previous projections >>

Yes.

<< The cause of this spike in population growth is down to the demands of big business for skilled migrants to fuel the mining boom and other skill shortages.>>

Yes.

<< If government bends to the whims of big business we can not expect to have a sustainable population. >>

Yes yes YES!!

And by crikey, this is exactly what is happening, big time. Our government, be it either Liberal or Labor, is just totally kowtowing to big business.

So isn’t this then the most important thing of all that the Greens need to be lobbying against??

You see, Bob Brown knew about this. How could he not have? But he didn’t do anything about it !! !! !! !!

I think the Greens would gain a whole lot of credence with the general populace if they got stuck into this issue. It is my experience that most people want a stable population and they can see that the big business lobby has the federal government under their vested-interest-profit-motive-driven big-donations-buy-favourable-decisions thumb, and they don’t like it at all!!

PLEASE, as a Greens member, can you implore Christine do act on this all-important issue.

Paul it is truly sad that you use the very same insults as Conservatives do.
Aimed at my loyalty to the ALP and my unshakable belief it is the only party that can produce Social justice.
Time,it stands uninterested in your views or mine.
I an do not want to rush it, but am comfortable,in my views and beliefs, that it will prove me right.
Election day 2013.
It will not matter what you or I think, but I am willing to put in print my forecast.
With out leadership change in any party here are my predictions.
A late but minor swing back to Labor, driven by fear of Abbott.
Marginalized electorate leaves green out in the cold.
Katter will take one senate seat, just a small chance two,QLD will not have forgiven Labor.
Greens by then will suffer loss, the beginning of a decline that will be dramatic, unless they better use the powers that they have.
Conservatives clean up, Labors lowest federal result ever.
Senate if not in conservative hands?
Abbott forces DD, Labor, hoping to bounce back not as unpleased as you may think.
Result?
Small but significant Labor revival, Liberals however control both house greens become refugees never again to hold balance of power.
ALP wins next federal election in landslide.
I sin? yes! if reminding you what 88% of us think is a sin.

Ludwig,

The Green's haven’t got a hope in hell of implementing a sustainable population policy.

Here’s a few facts & figures from their website [http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/immigration-and-refugees]

Do the math’s:

1) (under) Principles
"The Australian Greens believe that:
• Australia must assess in good faith all asylum seekers who arrive on our mainland or any of our islands, without discrimination based on the method of arrival."

2) (under) Goals
"The Australian Greens want:
• asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to have their claims for asylum assessed while living in the community.
• planning for climate change refugees with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region."

3) (under) Measures
"The Australian Greens will:
• ensure that Australia adopts a definition of environmental refugee in its assessment criteria and works in the UN system for inclusion of a definition in the United Nations Refugee Convention."

Got the answer?

My calculation is it comes to a least half a million (and that's a conservative guesstimate)--made up from hundreds of thousands south Asians arriving on our door step bleating “I’m a climate refugee” .

Yep, I’ve got the answer, crystal clear. Thanks SPQR.

I find Sarah Hanson-Young to be one of the most misguided politicians of our era. Yeah, the Greens are totally off the rails when it comes to asylum seekers.

Sustainability is indeed the last thing on their minds, so it seems.

Politics aside, I'll miss the old guy.

See when Keating brought in a bit of Charisma to the game, that was needed and Keating also had a vision, still does, it's coherrant whether you agree or not (Many don't as they hate Asians) and wore it on his sleeve, and wasn't afraid to piss people off. I'd like more of that, regardless of the policy line.

Now Bob speaks clearly and politely and respectfully, like a man who takes pride in his position, has pride in himself, and yes, seems to have integrity, as much as would be possible for a politician. Not much of that around at the moment.

I personally think he is sadly misguided in much of his ideals, but they're out there, he has ideals, and you can vote yay or nay, and there's no rubbish side show.

What I am sick of is the other two, the sickly media spun BS and focus group policy on the run and all these media arranged games where everyone tries to say as little as possible, and everyone else tries to take as much of that bland nothing speach out of context and mix with hyperbowl (Yes, New Julia I'll stick with your pronunciation).

So, give me a fearless Keating, to make me laugh and who has the balls to ignore public outrage, and give me bob as the old draught horse. Even The Rodent at least had the balls to ignore the micro media managing game of spin and BS, make a policy, ignore the 'negativity' of the opposition (What a BS cop out), and just get on with.....

Doing their f0cking job!

PS: Can anyone imagine in their wildest dreams Keating or Bob Brown branding themselves as The New Keating, or The New Bob Brown. I'd like to see the media PR spin manager suggest it to Keating and come out of the office alive.

Ludwig,
The Federal government claim we do not have a problem. they will point to the figures for 2010/2011 and claim we met the estimates. I'll post them here in round numbers.
The total migration number was 169k a figure which was met. That number was made up of 114K (67%) from the skilled stream and 55k (33%) from the family stream. These figure do not include a significant number of people arriving from, mainly New Zealand, who are coming for a verity of reasons. John Key the NZ prime minister has made a point to Australia that we are 'stealing' much of NZ's skilled workforce. which NZ paid to develop, a fair enough complaint.
It would be most difficult to maintain a balanced population with minimal migration without seeing an aging effect. There would be no way of maintaining living standards within Australia as the population grew older and older, in simple terms not enough people dieing to balance the low birth rate, some would have to miss out, and I suspect that would be the elderly.
With the demand for skilled workers outstripping supply we need to address this both short term and long term as a matter of urgency. When big business has put the demand on, the knee jerk reaction from the Labor government has been to cave in to that demand without addressing the problem of sustainability, and I'm sure the Liberals in power would do the very same thing.
cont'

It's only through a skills based education program that Australia will be able in the long term meet the business demands and maintain sustainability. Why is big business so in favor of skilled migration, because it cost them noting, no long term commitment to skill development through education, that costs.
I sure there is no need to say The Greens have a very strong education policy, which address this very problem.
Only recently I was talking to a Greens senator about our relationship with the Labor government. She told me despite the way the media like to portray it, the Labor/Green arrangement has been difficult at time. Many issues have privately be raised with the government only to have them rejected. I'm sure big business got the call over Greens concerns when it came to skilled migration.

A few points about asylum seekers. Firstly these people are refugees and not criminals, no more so than tourists arriving for a holiday. Why should it make a difference if a person seeks asylum if they arrived in a leaky boat or in a jumbo jet or escaped from the Bulgarian embassy. For political gain there are those that want to portray 'boat people' as criminals. Australia can spend billions playing political football with these people. All Labor and Liberal want to do is pack these people off to some third world country or some island in the Pacific and then sneak them back into the country at a later date. These people do not pose a threat if place in the general community for processing, they are not going to run away and hide in the Simpson Desert.
From the 37 points in The Greens Immigration and Refugee policy SPQR post 3 of them.
SPQR, where did you get your figure of 500,000 why not say 47,000,000 it would have a greater effect. The old " by my calculation" using the word "calculation" to give the notion of scientific evaluation, rubbish.
I was given a Liberal Party flyer in the street the other day it was headed "Illegal boat arrivals are out of control under Labor."
Under "Fact" it said "Since the Rudd/Gillard Labor government weakened border protection, more than 275 boats and over 14,800 people have arrived illegally in Australia by boat and the boats keep coming!"
My reaction was to tell the Young Liberal that "Joseph Goebbels would be proud of this," By her expression I don't think she knew who Joseph Goebbels was, its a wonder she didn't tell me to "give him a ring at head office on Monday." I then asked, what were the Liberals going to do about "The Jewish question." I was hoping to hear of 'The final solution'. She said "I only hand them out." I was not sure whether she was referring to Jews or flyers.

call them asylum seeker or illegal immigrants the fact remains that Greens policy has led to hundreds of dead adults and children as they encouraged these people to come to our shores in leaky boats. Far more deaths caused by the Greens policy than even deaths of brave Aussie soldiers in Afghanistan. Like Pilate however they wash their hands of any responsibility and continue with their dogmas which result in more and more economic illegal immigrants and put more people at risk. This id their idea of a humanitarian approach.

runner,

"....their idea of a humanitarian approach."

You mean it's a bit like this approach?

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you as a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?

And the King will answer them, "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers you did it to me."
(Matthew 25. 35-40 ESV)

Runner, in no way do The Greens encourage asylum seekers to undertake the perilous journey to Australia in boats. If Labor and Liberal were truly concerned with the plight of these people they would stop the political point scoring and find a humanitarian solution to the problem.
We still remember the Howard lies about "children overboard", shows the depths that a person will sink to make political capital and its still going on. There is no real concern from Gillard or Abbott about these people, they are political pawns to be used to win a few votes, then cast off when of no more use.

Can anyone give an answer to this hypothetical? A chartered jumbo jet from Miami with 487 supposedly American millionaire tourists arrives at Kingsford Smith Airport in Sydney. When they disembark they proclaim they are not tourists here to see Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef after all, but rather political refugees from the States. Pointing out its election year over their and they need to escape the constant nauseating rantings from republican politicians. What do we do with them?

(a) Put them up at the nearest five star hotel whilst JG and TA prepare their speeches for tonight's welcoming banquet.

(b) Ship them off to Heard Island while they wait for processing.

(c) Your answer.

individual
I would have to agree about 'service' in name only in lots of areas within the public service. And there is no doubt there is huge room for improvement. The reason why I support Greens is that I believe they are the only party that would put the 'service' back into the public service and ensure that there is a proper safety net while not kowtowing just to the interests of big business (of which a lot of the tax dollar goes). Why do businesses get so much out of the public purse often while paying less tax than the ordinary person (in 'real' terms). Both the major parties are wedded to the global free trade system and are too influenced by the wants of business than what is good for the citizenry.

We might even get back a nationalised bank where instead of the banks sticking their thumbs up to an interest rate cut, a government owned bank would make the move and the others would follow. Same with essential services. I don't believe many of them should be outsourced to the private sector. There are just some things that should not be at the whim of the profit motive, that also does not provide service.

Cont...

cont/....

I know it is not black and white and there are grey areas. Jobs have been lost with Liberal and Labor governments, especially in manufacturing. The Greens are not against mining - we all need goods - but not at the cost of everything. We are not just a mining pit but a farming community and humans wellbeing depends on protecting the environment. It has to be a mix. Most corporations, who hold influence over government, are not ethically wired. They are beholden to shareholders first (and themselves), the consumers and the citizens have been programmed now to expect less for more. I think there are inherent problems in this sort of economic thinking.

It is funny, watching Executive Suite the other day a good old black and white movie, about just that very principle. People used to have pride in their work and in creating quality products. The Greens may not be perfect and they have not been tested in leadership, but at the moment for me, they are better than the other choices. The false accusations of communism and the like are just from people who are scared they might actually be onto something.

Otokonoko
I would not read too much into that link about Christine Milne. The media is not generally fair and balanced when it comes to the Greens. Look at the nonsense trotted out about communism and global government.

If Milnee did say those things publicly then perhaps there is a lesson there to be learnt for her now as leader.

Personalities are not totally unimportant, especially when they impede governing (Rudd) but they are not as interesting as policies.

Paul 1405,

<< SPQR, where did you get your figure of 500,000 why not say 47,000,000 it would have a greater effect. The old " by my calculation" using the word "calculation" to give the notion of scientific evaluation, rubbish.>>

Under our current much narrower definition of “refugee” there is apparently an inability to close our maritime borders, to illegals.
Anyone who boats-in and lip-syncs the magic words “I am from Afghanistan —and I am a refugee” is almost guaranteed to be granted asylum (and life long social welfare!).

So how much bigger will the problem get if we massively widen the definition to include “climate refugees” which “experts” tell us will come from a pool of 200,000,000 (and counting) “climate victims”?


Add to the above the propensity of The Green’s to undermine any attempt at border control. And the propensity of The Green’s to attribute any adverse climate event to AGW, in which on a per capita basis Australia has been indicted as the worst offender, and morally bound to make restitution.(see Bob Brown's infamous quip about the QLD floods here: http://www.azomining.com/News.aspx?newsID=2555)
And I would think that inducing 500,000 illegals to arrive on our north-western coast would be well within the realms of Green's idiocy.

I'm with Houllie on this , I miss Keating. Brains, balls and couldn't be bought, in that order.

D’Oh Houellie, Keating was a complete and utter klutz! Bob Brown is a saint in comparison!

SPQR,

Still waiting for your 'calculation' 1+1=2 is a calculation.

Can I please see your calculation which shows A+B=500,000 or is it just a figment of you bias imagination.

The unsubstantiated right wing rants which vilify innocent people including children, who's lives have been torn apart by war and famine etc is simply Un-Australian and people like the defrocked priest Abbott should be ashamed of themselves.
Have a good Day.

Paul1405, yes total immigration in 2010/11 was about 169 000, not including Kiwis!

That’s huge for us to keep on having in an ongoing manner.

How does it relate to an aging population?

Well firstly, this apparent aging issue has happened at the same time that we have had very high immigration, over a period of many years. There is no sign that this level of immigration is actually helping alleviate it at all, is there?

What extraordinarily high level do you think we would need to properly address this problem, or perceived problem?

The aging issue is basically a furphy. Yes the ratio of workers / tax-payers to those drawing a pension, health benefits and the like is changing. But this is just one increasing pressure in amongst many.

Most of these pressures are being CAUSED by rapid population growth. These include ever-increasing pressure on our transport infrastructure, health services and just about all other infrastructure and services as well. This pressure necessitates the spending of huge amounts of money to struggle to keep them up to scratch. The end result is more and more of the same substandard facilities for ever-more people, with only a slight improvement or no improvement or a considerable loss in quality for the pre-existing population.

How do we address the aging issue, if there really is one?

We implement all manner of incentives to get older people to stay in the workforce, and we stop growing our population so that our economic growth can actually lead to significant per-capita growth instead of the same or declining level for ever-more people.

Then we will hopefully have the fiscal wherewithal to provide a reasonable pension and health services for the elderly who can’t work and don’t have sufficient superannuation or financial reserves.

Promoting an ever rapidly growing population on the premise that it will cure a very serious aging ‘crisis’ is just crackers! It will actually make the situation a lot worse.

Paul, you wrote:

<< When big business has put the demand on, the knee jerk reaction from the Labor government has been to cave in to that demand without addressing the problem of sustainability, and I'm sure the Liberals in power would do the very same thing. >>

YES! So where have the Greens been?

Silent!

A strong education policy is fine. But it’s not a holistic approach. Not by a long way. And it’s pretty useless if we are just going to continue to have enormously high skilled immigration.

The Green should be very strongly lobbying not only for a huge reduction in immigration down to net zero for sustainability reasons, but for Australia to stop sucking skilled people out of their home countries, where they are nearly always much more badly needed.

You agree with John Key regarding NZ losing a large part of its skills base to Australia. Well, what about many considerably poorer countries around the world?

The Greens would like Australia to spend a whole lot more on international aid, I presume. So for them to just sit back and condone Australia’s very high skilled immigration can be seen as a quite contradictory position.

Paul, regarding asylum seekers; the Greens’ policies are just TERRIBLE!

I find it just so unbelievable that my old party, for which I was a state candidate in 1995, can develop a position which I so vehemently disagree with!

An open-door policy with no offshore processing and no mandatory detention is just a recipe for disaster! It would just open the floodgates! It would lead to the most massive civil unrest.

Their position, as so often promoted by Sarah Hanson-Young, really does just leave me wide-eyed, agape and slowly shaking my head in total disbelief!!

This is the position I would love to see the Greens adopt:

End onshore asylum-seeking decisively. Regain control of our borders.

Increase our intake of the most needy refugees through our formal immigration program to ~26 000, about double the current level, within a net zero immigration program.

Considerably increase international aid, particularly targeted at the causal factors of refugeeism and at sustainability.

Whilst very fond of the *Greens,* a fact about which I make no secret, I am also rather eclectic in my political views,

(and love parrots and look forward to taking my girls down to the S/W W.A. town of Denmark to see if the Purple Crowns are still in some of their old haunts from the time I was but a nipper)

and even despite the depravity of the LNP, do not find them to be entirely devoid of merit.

For instance, as they at times i.m.o. "telegraph" more than they say (and I find merit also in Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do - "absorb what is useful") I believe that the likes of *Belly* and *Shadow* (and others) do the *Greens* a great service by alerting them to the likely eventualities if they continue on their present course.

That's not to say that the wheat is not to be separated from the chaff ..

In *Shadow's* case, the amount of times that I have read some of his/her one liners days in advance of public broadcast, only to hear the EXACT same lines repeated on Capital Hill and similar is a matter about which I no longer bother to count.

And having worked as a microtab analyst for a number of years I have some insight into the mechanism by which they collect the views of the public, and took interest at that time regarding those views that they published and those that they did not. ..

as for now, well, tis a sensitive area and to speak overmuch could have unwanted consequences. Of course, that's not to say that all polls are accurate (especially as they rarely insist on double entry when keying up the data) however ...

t.b.c.

I personally have read a bit of the science of global warming and associated issues and believe, based on my interpretations thereof that indeed the need to reduce our emissions is vital however, as said, it is not the what of the matter that concerns me, but rather the how.

To reiterate, my view as to the best course of action for the *Greens* is only to impose something like the carbon tax and associated measures when the public as a majority mandate it.

As my grandfather was fond of saying (a runner up rhode scholar even with pneumonia and most excellent pathologist)

" ... If you feed out enough rope, they'll eventually hang themselves ... "

..

This whole carbon tax affair has been badly handled and in my paranoid moments has the distinct stench of "man trap" about it, but by all means take that with a pinch of salt.

I.m.o. all the *Green's* have to do to really set themselves apart is to say something like:

" ... as regards global warming etc, whilst we strongly believe "bt" for big trouble because of "p" pollution requiring "s" as a solution etc we will not, despite our power to do so, force this upon you until such time as the majority of you are in agreeance. ... "

If not .. well time will tell, but I would have the *Greens* in for the long term.

..

*Belly* why is the view of the A.M.A. not sufficient for you re the abuse of children by your party in the shadow of the LNP?

..

As for you *Runner* I note based on my interpretation of some of *Pell's* comments during Q.A. recently that even he is not in favor of inflicting such prolonged and hellish circumstances on some of the most vulnerable.

Why not instead just advocate to withdraw from the convention, and make up your own rules regarding same?

Ahh DreamOn, you’ve got me (a mad birdo) dreaming about eclectus parrots at Iron Range. Brightly coloured and very loud. And purple-crowned lorikeets with their high-pitched squeals high in the canopy of the karri forest, and Denmark in WA, with which I have a strong affinity.

----

Further to my last post:

That’s ~26 000 per annum.

Paul, the Greens’ humanitarianism is enormously misguided, IMHO.

Yes they should definitely be strongly humanitarian. Yes they should be very concerned about refugees. But there are much better ways of doing it than facilitating onshore asylum seeking, for goodness sake!

Aaah, yes, the Eclectus parrots - greens and reds and blues ... whom the early naturalists did not even recognise as the same species initially if I do not misrecall?

..

My grandparents owned quite a significant amount of land down there in the day and ran pol-herefords mainly, and also had the block on the left where you turn into *Green's Pool* behind which, from memory, was where *Harry Butler* shot a doco, which included the beautiful pitcher plants.

Carefully, carefully, before one reaches for the sweet nectar in that particular pot.

Dream On you let fly with that Pedophiles shot again and seem rather niggledy in the last few threads.
Have you enjoyed a drink before posting.
Self confidence is a great thing in the right hands.
Not so good if miss placed.
I like your mind Ludwig, my garden is progressing well, the bottle bush now close to 7 meters in flower again.
The best flowers talk,screech in fact eastern Rosella's and scaly breasted.
Others too.
White tipped black cockatoos join in as they fly over morning and just before dark.
Pink and Grey galas hang upside down on the front power lines so I am used to galas D O

Ludwig,
I don't think you and I are all that far apart on both immigration and refugee issues.
Statistically our population is growing older. the result of both improvements in areas of health and diet etc coupled with a low birth rate. that seems to be self evident. With more elderly in society that's an issue in itself that has to be addressed. Pressures on the health system, and other services for the elderly, issues with employment, pensions and super for older Australians, the area of taxation, who pays for this and at what level etc it all costs. As a 58 year old I can tell you age discrimination is alive and well in Australia. Only 12 months ago I returned to the workforce after 2 years off, my choice, (not unemployed by out seeing a bit of the World) and I did come up against age discrimination, fortunately for me I had skills that were in demand, soon back working part time 25-30 hrs a week.
Its not realistic to believe Australia can embrace a closed door nil immigration policy or return to a totally discriminatory policy, ie the White Australia Policy, although there is a ratbag element in society who think these are possibilities. The latter would bring World condemnation upon us and the former condemnation and punitive action from trading partners etc, a case of telling the likes of China, "You can buy our raw materials, but your people are not welcome here."
cont.

I think immigration does have a nett effect of reducing the average age the population, but not by much, months not years. The problem to me is the size of yearly immigration. I do not think 169k at this time is a sustainable number, but that is only my personal view. Who is out to profit the most from high levels of immigration? Answer, Big Business. I do not think I have to go into the reasons that BB profits from high immigration, they should be self evident, particularly if BB can negate any taxation responsibility in relation to immigration, which they seems to do very well indeed.
No matter how you look at it refugees form a very small component of our total migration, and 'boat people' are only a small proportion of 'illegal' persons in Australia. No one talks much about 'over stayers' people who arrive on a 'jumbo jet' for a short term stay but remain long term often working illegally using services they are not entitled to. etc. To these 'over stayers' we can add those who arrive with a legitimate reason such as a education purposes, but then work illegally. I will post my views on off shore processing and mandatory detentions later.

"my garden is progressing well, the bottle bush now close to 7 meters in flower again.
The best flowers talk,screech in fact eastern Rosella's and scaly breasted.
Others too.
White tipped black cockatoos join in as they fly over morning and just before dark.
Pink and Grey galas hang upside down on the front power lines so I am used to galas D O
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 19 April 2012 5:03:09 AM"

Belly, have you turned into a raving Greenie! Where's the profit in that bush thing and how do you make money out of those scrawny birds.
Got the answer. Chop down the tree and sell it to the pulp mill to be turned into cardboard to be used in in 'fag factory'. Shoot them birds, and sell their scrawny carcases to the Colonel, when cooked it all tastes like chicken. From the profits I want to spread bitumen over that garden thing and turn it into a car park for DD semi trailers, charging 50 bucks a day for parking. LOL.
Seriously, good to hear your garden is doing so well. As I say these things have an incalculable value and are worth more than a gold mine. Although some would disagree, their belief being, if you can't dig it up or chop it up, if you can't make a quid from it, it has no value. They are the poorer for their belief. Good on yah!

Paul 1405.

<<Its not realistic to believe Australia can embrace a closed door nil immigration policy or return to a totally discriminatory policy...The latter would bring World condemnation upon us and the former condemnation and punitive action from trading partners etc,>>

Yep, Paul, you are a typical Green. You like to pretend you are worldly-wise --but you really have NO IDEA about the situation outside OZ

China & Japan rank respectively as our number 1 & 2 “trading partners”. Would you care to tell me about their open door immigration policies ?

How about Singapore at number 4, or South Korea at number No 6 ?
Would you care to tell us about their open door immigration policies?

How about Malaysia that comes in at number 10, care to tell us about how they are welcoming of “refugees”?

On what basis would any of these have to implement “ punitive action” !

And then you make this clanger:
<< No one talks much about 'over stayers' people who arrive on a 'jumbo jet' for a short term stay but remain long term often working illegally using services they are not entitled to. etc. >>

EVERYTIME anything is said about illegal immigration this hoary olde “Theyre doing it too” chestnut is thrown in.
And EVERYTIME it is debunked –please go back a review some earlier OLO threads on this subject

A little bit less Green’s catechism and a great deal more real world experience --please!

SPQR,

When did Australia embrace the 'open door' policy? We have a controlled immigration policy. Open door implies 'the hoards are coming' and they are not coming from Liechtenstein, are they? More of the yellow peril on their way. Of the 169K immigrants in 2010/11, if you had been in charge what figure would you allow into Australia?
Australia's net immigration stands at about 6 to 7 per 1000 of population a comparable country Canada is around 5 to 6. New Zealand has a net of around 2 to 3 per 1000. Shock Afghanistan around 20 per 1000 and none of them are 'boat people', must be all the Americans landing in the country. SPQR have to compare apples to apples Japan, China?

Paul 1405,

Nice sidestep Paul 1405!

<<SPQR have to compare apples to apples Japan, China?>>

Let me remind you as to how China and Japan entered the discussion:
You were pontificating that if Australia tightened its immigration policy It would the subject to “ punitive actions” from our trading partners.Now, it so happens that our two biggest trading partners are China and Japan –neither of which have anything like a liberal (or Green!) immigration policy.So it would be highly unlikely, and ultra hypocritical, for either of the aforementioned (and most of our other top trading partners –for that matter) to raise a whimper about any restrictions we might impose.

I take it from your having sidestepped my earlier points/questions about that comment that you now concede that it was baloney .

<< We have a controlled immigration policy.>>

We have feeble immigration "controls" (ROFL): we cannot stop illegals from boating-in from wherever or whenever.And as long as they claim to be from one of the countries which is currently on the top-of-the-pops hot list They are almost assured of getting asylum

And your party's harebrained scheme to widen the definition of refugee to include "climate victims" will make the problem much much worse.

DreamOn, you’ve picked a very appropriate pseudonym!! Love your musings.

Now you’ve struck and even deeper chord with me re: the Albany pitcher plant – Cephalotus follicularis. I’m an even madder botto than birdo.

What a botanical oddity. It is the only species in the family Cephalotaceae. And completely unrelated to the other pitcher plants in Australia which occur in far north Queensland, of the genus Nepenthes, which are placed not only in a different family but in a different order.

A little treasure with a very restricted distribution in the swamps of the south coast of WA.

----

Paul, thanks for your reply. Will respond in the morning….when I’m feeling a little less dreamy!

SPQR,
I do not profess to be an expert on matters of immigration. I have put forward my thoughts on the subject. From your posts its difficult to ascertain where you stand. Other than the obvious paranoia concerning Asians, with comments like:
"from one of the countries which is currently on the top-of-the-pops hot list They are almost assured of getting asylum"
"inducing 500,000 illegals to arrive on our north-western coast"
"hundreds of thousands south Asians arriving on our door step bleating “I’m a climate refugee”.
And this one "come from a pool of 200,000,000 (and counting) “climate victims” is this another one of your calculations.
"A little bit less Green’s catechism and a great deal more real world experience."
With your "real world experience", what is your view on immigration to Australia? Increase, decrease, none at all, chop out the Asians, reintroduce the White Australia Policy, blow up 'boat people' what should we do?. I did ask if you were in control what would you have done in 2010/11? No answer, can I assume then the 169K was all right by you.

Paul. I’d like to think that we are reasonably close in our views. But I do have serious and fundamental differences with theGreen? So where does that leave you within this party?

Could you possibly outline just what it is that you disagree with them about regarding the matters being discussed in our conversation?

I don’t want to make it difficult, it just seems like a logical next step in this debate.

You wrote:

<< Its not realistic to believe Australia can embrace a closed door nil immigration policy or return to a totally discriminatory policy… >>

Agreed. But it is very realistic for us to have a net zero immigration policy where the number of people leaving the country in a particular year is equal to the immigration intake for the following year.

And it is highly reasonable for this immigration program to be centred around refugees, with only a small component of skills.

If we were to do this and thus become a sustainability-oriented society and a refugee-friendly country, as well as no longer being a rather parasitic country in terms of gobbling up skilled people from less developed countries, we would surely be in good stead on the world stage.

The relationship between government in big business is the major stumbling block.

To this end, the Greens should have been howling very loudly about the political donations regime and other favours rendered by big business which make a mockery of our so-called democratic system.

Yes, visa overstayers should be clamped down on. It is crazy to have the law dictate one thing and for something quite different to actually happen, in an ongoing and full-on manner.

Surely the greens should have been very strongly pushing for our visa laws to be enforced, or failing this, for the law and accepted practice to be brought into line.

Cheers.

Paul 1405,

You seem bamboozled by the 200,000,000 figure of “climate refugees” –calling it my calculation.
<<And this one "come from a pool of 200,000,000 (and counting) “climate victims” is this another one of your calculations>>

It is a figure cited by the IPCC and allied groups. And the IPCC reports have been the justification for the Green’s climate policy (including the carbon tax).

--“British environmentalist, Norman Myers, became the most prominent proponent of this ‘maximalist’ school (Suhrke 1993). Noting, that "environmental refugees will soon become the largest group of involuntary refugees" [2]. Additionally, he stated that there were 25 million environmental refugees in the mid-1990s, further claiming that this figure could double by 2010, with an upper limit of 200 million by 2050”
--“the most common claims being that 150-200 million people will be climate change refugees by 2050. Variations of this claim have been made in influential reports on climate change by the IPCC”[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_migrant

--The United Nations estimates that 25 million climate refugees exist today. That number is expected to double to 50 million within the next five years
http://www.earthsfriends.com/climate-refugees

--By 2010 the number of environmental refugees could grow to 50 million, the UNU-EHS predicts. According to other estimates, there could be as many as 150 million by 2050.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1118_051118_disaster_refugee.html

As for my suggestions:
<< what is your view on immigration to Australia?>>

Here’s one for starters –straight from the horses mouth, so to speak:

"Why does Australia not close the border?," said Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan. "Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted."If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and then no-one will come."
: http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html#ixzz1scfUPWuR

If we take a firm stand that anyone who elects to self–select themselves and boat-in will NOT be accepted --few will give it a try.

So, both a botto and a birdo, Ludwig.

>>I’m an even madder botto than birdo<<

I should have guessed.

Pity you aren't more of a people-o, though.

Ludwig,

My view on asylum seekers, off shore processing and mandatory detentions. Firstly I believe Australia has a responsibility to these people as a signatory to the International Convention on Refugees. It is on us to abide by our obligations to this convention. We also have obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These rights include the right not to be arbitrarily detained.
Under the Australian Migration Act asylum seekers are to be held in immigration detention until they are granted a visa or removed from Australia. That is not a problem for me. However, we go beyond this and impose mandatory detention despite there being a distinction in law between the Act and what is actually applied. With mandatory detention we apply indefinite detention Some asylum seekers and refugees spend long periods of time in immigration detention waiting for their refugee claim to be assessed; waiting for the completion of health, identity and security checks; or awaiting removal from Australia if their refugee claim has been unsuccessful. I do not believe this is a humanitarian approach. Once it has been established that a person is not a threat to the Australian community. they are not a criminal, they should be housed within the community until their status is determined. The government has move a number of unaccompanied children and families with children into community detention. Which in my view is a positive thing. We forget it was Howard who introduced community detention in 2005 and the vast majority of asylum seeker arriving by air are being housed in the community on bridging visas.
cont.

I am totally opposed to off shore processing in Malaysia, Nauru or anywhere else. It is a problem for Australia and Australia needs to deal with it. Not mask the problem by hiding people in another country. We also need to do much more work with governments of both the countries of origin and of the countries where asylum seekers set out from, to find a humanitarian solution to the problem. People smugglers need to be dealt with under the law.

Hahahaha. Trust you to put a negative spin on it Peri-o.

I’m also an eco and a geo, or rocko if you prefer-o.

But most of all I’m a susso!! (a sustainabilityist-o!)

People? Oh…no…that would be just too much for my poor brain to handle….o!

SPQR,

You have more numbers that the million dollar lottery. I particularly like this one:
"By 2010 the number of environmental refugees could grow to 50 million, the UNU-EHS predicts" What are their predictions for the year 1990?
Seems these people don't know what year it is little own what day it is.
If I am assuming correctly you are a climate change skeptic and do not believe the world is going through a man made or natural process of climate change. Therefore you have noting to worry about, there will be no climate change refugees.
Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan, I'm sorry for Mr Adine and his harrowing experience but it does not make him an expert on asylum seekers. I'm sure he would have little knowledge of Australia's policies on immigration. He may well have been fed a litany of lies on the subject led to believe Australia has an open door policy when clearly that is not the case.
You say "If we take a firm stand that anyone who elects to self–select themselves and boat-in will NOT be accepted --few will give it a try."
So you want Australia to repudiate our undertakings we have given in relation to asylum seekers and refugees.
SPQR, you seem to ignore these questions, as your answer would show your true colours.

With your "real world experience", what is your view on immigration to Australia? Increase, decrease, none at all, chop out the Asians, reintroduce the White Australia Policy, blow up 'boat people' what should we do?. I did ask if you were in control what would you have done in 2010/11? No answer, can I assume then the 169.000 migrants was all right by you.

Paul, I appreciate you explaining your position on asylum seekers.

My views are very different. The major problem with your position as I see it is that it creates an enormous pull factor. It just keeps onshore asylum seeking happening indefinitely and seriously risks causing it to greatly escalate.

This has a number of big negative factors: People spending their life savings paying people-smugglers and then undertaking treacherous journeys of uncertain outcome, more deaths at sea, ongoing and increased discontent in Australian society, huge cost to the taxpayer which is money that should be being spent on health, education, social security, roads, etc, etc, and displacement of more needy refugees that would have been brought here through the refugee category of our immigration program.

If it continues as it is, let alone escalates, we WILL get a government that will take a much harder line. Then many hundreds if not thousands of people will be caught in the middle of it.

continued

As far as the legal situation goes, Australia as a sovereign country has every right to protect its borders and to not allow people into the country that have come unsolicited. All refugees that come here simply must come through formal channels, surely!

Australia’s obligations under international agreements are all well and good, but they’ve got to be in line with this basic premise, not at odds with it.

And Australia should have every right to determine how many refugees it will take and be able to plan and budget well ahead for it… and not have it open-ended and at the whim asylum seekers and people smugglers.

The 1951 Refugee Convention and presumably all other related agreements have the huge problem of being open-ended in terms of the numbers of people involved.

It is all well and good to work with Indonesia to tackle people smuggling, but I doubt whether it will work in isolation. And it is contradictory to do this while at the same exerting a strong pull factor.

There is a lot of work to do to straighten all this out and revise all our agreements. But the most important thing in the short term is to strive to stop onshore asylum seeking.

Howard achieved this and quite frankly the way he did it was a very good balance between doing what was necessary and treating those involved pretty damn well.

So I’m all for a return to Nauru, Manus Island and onshore detention centres if needed on top of those…. and most definitely NOT free movement of asylum seekers in our society.

Don’t get me wrong: it would be great if there were no negative consequences to just accepting all asylum seekers with open arms. But that’s not the case. I have nothing against those people seeking asylum in this country or those who are found to be refugees. I’m just trying to see the whole picture and advocate what is necessary to greatly improve a currently highly unsatisfactory situation.

Paul 1405,

You say in response to the expert sources predicting the climate refugee numbers:
<< Seems these people don't know what year it is little own what day it is>>
And I agree with you.

They are by the way, part of the same fraternity who brought us the prediction that the sea would quickly rise by six metres.
And the same group that at another time told us the dams in the Sydney region would all be dry by now!

But please –for your own good and welfare --don’t go expressing such “skepticism” too loudly at your Green party meetings – since to the Green’s hierarchy those sources and predictions are sacrosanct!

<< If I am assuming correctly you are a climate change skeptic and do not believe the world is going through a man made or natural process of climate change. Therefore you have noting to worry about, there will be no climate change refugees.>>
I agree with you, again.
Ay, but here's the rub—IT DOES NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN—for us to start receiving “hoardes” of “climate refugees”.
Many of the “refugees” we “process” now are not real refugees –it does not stop them from coming –and it does not precluded them from being pronounced “genuine” . If we create a pretext people will find a way to exploit it.
If your Green party comrades push through a bill accepting climate refugees today, by next week we will be getting boat loads of “climate refugees”.

<< Mr Adine …may well have been fed a litany of lies on the subject led to believe Australia has an open door policy when clearly that is not the case.>>
Mr Adine is likely to know the loopholes in Australian immigration law better than you.

My take on refugees is that our problem is one on extreme generosity. So many Ozzies would love to do as well as these bludgers.

OK, increase the intake, but with a few conditions.

1/ No one without paperwork stays longer than 24 hours, & is returned as near as possible to their point of embarkation with in that period, with no exceptions.

2/ All "refugees" must be funded by a sponsor for 6 month on arrival.

3/ No taxpayer funded assistance of any type until the immigrant has 4 years of tax records of self funding. Same applies to citizenship applications.

4/ Any immigrant not self funded after 6 months is to be employed for 6 months on work gangs, in national parks or country roads. Payment to be food, keep, medical services, & 10% of the minimum wage.

5/ Any unable to gain suitable employment with in 1 month of this to be repatriated to port of origin.

This simple system would weed out the bludgers, who would not be interested. It also offers Paul, Marilyn & the rest the opportunity to put their money, rather than tax payers, [& mine], where their mouth is.

I am totally sick of bleeding hearts, of all movements, wanting to do good, but with my money. Their selflessness in such a system might encourage others to do the same. I very much doubt we would find many of them taking up this opportunity, thus Ludwig would get his wish of much lower immigration.

<<So you want Australia to repudiate our undertakings we have given in relation to asylum seekers and refugees>>
Absolutely. The Refugee Convention as it stands is an anachronism –incidentally, I don’t recall when “we” were ever asked if “we” wanted to sign it! I think was some of your backroom guys and gals who made that decision.

<< what is your view on immigration to Australia?... Increase, decrease…cut the Asians, reintroduce the White Australia Policy, blow up 'boat people' what should we do?...>>
Please read Mr Adines comments again – he has a very good handle on things.

SPQR

You are in the same class as Howard and his children overboard when it comes to misquotes. You write: "Seems these people don't know what year it is little own what day it is" And I agree with you.
But what I actually said was, re-printing what you posted "By 2010 the number of environmental refugees could grow to 50 million, the UNU-EHS predicts" Then I added "What are their predictions for the year 1990?"
What is your point in posting an old pre 2010 estimate for the year 2010 in the year 2012. Maybe you have returned to the year 1952 and your good old days of the White Australia Policy. P/s Did they actually grow to 50,000,000 in 2010 you should know by now.
You write "Many of the “refugees” we “process” now are not real refugees." Have you done a calculation on MANY is it between 1 and 200,000,000? I forgot the HOARDS (your word) are coming. By now these hoards must be the children of the hoards that you conservatives were predicting were coming back in the 1960's, they must be on a slow boat from China, not here yet.
As I questioned poor Mr Adine credentials, you respond with Mr Adine is likely to know the loopholes in Australian immigration law better than you." Unfortunately the man can not speak English and is unlikely to be well read in Australian immigration law, so how he is "likely to know" any, if there are any, of the loopholes in Australian immigration law, is beyond me.
cont

What I have asked several times and you can not answer is:
With your "real world experience", what is your view on immigration to Australia? Increase, decrease, none at all, chop out the Asians, reintroduce the White Australia Policy, blow up 'boat people' what should we do?. I did ask if you were in control what would you have done in 2010/11? No answer, can I assume then the 169K was all right by you. We are now in 2012 not 1952.
Or should I just read the Australia First Parties immigration policy to get your slant on the subject. With your use of emotive words like "hoards" it fits well with extreme right policy

Paul 1405,

<<You write: "Seems these people don't know what year it is little own what day it is" And I agree with you.
But what I actually said was…>>

What you actually said was : "Seems these people don't know what year it is little own what day it is"
I cut and pasted it . I know it’s been a long time since your post of Friday, 20 April 2012 11:42:48 AM
But go back and re-read line 4 and check for yourself!

<<What is your point in posting an old pre 2010 estimate for the year 2010 in the year 2012>>
The point was to demonstrate to you that the 200,000,000 estimate was not my invention –as you sought to imply.
But the estimate of sources the Green place great reliance on. It is somewhat amazing that you fervently support a party that has a policy that seeks to accept climate “refugees” yet you seemingly have no idea about what numbers might qualify –but I guess that’s the nature of the Green base.

<<You write "Many of the “refugees” we “process” now are not real refugees." Have you done a calculation on MANY is it between 1 and 200,000,000>>
No. I’ll leave that calculation for you – here’s a little light reading to start off with:
I’ll preface the reading by saying it refers to people who out of the goodness of our great big humanitarian heart we took in an gave shelter to:

“FEDERAL police are investigating local Muslim leaders over suspicions they are encouraging dozens of young men to return to their homeland to join Islamic jihadis against the Ethiopian-backed Somali forces. AFP agents have quizzed African community members, including families and friends in Melbourne, over the spate of young Somalis who have left Australia in the past year.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/somalia-jihad-drive-probed/story-e6frg6of-1111115033793

Paul 1405,

<<Unfortunately the man can not speak English and is unlikely to be well read in Australian immigration law, so how he is "likely to know" any, if there are any, of the loopholes in Australian immigration law, is beyond me.>>

Well I’ll concede that it is beyond you –but from what I've seen so far –that is no great feat.
And who needs English when you have heaps and heaps of websites like this – in your own language – screaming “COME ON DOWN!”
http://www.afghans-asylum.mihanblog.com/

<< what is your view on immigration to Australia? Increase, decrease>>
I’d be satisfied if we withdrew from the Refugee Convention and got serious about our border controls.

I have to remind you SPQR its not 2010 its not 1952 and its not 2007, wait for it its 2012, yes 2012AD

You post this:
"FEDERAL police are investigating local Muslim leaders over suspicions..........da da da.

Where does it come from
Murdicks Right wing press.
Richard Kerbaj
From: The Australian
December 05, 2007 12:00AM

Cop the date on it 2007 only nearly 5 years old! Wow. Even in 1788 news from London could reach Australia in 2 years. ROFLMAO.

And even in 2007 the story was mostly a beat up with lots of words like suspicions, (no evidence just its sus) It is understood, (understood by who the reporter) following revelations, (revs not from god but this chip wrapper) was believed, (believed by who, yep its the reporter doing the believing) she believed, (its his mum believing now), by the authorities, (unnamed Poms, are they from the British girl guides) last spotted, (was he spotted from 10 miles away by the relos) community figures, (when all else fails quote those unnamed community figures) It is understood, (about some suspected DVD, don't say it actually exists, not watched it, the reporter just understands its contents) had been radicalised, (is that word in the English language).

SPQR That is a bit of a laugh ail right. What is the latest on the 'investigation' How is it progressing? For your info The Landon papers have reported the safe arrival of the first fleet at Botany Bay. Yep the first 'boat people' in Australia, the locals should have shipped them off to Nauru, I bet they soon wished they did.

@ Paul 1405,

Well doggies!
I can see why ya’ll fixin' to vote for dem Greens, Paul.
Stick with dem Paul 'cause I reckon that Bobbie Brown and his green critters purdy much need all the Paul’s they can get.

Y'all come back now, hear?

SPQR,

What does it take to convince you it is now the year 2012. I went to the link you posted with the the Murdick 'chip rapper' story I'll refresh you memory if I can it went like this.
FEDERAL police are investigating local Muslim leaders over suspicions,,da,,,da,,,da
It was dated December 05, 2007 yes its not a typo, the story was from 2007 today is 21st April 2012. The rubbish is nearly 5 years old. I read it, such a 'beat up' the reporter has little in the way of facts so its full of 'its understood stuff' the reporter presenting his own assertions as facts. Those who want to agree with that type of bias rubbish reporting will accept it as fact. Plant the seeds of hate and hope they sprout!
Guilt by association, Ali is a Muslim, Ali is a terrorists, 'boat people' are Muslim, therefore 'boat people' are terrorists. Try this one Ronnie Biggs is a Pom, Ronnie Biggs is a criminal, therefore all Poms are criminals.
Can you tell me what the outcome of the "INVESTIGATION' was? Were charges laid? Did anyone go to prison? Will I get an answer I think not.

Paul, I’m afraid that your investigative reporter act leaves me flat.
I suggest you drop in here for a refresher: http://www.pointbreakdrama.com.au/courses/adults-screen/screen-acting-1-adult-beginner/

It isn’t about the source –and it isn’t about the date either, is it!

Here’s a similar story –this time from the SMH (not a Murdoch publication)
And look it’s dated 2012 (two for the price of one)

"British and American Somalis currently fighting alongside Islamist rebels in Somalia are expected to pose a serious threat upon their return from Africa, training others in the techniques they learnt on the battlefield and in terrorist training camps"
http://www.smh.com.au/world/britain-us-concern-over-somali-militants-20120208-1rezn.html#ixzz1sk4DLZIC

And wait, there's more – from that paragon of Greenness, the ABC
(No Murdoch there either –a good bit of Marx though)
And look it’s a Somalis community leader who made the charge!

"Tony Eastley: A religious scholar claims young Somali-Australians, who've gone to Somalia to fight with the terrorist group al-Shebaab, have returned and are living in Australia."
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2693680.htm

But I’m sure you find some other objection – the colour scheme on the website is not to your liking ...or the reporter is not smiling ...anything to avoid the unpalatable truth.

Any way, I have important work to complete. I can't waste any more time leading you to water...catch you (out again) next time.

Just Brownie and Milne, and the Adam Brandt three
So happy in their Green Dream-lan'
So happy in their Green Dream-lan'
So happy in their Green Dream-lan'

SPQR
From my knowledge Hersi Hilole first raised his concerns about Muslim extremists trying to recruit within Melbourne's Somali community in 2007. Your post from ABC/AM in 2009. Again I ask can YOU point out any arrests, any convictions, anyone sent to prison in relation to either your 2007 story from the Murdick fish wrapper or from Herei Hilole 2009 bit on ABC/AM. If there are terrorists in the Australian community lets have some arrests have these people thrown in jail. what are the cops doing?
When a conservative wants to deliver the knock out blow they start quoting from that Bolshevik publication, that red rag, that propaganda sheet of communism, The Sydney Morning Herald.Next thing to come will be the unbiased opinions of Jim Saleam. Can't wait.

Indeed *LudWig* I have much love for plants and critters. So much has already been lost and it pleases me that there are others who are attempting to defend them.

Certainly, I would sooner people had bilbies and numbats for pets as opposed to losing them.

..

As of last I looked at HREOC, it was at that time limited by both social security and immigration law. Thus, whilst Australia is a signatory to a number of conventions, they are only relevant here to the extent that they have been enshrined in local law.

..

Of course, it is undoubtedly an expensive matter for the state and thus its people to take on other than affluent and educated immigrants. Verily, the policy now could just as well be regarded as the "Wealthy Australian" policy, as distinct from the "White Australia" policy.

In that regard, I consider my own situation. As a new permanent resident, my wife participated in all of the Adult Immigration programs, had an amount of her documents translated, participated in the multicultural center programs, and is now a TAFE student who is paid AUSSTUDY.

Of course, it is important to recognise that health and safety is a large and powerful limiting factor visa vi employment as until one's language skills are sufficient, one may not be employed.

And, based on the portability of the AUSSTUDY payment, as distinct from JOBSEEKER, my Beloved can save enough from her payment to pay for a once a year 6 week holiday in Indonesia, where courtesy of the $Oz$ and our ability to exist within the local economy, we can live very comfortably whilst saving the greater portion of my income, thank you very much.

Included is quality dental service and a range of other concessions including "Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme" medications and also of course, F.amily T.ax B.enefit. As step dad, and being aware that this matter turns on legal responsibility, it was never pre immigration success a matter that I could claim. But now, as biological mum's legal responsibility passes to me - thank you very much.

Consequently, as the working poor of this country are not well supported to the extent that they cannot even afford to pay the parasitic dentists to fix their teeth, not to mention homelessness and all of the rest of what can be argued to constitute "entrenched disadvantage," I am opposed to further immigration, for now, with very few exceptions, except perhaps legitimate asylum seekers, but even then, as opposed to peeing on the convention and bringing Australia into international disrepute, I would prefer that we as a state withdraw.

Finally, for *Belly,* in my mind there is no justification for abusing children on any grounds, even if it is a matter of border security.

In that regard the medical facts speak for themselves, and I would object to the same if it were your children or those of anyone else for that matter.

Legally speaking, I do not believe this to be a matter of defamation as the red and the blue politicians of Australia as a whole bring themselves into disrepute by their own actions.

As for those who seek to not have this matter given appropriate public airing, in my mind they are little better than those who cover up for pedophilia.

..

Oh, one more thing, my personal recommendation to guvment is that they need to upgrade, tailor and revise an assessable program of orientation prior to letting asylum seekers loose into the community, as if the TAFE system program is anything to go by, and compared to that which I received in Japan, their current efforts are wholly inadequate.

Just watched Bob Brown on Q&A.

I agree with him about 98%, the main difference of opinion being about asylum seekers.

But there was nothing on a sustainable society or continuous growth. Damn disappointing. HUGE omissions, Mr Jones!

(Yeah I know; I shoulda had a question prepared to present to the man. Shame on me for not doing so!)

Trouble is, the Greens are just not doing what Bob espouses! Or I should say; they are doing about 10% of it at best! Or so it seems. Or is it the media that gives this impression?

Ludwig,
"Trouble is, the Greens are just not doing what Bob espouses! Or I should say; they are doing about 10% of it at best! Or so it seems. Or is it the media that gives this impression?"

Unfortunately, the mainstream media paints a false picture of the Greens. They either totally fail to report, misreport or distort the truth for their own, or should I say for those they represent, political agenda.
I think The Labor government is suffering from very much the same problem. Let me say I am no a friend of Labor and much of their woes are of their own doing, but having said that, the likes of the Murdick and other sections of the right wing media have been running a 'get Labor' campaign for some time now and its working.

<< Unfortunately, the mainstream media paints a false picture of the Greens >>

Sure they do Paul. Bob was absolutely scathing of the Murdoch press last night.

But as with Labor, that is certainly not the whole story.

The thing I like about the Greens is we are very strong on policy and policy development. I'm not saying I agree 100% with all our policies. We have a 'all members being involved' process when it comes to policy development, which is a very democratic process. I can not say the same for the Liberal or Labor parties. In fact, particularly the Liberals, seem to be very thin on policy, basically its "all will be revealed before the next election stuff." Where do they stand on industrial relations, taxation etc. Labor seem to announce policy on the run, what will Julia announce next week.
The media focus on the politics of the 'personality' and not on the substance of policy. The carbon tax is a good example, its controversial, and the media have not been backward in making it so, its political, Abbott has seen to that, but at the end of the day its not that big a deal as some would have it. I support a carbon tax but if Gillard was to announce no carbon tax today, it would not be the end of the world for me, life goes on. Who ever anyone commits their vote to, should do it based on that person or parties policy not on personalities as defined by the media etc.

Paul,

"The thing I like about the Greens is we are very strong on policy and policy development."

Part of developing policy is doing the costing and producing a balanced budget. For all the criticism of Labor/liberal, the greens have never bothered. Their "policies" are a collection of uncosted wish lists, from every interest group.

Enjoyed watching Bob Brown on Q&A last night. He really is a truly great Australian and political debate will be poorer for his absence. Bob Brown will no doubt continue in other ways.

I hope the Greens without Bob will continue to raise the elephants in the room where no other party will tread eg. on wage disparity, corporate and government accountability, mining tax, environmental protection and the like.

It really worries me watching the new Lib governments in QLD and NSW. Will it be open slather now for big business with little accountability. Looks like Newman is all ready to do away with any sort of environmental consideration. QLD will be the poorer for it in many years to come without a pristine barrier reef and kowtowing to the mining companies to wreck at will.

New governments but same question - where is the leadership and the long term vision? Will it be just another mate's parliament.