http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/milne-shrugs-off-greens-poll-slump-20120904-25bxh.html

The Greens' primary vote dropped to 8 per cent in yesterday's Newspoll, its lowest level in 3 1/2 years, with electoral analysts partly attributing the decline to the implementation of the carbon tax and the party's refusal to back a compromise deal on boat arrivals.

Also Labor has been making more grandiose unfunded promises than the Greens ever managed, leaving the greens with a severely depleted dialogue.

YES! and much further down to go.
Let us however,after stepping around our authors slanted view, be careful still warm.
See the polls are,while pointing to a Liberal landslide win, highlighting both leaders have the popularity of a wet rat at a garden party.

Turnbull made inroads to Abbotts position at Perth last night. The man talks sense, and in an orderly way.

The amazing thing is how high the Greens’ level of support has been, given how far off the planet they are!

From the linked article:

< Senator Milne said the Greens had work to do in the Parliament on "serious issues" such as education reform and bringing Australia's troops home from Afghanistan. >

Erm… what about a couple of other serious issues, like the development of a sustainable society, with the stabilisation of our population as the first and most important component?

..and the complete stop to onshore asylum seeking and a redirection of our humanitarian efforts into the right channels, instead of the Greens’ atrocious policies of the facilitation and expansion of erratic boat arrivals??

It is no wonder at all that they are in decline.

The old saying, given enough rope has worked against the greens, as well as the independents, as both will be a forgotten memory come the next election.

The only reason they received the support in the first place was due to voter dissatisfaction of their own parties, both labor and libs.

Many saw these as the only alternatives and many of those same voters are now realizing that giving your vote to a minority is worthless, as they simply side with one of the majors, the very majors they ran away from in the first place.

The greens are simply poison in my view and deserve the failing support they are receiving right now.

Rehctub, Lib and Lab are poison in my view, with the critically bad maximised rate of immigration and utterly antisustainable direction that they are taking this country in.

It gives an alternative party a huge opportunity to develop a policy platform in strong opposition to this, which would surely gain a great deal of support.

Such a policy platform should be totally in line with a green philosophy. But alas, for reasons that I just can’t work out, the Greens have completely missed it!

I was hoping for a positive change with the departure of Bob Brown. But we’ve seen NOTHING of the sort!

This country desperately needs a strong third party, which runs counter to the never-ending rapid-expansion in-bed-with-vested-interest-big-business Lib/labs.

But alas, the Greens just aint it!

Voting Green has always seemed to me to be either a luxury vote or a sign of frustration, never one of any particular conviction.

I suspect that much of the Green support comes from the vast army of public servants, who are essentially a form of middle-class welfare recipient. They are answerable only to themselves, and have been largely protected - through endemic featherbedding - from any economic variations. They are therefore able to apply themselves to the woolly, feel-good, non-commercial aspects of our society - hence the "luxury vote".

There are now signs however that they might be more exposed to the winds of economic change than they imagined, as government largesse becomes an increasingly visible lead weight on our survival through these hard times. Hence an increasing desire for a more mature and pragmatic approach to public policy. Which, sadly, has never been a strong point for the Greens.

The frustration vote, on the other hand, is the "I loathe both major parties, perhaps if I vote for these Greens it might wake them up a bit".

As we can now see, this has been a disastrous choice, handing power to a bunch of folk whose starlight-and-moonbeam ideas diverge from reality at every possible opportunity, frustrating any and every attempt to frame coherent policy.

Instead of throwing their vote away, as they had intended, they single-handedly created the mess that we have endured through this parliament. And I suspect they are beginning to realize it.

I rather think that the fall in Greens' support is a reflection of their extreme position in the recent refugee debate.
The Greens lost sight of that old truth, 'Politics is the art of the doable'.
The Greens clung to a position that was politically completely not doable.
And now, quite rightly, they're paying the political price for it.
If the Greens want a place at the grownups' table, they have to think and act like grown ups.
In my view, saying to the electorate, 'If we don't get exactly what we want, then we won't play', is definitely not acting like a grown up.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

I just read Turnbull's speech last night, and I totally agree with 579's comment.
What Malcolm said, should have been said a long time ago.
He's the only one who could pull me back into the Coalition fold.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

The Greens' position on the boat people is that Australia should observe all the provisions of the Convention on Refugees which it has signed on to. Not to observe that convention is a treaty violation. The fact that both the government and the opposition have agreed to ignore the treaty does not justify the violation of the treaty.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html will direct one to information concerning the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol.

I am a Green and wish they would concentrate more on working for a sustainable society. However, their position on asylum seekers is one of the things they have got right.

Here you go, Ludwig. This'll warm the cockles of your heart.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-06/coal-fired-stations-1b-better-off-under-carbon-tax/4246100

David,
You are correct to point out that only the Greens' position is consistent with our treaty obligations.
It's a sad commentary on us as a society that meeting our international obligations is simply not politically doable.
I also support much of what the Greens stand for, especially on the environment, but also on the refugee issue, but I do find it frustrating that the Greens seem to prefer 100% of nothing rather than some percentage, even a small one, of something.
If the Greens could only understand that there is simply no way to get from where we are today as a nation to where they would like us to be, (and where a great many Australians would like to see us), in a single step.
But rather than go with a small step in the right direction and then get to work on the next step, the Greens seem to prefer to remain ideologically pure and make no progress; in fact, by these poll numbers, go backward.
Most frustrating.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

david f - take a look at a map of countries that signed the refugee convention here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Now look how many countries these people coming here could go that are much closer than Australia but don't instead they come thousands of miles - most are economic refugees or as I say welfare for lifers.

Dear Anthonyve,

I agree that 100% of nothing gets one nowhere. However, they exist and have members who are aware that 100% of nothing gets one nowhere. The realisation may penetrate that one can take small steps to reach a goal. I see little hope in the government and opposition for even taking samll steps toward the goal. I had hopes of Kelvin Themson, the Labor MP, who is concerned with adopting a sustainable population policy. However, in the recent charge of the Ruud brigade he backed Ruud who is for a BIG Australia. Babies and migrants to the right and left of them volleyed and thundered.

Off shore processing and everything in the pacific solution complied with the letter of UNHCR treaty. That it does not apply with the Green's interpretation is irrelevant.

The combination of the Looney "provide the asylum seekers with a taxi service" and the impact on households of the carbon tax, the greens no longer perceived as well meaning air heads rather a costly impost to Australian families.

Australia in regard to the asylum seekers is simply repeating the pattern set in 1938 with different excuses. Crap like: “They’re really economic refugees. Australia really is observing the Refugee Convention.” The refugees are now mostly Muslim with Hindu Tamils and some others, but the pattern is the same. It is simply mean-spirited.

Rudd now has recognised the wrong Australia did in 1938. Maybe in 2086 some Australian will apologise for the actions of the current Australian government and opposition toward the asylum seekers. It will then be much too late.

http://www.jewishnews.net.au/rudd-regrets-evian-failure/18277

Referring to the 1938 conference at Evian, France, where no delegation, except the Dominican Republic, agreed to take Jews whose lives were threatened by the Nazis, Rudd said: ”What we did then as a nation was wrong. Just plain wrong.

“What we did then, in closing our hearts to the Jewish people, was unspeakably wrong,” he told an audience that included the chair of Yad Vashem Avner Shalev. “When it was all said and done and six million people were murdered, the world thought again.”

Unfortunately some don’t seem to think very hard

david f - You avoid my comment with the skill of a politician not wanting to answer something.
Again
Take a look at a map of countries that signed the refugee convention here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Now look how many countries these people coming here could go that are much closer than Australia but don't instead they come thousands of miles. WHY? because most are economic refugees

David-f,

For all your bluster, I see that essentially you have admitted that the pacific solution does not conflict with the UNHCR charter.

P.S. What imminent danger are the asylum seekers in whilst in Indonesia?

Dear Philip S.,

You apparently got your information from looking at the map. I got my information from talking with refugees. My wife was a volunteer who helped integrate refugees into Australian society by teaching them English. She can teach English without knowing the language of her students. Sure, they hope to live a better life in Australia, but their main motivation was definitely not to make more money. Australia is a land where one can speak freely, practice any or no religion and generally live a decent life without fear of arbitrary violence. I appreciate Australia and so do they.

Alexander Aan is an Indonesian who openly admitted he was an atheist. He is spending two years in prison for that offense. Australia is a country which is far more tolerant of dissenters. It could be better than it is, but it already is better in that respect than a lot of other places.

Dismiss them as economic refugees if it makes you feel better.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You accused me of bluster. Bluster - To speak loudly or in a bullying way. I have not done so. If you want me to respond to you address me politely and with respect.

david f - your whole reply to my comment does not address the fact that they have bypassed a lot of countries where they could have sought asylum, there are countries that were closer that they could have got exactly what you said they supposedly wanted.
Here is another one for you can you explain why the majority on a lot these boats are 95% men, when in Africa and Syria they are mostly women and children?

Poirot, thanks. ( :>(

.

Pericles:

<< I suspect that much of the Green support comes from the vast army of public servants, who are essentially a form of middle-class welfare recipient. They are answerable only to themselves, and have been largely protected - through endemic featherbedding - from any economic variations. They are therefore able to apply themselves to the woolly, feel-good, non-commercial aspects of our society - hence the "luxury vote". >>

Ooh…. those pooor hard-working servants of the public, striving to make your and my life better and keep us safe and healthy……. And you bag them to the hilt!

What about all the securely well-off people all over this country that are not in the public service?

They would surely have the security of a ‘luxury' vote as well.

And pensioners and welfare recipients who would not expect their benefits to be significantly different under either government.

And lots of other people who would likewise not think that there is any significant difference between the two, as it effects them or as it effects their childrens’ future.

So, the ‘luxury' vote is everywhere.

Then there is certainly the 'peeved-off-with-Lib-and-Lab' protest vote.

And the 'genuine-desire-for-something-better-than-more-of-the-same-but-never-getting-us-ahead-BS-that-Lib-and-Lab-have-imposed-upon-us-for-decades' vote.

But you have just picked out your pet-haters; the public service!

<< As we can now see, this has been a disastrous choice… >>

Why was the increased Greens vote at the last election disastrous choice? It was the level-pegging of Lib and Lab that gave the Greens their power. But even so, I can’t see that it has been one tiny little bit worse than if either of them had won by a clear majority.

Now, if the Greens had just been on the right track, we could have seen major improvements in our political arena with the current balance-of-power setup.

And if they were to find the wherewithal to get themselves onto the right track, towards a sustainable society and a properly under-control humanitarian program, then the combination of the 'luxury' vote, protest vote and genuine-desire-for-a-better-future vote could see them really surge into a position of great power.

David,

Like many English words, there are often different nuances of meaning. Given that this is a written thread, Loud is probably not a component of the meaning. Another meaning that does apply is "indignant talk with little effect" which captures your post with delicious accuracy.

I contended that offshore processing complied to the letter with the UNHCR charter, contrary to your statement. You reply was an emotive (and incorrect) comparison of refugees in Indonesia with Jews fleeing the holocaust, and irrelevant to the UNHCR charter.

One can't be precious and confuse criticism of what one writes with personal attacks.

I note that you still haven't linked the pacific solution with non compliance of the UNHCR Charter.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Pacific Solution is expulsion. Asylum seekers are removed from Australian territory. To arrive in a country seeking asylum is not an illegal act and expulsion is banned by the following provision of the Convention:

Article 32

expulsion

1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence lear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.

Asylum seekers are entitled to due process. Expulsion without a hearing justifying such expulsion denies them due process.

<<Australia in regard to the asylum seekers is simply repeating the pattern set in 1938…>>

It appears that some Greens think they are still living in 1938 (playing the role of hero in some Indiana Jones script saving Jews from Nazis)

Sorry to spoil your little delusion, but it is now 2012 and getting into an affluent Western country is BIG, BIG business.

And all too often, the Nazi’s are likely to be ones fleeing claiming “asylum”.

David,

The asylum seekers don't have the status of refugee until such time as they are assessed.

Secondly as the assessment process is carried out off shore while under the jurisdiction and care of Australia, the term "expelled" is not legally applicable.

As per the dictionary:

1. To force or drive out:
2. To force to leave; deprive of membership:

Either way the legal argument that refugees are being expelled is very tenuous.

Asylum seekers being taken charge of by Australians, and onboard Australian property, then taken to a foreign port. Any legalities in that.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank you for your explanation. However, they are have still been expelled, and Malaysia and other foreign countries where they may be placed whether or not under Australian supervision remain foreign countries. That is the sort of spin both government and opposition engage in when they want to argue that a violation of treaty or law is not really a violation.

David,

The Malaysian solution that actually expelled the refugees would be a violation, as would be the no advantage rule. Off shore processing in itself does not legally constitute expulsion.

Off shore processing is permitted, and gives the advantage that the asylum seekers of allowing the committee set up to review the asylum claims to have the final say without lengthy and costly legal appeals to a court system that is obliged to judge on different criteria than simply asylum status.

Also, turning the boats around and TPVs are either not covered in the charter or are permitted.

And while I am here, Ludwig...

>>Why was the increased Greens vote at the last election disastrous choice? It was the level-pegging of Lib and Lab that gave the Greens their power<<

Absolutely.

The result was that both Labor and Liberal voters were effectively disenfranchised. An outcome that, if you look at it through the lens of representative democracy as an objective concept, is pure farce.

In such a situation, the Party holding the balance of power is required to be more, not less, responsible in its conduct. Instead, we have seen the Greens exerting their influence - not by supporting or vetoing legislation, but deliberately and ruthlessly pushing its own agenda. An agenda that, as I mentioned, was not voted upon by the vast majority in the electorate.

Incidentally, this applies to the "Independents" too. In spades. It has been the most unedifying of spectacles, watching them drive their own pettyfogging local agendas, with their eyes firmly fixed on being re-elected to the bountiful cornucopia of pay-and-perks-plus-super that politicians demand as some kind of divine right.

It is in this light that the electorate appears to be saying to itself, never again. And as a consequence, squeezing the Green vote.

But heaven help us if those pesky independnets remain the decisive factor. They will finally manage to upset absolutely everyone - the Australian people, our trading partners, our friends and enemies alike - all bar the few thousand cockies whose gold-plated votes keep their pet pollies in power over us.

>>Now, if the Greens had just been on the right track, we could have seen major improvements in our political arena with the current balance-of-power setup.<<

The assumption is that Green politicians are somehow different from all other politicians, when it comes to the exercise of personal power. Newsflash: they are not. They are just another band of chancers, out to feather their own nests at the expense of the long-suffering people of Australia.

Maybe not, Ludwig.

>>What about all the securely well-off people all over this country that are not in the public service? They would surely have the security of a ‘luxury' vote as well.<<

One reason why these people are comfortably off could be that they have been sufficiently successful at their businesses to know that the Greens do not represent any single aspect of the foundations of that success. It would be difficult to imagine a group more determinedly anti-business than the Greens. In fact, if you could find one - just one - of their policies that promotes a healthy business environment, I'd be very interested to hear it.

>>And pensioners and welfare recipients who would not expect their benefits to be significantly different under either government.<<

Oh, I think you may be wrong there. I suspect that this category has a very limited time horizon - down to a matter of next week in the case of the benefit recipient. In which case they surely would be voting for for a government that looks after their immediate future. Most of the Green policies seem dedicated to turning everyone into altruistic tree-huggers, whose imagined future consists of communing with nature from the discomfort of an unheated mud hut. Hardly a short-term selection.

>>...those pooor hard-working servants of the public, striving to make your and my life better and keep us safe and healthy... And you bag them to the hilt!<<

I specifically exempt those who actually work for a living - the nurses, the teachers, the police, the firemen, the ambulance drivers - from my overall view of public servant hangers-on. It's the pen-pushers, the flower-pickers, the committees that have no end-point, the army of State and Federal do-nothings, the endless departments of this and that, whose sole objective is to create the maximum of paperwork and generate the minimum of action, whose pampered existence I find parasitical.

If they ever stopped to think about it, of course, they'd realize that their jobs would not last long under a Green government.

The country simply couldn't afford to keep them.

david f - on page 3 you made a comparison to the Jews in 1938 which you thought was a good point.
But it seems like even the Jews don't want the refugees, Israel has been building a fence along the 260km-long frontier with Egypt to keep them out and yesterday they turned away 17 and let in 2 women and a child. By the photo the 17 were all men just like we are getting 95% on most boats.

Dear Philip S,

Yes, Israel and other places have turned refugees away. It is not news that people and governments can be hard-hearted. Countries also have a limited capacity to take in refugees. However, the number of undocumented aliens who come into Australia is a very small percentage of the population compared to those who have come into the US and Europe. Both the government and opposition in Australia are making something into a problem which is not a problem. They get people all excited over a few boat people that could probably be easily absorbed into the population. SPQR compares the boat people to Nazis. Others exploit the fear of terrorists. Terrorists can get into countries legally as the 9/11 bunch did.

I think the comparison with the Jewish refugees from Hitler is a very good one. Some of those turned away by Australia and repatriated have been murdered. Fear of the stranger is common. Those of a different religion, different coloured skin or a strange culture are suspect. Nothing is all all new about that. Irish, Chinese, Jews, whatever have all been objects of suspicion in Anglo cultures. This is just more of the same.

Dear Davidf

<<SPQR compares the boat people to Nazis>>

A little clarification is in order, for as we (should) know the refugee industry is in the habit of re-writing things to suit it purposes.

What SPQR said was: << too often, the Nazi’s are likely to be ones fleeing claiming “asylum”>>

Now it is a fact (unpalatable as it may be to refugee activists) that “dozen of young men” who we accepted out of the goodness of our great big humanitarian hearts were reported by their community leaders as having returned to fight for al-Shabaab.

And, I put it to you that the closest thing we have to the Waffen-SS nowadays are groups like al-Shabaab.

And it is/was by no means an isolated incident.

<< Fear of the stranger is common. Those of a different religion, different coloured skin or a strange culture are suspect. Nothing is all all new about that. Irish, Chinese, Jews, whatever have all been objects of suspicion in Anglo cultures. This is just more of the same.>>

It has little to do with (your clichéd) “fear of the other” –and much more to do with disgust at the way “asylum seekers” abuse the system.

Dear SPQR,

You wrote: "Now it is a fact (unpalatable as it may be to refugee activists) that “dozen of young men” who we accepted out of the goodness of our great big humanitarian hearts were reported by their community leaders as having returned to fight for al-Shabaab."

What is your source for the statement above?

Dear Davidf,

<<What is your source for the statement above?>>

If I am able to reference it with a suitable (lefty) source(s) will it change your mind set one iota?

Dear SPQR,

If you can substantiate your statement the ideology of the source doesn't matter. Some of the asylum seekers may be dirty dogs. In a any bunch of people we can find some lowlifes. Some cops may be bent. Some soldiers may be gormless louts. That does not mean all cops, soldiers and asylum seekers are nogoods.

However, I think there has been an undue emphasis on the boat people by both major parties. This has served to obscure the consideration of more important problems. Malcolm Turnbull has made that point. Your statement that I cited may be true or it may be simply more vilification of asylum seekers. Citing the source would help me to evaluate the truth of it.

One of the problems with dividing people into lefties and righties is that you know longer have to think of them as individuals. I would rather not divide people up that way.

Dear Davidf,

<<If you can substantiate your statement… Some of the asylum seekers may be dirty dogs. In a any bunch of people we can find some lowlifes>>

So I see you already have prepared your escape clause: no matter how many cases/examples I cite it will still be just a few “dirty dogs”!

Just by way of an aside: It is rather ironic that you described/implied the individuals in my example were “dirty dogs”.
i) Given the individuals have shown their commitment to the fundamentalist cause , and
ii) Given what fundamentalists think of dogs.

Events around the adventures of David Hicks, have demonstrated that going overseas to fight for fundamentalist causes is not actionable under Australian law. However, events around the Eatock v Bolt case have shown that offending minority sensibilities is very much actionable under Australian law. I mean, it would be quite tragic if the individuals involved turned around and sued you –tragic, but in a way –poetic justice(And I'd feel duty bound to offer myself a witness for the prosecution!)

Anyway that link, here’s a couple of the Australian sources (there are overseas sources citing similar happenings in the US & Europe)
“dozens of young men to return to their homeland to join Islamic jihadis against the Ethiopian-backed Somali forces…”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/somalia-jihad-drive-probed/story-e6frg6of-1111115033793
“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

What it demonstrates is not that here is case of a few dirty dogs –but:
1) Our vetting processes are full of holes (remember when we used to be told our processes were stringent and thorough --LOL), and
2) It is not our liberal-pluralistic values that are attracting many of our new citizens

SPQR wrote: "<<If you can substantiate your statement… Some of the asylum seekers may be dirty dogs. In a any bunch of people we can find some lowlifes>>

So I see you already have prepared your escape clause: no matter how many cases/examples I cite it will still be just a few “dirty dogs”!

Why is it necessary for you to denigrate me by accusing me of preparing an escape clause? However, the discussion was about the boat people. Remember - not documented immigrants who the stories referred to.

85% of refugees still on welfare after being here over 5 years is a compelling enough reason for me to not want them. Welfare for lifers.
Also 95% on most boats are men there is something seriously wrong with that figure because all other refugee centers in Africa Syria etc the majority are women and children.

To restate my contention: The government and the opposition have made the boat people into a great matter of discussion and concentrated on them to the exclusion of other matters.

The items that SPQR cited had nothing at all to do with the boat people.

Philip S, what is the source of your statistics and does it have anything at all to do with the boat people?

Dear David f,

<<However, the discussion was about the boat people. Remember - not documented immigrants who the stories referred to>>

It’s about asylum seekers/recipients to be exact.

So how do you propose the people in question entered OZ, David –our skilled migrant program?

Here’s a little more information which will hopefully clarify their origin:

<< In recent years we have seen thousands of new migrants from Africa… Of the 13,000 people accepted under Australia's refugee and humanitarian program in 2004-05, about 70 per cent were from Africa>>
<< about 10,000 are Somalis living in Melbourne…>>
<<Yesterday The Age reported warnings by an international Islamic scholar and leader of Sydney's Somali community that young Somali men were being drawn in by supporters of terrorism in Somalia and might even be used for attacks in Australia. In a speech to the Melbourne Somali community last night, Dr Herse Hilole said some Somalis had returned to Somalia from Melbourne and Sydney to take part in jihad, and some had been killed. Other Somali leaders in Melbourne deny Australian Somalis are engaged in jihad here or abroad>>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/making-australia-home-for-african-migrants/2007/04/13/1175971346880.html

Dear SPQR,

I called the boat people asylum seekers, and that is what I was talking about. The fact that terrorism is a threat and is more of a threat in the Islamic community than in other sections of the population I agree with. I think the boat people are less of a threat than those who got here through regular channels. They have been built up as a bogeyman.

SPQR - Something you missed the Victoria police made the following unprecedented statement. Quote "Police have expressed concern over new figures that show Somali and Sudanese-born Victorians are five times more likely to commit crime than the wider community." "A lot of the offences that we're concerned about are assaults and street robberies,"
This is a rather general statement but I believe assaults and street robbery are usually not crimes associated with working people so here we probable have welfare bludgers as well.

Dear SPQR,

<<I think the boat people are less of a threat than those who got here through regular channels>>

And how can you make that determination, David ?

Our “regular channels” , and the regular channels of both the US & the Afghan govts, are incapable of
vetting/determining who is a genuine recruit and who is a Taliban implant!

For many years Australians were told (by our betters in the refugee industry) that:

1) All “asylum seekers” were thoroughly vetted.
2) That those we accepted were “proven to be genuine”
3) That they sought sanctuary in OZ because they aspired to our pluralistic values

Recent events are showing that all of the above have been a fantasy.

Anyway David, I leave it there, I can see you are set in your ways.
And you no doubt have something more pressing to do this fine spring morning --like maybe, picket a detention centre.

Hi PhillipS,

<<you missed the …Somali and Sudanese-born [crime rates] >>

No PhillipS I didn’t miss it.

The refugee industry has already formulated its response to that finding/charge –it’s all to do with “DISCRIMINATION”

The police are “agen ‘em”
The law is “agen ‘em”
The system is “agen ‘em”

I was watching a Q&A session a couple of months back where representatives of our new East African citizens were complaining, in broken English, that they were finding it hard to get jobs and it could only be because of discrimination.

Cheers

SPQR - they like to bring out the discrimination and racist card when it suits them, but the facts don't lie in this instance.
I remember about a year ago a whole group of Africans went around the CBD in Melbourne bashing and robbing people who were by themselves a number were hospitalized 1 seriously.

The good news is that the Greens drop in primary vote is not just a statistically blip, as the results from council elections show that they got hammered at local government level too.

Heard the greens wanted to re name the Navy ships picking up the refugees, HMAS TAXI!
Silly as it seems it is nothing compared to Liberals plan.end all refugees from Ceylon as we once knew it back home.
On the record!
First against the law of the refugees convention.
Then? they are not a signature to the UNHCR!
Bring on Malaysian solution.

<< I specifically exempt those who actually work for a living - the nurses, the teachers, the police, the firemen, the ambulance drivers - from my overall view of public servant hangers-on. It's the pen-pushers, the flower-pickers… >>

Hold on Pericles, I’m sure that if you thought about it a bit more, you’d see the merit in lot of other sections of the public service. What about main roads, environment, rubbish collection…. and on into a very long list.

Sure there are inefficiencies and misprioritisations ...and the police would be as bad any department in this regard ...but generally speaking the PS is a pretty damn necessary part of our society.

As a former flower-picking public servant, I’ve got to say that my role and the role of my unit was very important, in striving to find the right balance between rural productivity and environmental protection, and in furthering our knowledge of the Queensland flora so that we would have a better basis for planning for its protection, in the face of ever-increasing human activity. This is a very real and important public service, if I do say so myself!

But you being you, you would have formed the opinion that a botanist in the PS would be one of the most superficial and least service-oriented jobs possible, yes?

Your oft-repeated lambasting of the public service seems to me to sit in stark contrast to your very good intellect and highly articulate writings on this forum.

What’s that you say?

Ohh, yeayus, this thread is about the Greens, not the PS!

Umm…. alright... What can I say about the Greens?!

I think all I can say is that is pretty much agree with you re your first post of 7 Sept!

Flattery will get you nowhere, Ludwig.

>>Your oft-repeated lambasting of the public service seems to me to sit in stark contrast to your very good intellect and highly articulate writings on this forum<<

But I'm a sucker for it , so thank you anyway.

>>This is a very real and important public service, if I do say so myself! But you being you, you would have formed the opinion that a botanist in the PS would be one of the most superficial and least service-oriented jobs possible, yes?<<

One of them, yes. From a "very long list".

My concerns - the "lambasting" - starts with politicians, and moves on to include every facet of the public service that remains unaccountable to anyone except itself. Including, I should point out, the lack of accountability for its presence on the public payroll in the first place. I am sure that you worked in an area of high perceived value - hence your pride in the work you performed. But in general, that value is rarely, if ever, tested properly in the real world.

We have become accustomed to pouring billions of dollars of taxpayers money into activities that are never financially justified to the taxpayer, or justified on some form of political whim, separate from any mandate upon which they were elected, or simply undertaken on a "this will run well in the Press" feelgood basis.

In my view these exercises represent the single largest source of wasted productive potential in our economy.

<< We have become accustomed to pouring billions of dollars of taxpayers money into activities that are never financially justified to the taxpayer >>

Yes, some of the time. One example I can think of think of straight away is 110million$ WASTED on upgrading the Bruce Highway across the Cardwell Range half way between Townsville and Cairns. A totally unnecessary project.

But as far as regional ecosystem mapping and the management of tree-clearing legislation and all manner of other environmental regulations that I was involved with, I would have the most vehement disagreement with you about it being or not being a fundamentally important part of the public service.

This comes down to the core of our disagreement over the last several years:

You desire minimalist government with as little ‘interference’ in our lives as possible, while I will maintain that that would be a recipe for disaster, in which the powerful and aggressive would come to rule the roost.

I desire strong governance, which leads us in the right direction rather than just pandering to the short-term wishes of the people or big business, and which has a very broad and efficient public service to uphold a high standard of services and law enforcement across the board.

Environmental regulation is a core duty of government, and a strong environment department is very important. Contrary to your belief, I would say emphatically that it should be a whole lot larger and better resourced….. at least in Queensland!

I wonder what the Greens would do in this regard if they won power in their own right?

Ludwig - If the Greens won power under their immigration policy of let everyone come Australia would not last, it would be full of welfare for lifers supported by the taxpayer in no time. the greens would facilitate this by having all the Navy ships go to Indonesia, Malaysia, SriLanka and every other country to bring them back. It does not matter that very few speak English or want to work under the Greens the more that come the better, for the life of me I don't know why but that is what they want.

To give a little more insight into my concerns over government intervention/spending, Ludwig, this paragraph in The Economist caught my eye the other day, and encapsulates my thoughts quite accurately. Particularly the last sentence.

"Modern governments play a much larger role in the economy than the ancient Greeks or the founding fathers could have imagined. This makes political leaders a huge source of patronage, in the form of business contracts, social benefits, jobs and tax breaks. As the late political scientist, Mancur Olson, pointed out, these goodies are highly valuable to the recipients but the cost to the average voter of any single perk will be small. So beneficiaries will have every incentive to lobby for the retention of their perks and taxpayers will have little reason to campaign against them. Over time the economy will be weighed down by all these costs, like a barnacle-encrusted ship"

http://www.economist.com/node/21561932

It has been the boiling frog syndrome, which affects governments - or, more strictly speaking, government-paid workers - just as much as it does industry's approach to CEO pay. What starts off as a good idea is manipulated for personal gain by the participants, eventually reaching a point where it is a) anomalous and b) uncontrollable.

The fundamental problem that I see is the disconnect between action and accountability. While you may view the management of tree-clearing legislation, to use just one example of many thousands, as a vital part of government's mandate to look after its population, I question its value to society as a whole, and whether the money is being spent productively and beneficially. All the arguments I have seen are perfectly circular: the government does these things because it is the government's job to do these things.

Nothing personal, you see. Just a visceral reaction against large-scale wastage.

Pericles, we are in full agreement about the need for better efficiency, and about some aspects of the public service or of government as a whole going a little off the rails from time to time!

But don’t you think we need more rather than less public service effort in health, education, public infrastructure, environmental management, and just about every other area?

We are seeing more and more privatisation of public services. But despite the inefficiencies in the public service, costs have generally increased, due to the profit motive of private enterprise.

So surely it is better to keep the public service very broad rather than to whittle it right down.

Now, I really can’t see how you could question the environmental management part of the public service. This is one area that we most definitely need a very strong regulatory regime, and the personnel to uphold it.

I would have thought that the benefits are obvious, in terms of environmental health, stopping soil erosion, large-scale land-clearing, pollution, overexploitation, threats to rare species, etc, etc, all of which are very important to a lot of people and indeed to our future wellbeing.

The fact that you do question the importance of my line of work within the public service indicates to me that you are not seeing the real issues here nor addressing the things that really need reform.

As I tried to point out, Ludwig, we are polar opposites in our views on the fundamental value of government.

And the problem is those barnacles.

>>...don’t you think we need more rather than less public service effort in health, education, public infrastructure, environmental management, and just about every other area?<<

That's a bit like saying, let's grow some more barnacles. "What we are doing is inefficient, so we should just do the same things, only more so." The nature of the beast, don't forget, is to reward itself first. Give a department head more money, and they will go out and hire a bunch more people so that their salary level increases in line with the "greater responsibility". And don't tell me it doesn't happen, because it does.

If a business decides it needs to be more efficient, guess what it does? It takes a long, hard look at which parts of the business are creating value, eliminates those that are inefficient and invests in those that are delivering. The Board generally takes a pretty dim view of a manager who says "I'm really very inefficient, but if you give me more money I'll get better."

>>Now, I really can’t see how you could question the environmental management part of the public service.<<

That's like saying "I really can’t see how you could question the health service part of the public service." I can't question the concept, because I believe in a basic level of universal care. But that doesn't stop me objecting to the fact that there are more administrators sitting on their backsides in an office with an in-tray and an out-tray, than there are workers in the hospitals looking after patients.

But you have piqued my curiosity. I confess to knowing very little about "the environmental management part of the public service". Who benefits from the work they do, and how is it measured?

And please, don't say "everyone benefits". You must have a ton of real-life examples for us to work with.

Incidentally, the disappearance of "endangered species" moves me not at all.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-stay-silent-after-abject-elections-20120912-25sn8.html
A very good read/review of the greens.
It is not a simple dislike of them, not mud slinging.
Rather like a lot of us here, it looks only at them for reason to like or not.
Of special interest to me? they lost ground in the very high income areas they grew from.
And won small but gains still, support in struggle street.
A warning, former members of the lost green tribe, are infiltrating other partys or running as independents, trying to avoid the inevitable.

<< …the problem is those barnacles. >>

Pericles, you seem to think that the efficiency of the public service is a constant and is unimprovable. So if we have a bigger PS, we will automatically have a bigger level of waste.

And if we get your desired big reduction in the PS, we will have much less misused or inefficiently used public money, end of story. The reduction of services that would accompany it doesn’t seem to matter to you.

I would have thought that you’d be pushing for considerably improved efficiency rather a much smaller PS.

<< What we are doing is inefficient, so we should just do the same things, only more so. >>

Hmmm, and yet in my last post I said:

< …we are in full agreement about the need for better efficiency… >

So um, does the same apply to your desired cuts? Again, I would have thought you’d want real improvements in efficiency to accompany any cuts so that the level of service provision wouldn’t decline significantly.

<< I can't question the concept, because I believe in a basic level of universal care. But that doesn't stop me objecting to the fact that there are more administrators sitting on their backsides in an office with an in-tray and an out-tray, than there are workers in the hospitals looking after patients. >>

So push for improvements in efficiency, not just holus bolus reductions in the size of this sector and of the whole PS!

continued

<< But you have piqued my curiosity. I confess to knowing very little about "the environmental management part of the public service". Who benefits from the work they do, and how is it measured? >>

I find this question quite extraordinary. I think I basically answered it in my last post. Come on, what do you think would happen if we had no environmental regulations?

Think of pollution, land degradation, unsustainable productivity and unsustainable ecosystems, and the old aggressive-and-ruthless-rule-the-roost syndrome would apply while those who care about the environment would be put at a huge disadvantage.

<< Incidentally, the disappearance of "endangered species" moves me not at all. >>

DEAR oh dear!!

Do you feel the same about the other things I mentioned in my last post?:

< …environmental health, stopping soil erosion, large-scale land-clearing, pollution, overexploitation… >

I asked first, Ludwig.

>> Come on, what do you think would happen if we had no environmental regulations?<<

But my question was deliberately phrased as:

>>Who benefits from the work they do, and how is it measured? And please, don't say "everyone benefits". You must have a ton of real-life examples for us to work with<<

Unfortunately, your blanket claim that your absence would result in:

>>...pollution, land degradation, unsustainable productivity and unsustainable ecosystems, and the old aggressive-and-ruthless-rule-the-roost syndrome<<

...carefully avoids the question entirely.

I am trying to ease ourselves away from such broad generalities, and focus on some instances where the benefits are measurable. The reason behind this approach is that from the outside, it looks as though there are literally hundreds of departments at all levels of government whose original justification has been lost in the mists of time. All that is left is the "we're here, because we're here, because we're here" mantra.

This is the circular argument that I alluded to before: "the government does these things because it is the government's job to do these things".

I need more concrete evidence, before I shift my stance that a) government departments are inherently inefficient, b) that increasing the size of those departments will increase the wastage, and c) that there is a whole heap of activities that those departments perform, that provide negative economic benefit to our country.

<< I confess to knowing very little about "the environmental management part of the public service". >>

And yet Pericles you are convinced that there are massive inefficiencies, self-serving mismanagement and anti-economic anti-future-wellbeing activities undertaken by this department, whether it be federal or any state environment department.

I suggest that perhaps you are simply assuming the worst without really knowing the veracity of your claims, re: environment depts or any other sections of the PS.

So perhaps you could give some examples of gross inefficiencies in depts. That you are more familiar with, and confirm that your solution to dealing with this is to simply slash staff numbers, or whether there is a better way of approaching it.

<< Unfortunately, your blanket claim that your absence would result in: >>...pollution, land degradation, unsustainable productivity and unsustainable ecosystems, and the old aggressive-and-ruthless-rule-the-roost syndrome<< ...carefully avoids the question entirely. >>

Not at all. It goes straight to the nub of the issue. I mean, you really don’t need specific examples do you? Isn’t it just completely self-evident that with a lack of regulation we’d incur all manner of environmental impacts, which would come back to haunt us economically and in terms of quality of life?

Hey, it is entirely possible that govt depts are both doing a basically satisfactory job and doing it very inefficiently at the time. So, if I was to give you the examples you want, it still wouldn't indicate good efficiency.

What we need to concentrate on is maximising efficiency, not just a simple slashing of the size of the PS.

That's probably a good point to leave it, Ludwig, as we seem to be going round in the same circle.

>>What we need to concentrate on is maximising efficiency, not just a simple slashing of the size of the PS.<<

I see these as one and the same: cut the fat, improve efficiency.

>>So, if I was to give you the examples you want, it still wouldn't indicate good efficiency.<<

Yet you are quite happy to suggest...

>>...perhaps you could give some examples of gross inefficiencies in depts<<

I have seen nothing that will shake my view that the public service is engaged in a wide variety of activities for which it does not have a specific mandate, that it is accountable to no-one but itself, and is a substantial drain on our productivity as a community.

And I suspect it would take a major explosion to shift your own view that the public service is manifestly misunderstood, is vital to the well-being of our nation, and - if only it had more people - would be a glowing example to us all of dedication and efficiency.

Have a great day. Pick a flower for me.

Yeah, I’ve had enough of discussing the boring old public service too.

Hey I picked a flower for you – a Tridax procumbens:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ricehoppers.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tridax-procumbens-l-flow.gif&imgrefurl=http://ricehoppers.net/2009/07/farm-survey-instruments-in-ecological-engineering-what-pretesting-reveals/&h=493&w=500&sz=145&tbnid=JiZJwvg23CxK_M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=91&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTridax%2Bprocumbens%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Tridax+procumbens&usg=__aP3bLx_kU0B3TX4X0py3opEu9M8=&docid=dRpMCISeb-jTZM&sa=X&ei=paJVUJnQBqSYiAfTx4DwAw&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAg&dur=32730

A common urban weed in north Queensland.

Actually, I picked about 35 flowers in one fell swoop!

What you see in the above link is not one flower but a tight head of many flowers, consisting of about 30 disk florets and 5 ray florets. Yes, that’s right; what appear to be the petals are actually separate flowers in their own right – the ray florets. That’s the nature of daisies, which comprise the huge family Asteraceae.

So there you go.

See you on another thread real soon. ( :>)