Indonesian have said they don't want Abbott turning back the boats.

Here is the hypocrisy, there is a Australian boat carrying pro-independence activists going to Indonesian Papua.

The commander of the Indonesian forces in Merauke, Brigadier General Edi Rahmayadi, on Thursday repeated previous warnings that the group would be turned around, saying there would be "no compromise".

"They cannot enter sovereign territory of our country as long as they don't have cleared document," Brig Gen Rahmayadi told AAP.

NOTICE the part about documents, Indonesia say they can turn the boat back because they don't have the correct documents BUT when Australia wants to turn around Indonesian boats with Indonesian crews full of economic refugees because they do not have the correct documents Indonesia suddenly say NO.

I hope in this instant Abbott tells Indonesia where to go, stick up for Australia.

Con't

Brigadier General Edi Rahmayadi further said

Quote
"They will not be taken to land. They will be expelled while they're on the sea."

"No compromise on that. They'll definitely not be taken to the land first."

This is what Abbott should be saying to Indonesia and pointing out the wording is exactly what they are using.

Further proof Indonesia is currupt.

Send them back by air and give them onward travel documents to their
home countries, they cannot stop them landing and if they refuse
to let them leave the aircraft, make a diplomatic incidence of it.
They could of course leave them in transit.

pro-independence activists going to Indonesian Papua.
Philip s,
They have decided not to proceed & are returning South. The decision saved a lot of unnecessary problems.

Indonesia has also rejected the scheme to pay people rewards for the prosecution of people smugglers.

My guess on this one is if caught they would start naming the high Government and police officials that they are paying bribes to.

Also they simply do not want the refugee so stopping the smugglers would leave them stuck with the so called refugees.

My guess on this one is if caught they would start naming the high Government and police officials that they are paying bribes to.
philip S,
Well, that then puts them on par with our bureaucrats. In Indonesia they call it bribes & in Australia we call it taxpayer funded Superannuation.

In Australia it is worse it is called "indexed for life taxpayer funded Superannuation."

"indexed for life taxpayer funded Superannuation"
Philip S,
99% of the recipients are left-wing peter principle appointed bureaucrats who constantly denounce conservative policies. Australia must be top-ranking in the world for supporting moral gutter dwellers.

Juliar Gillards pension for stuffing the country is approx $200,000 per year.

Gentlemen,

Why don't at least one of you Google what it costs
the taxpayer to support our former Prime-Ministers?
John Howard leads this rort by a country mile.

Foxy,
If you did your research properly you'd find that Goaf & his sparring partner Malcolm have been receiving our undeserved tax dollars for a hell of a lot more years than Howard. Another fact although it doesn't justify the amount, is the fact that Howard put that money in the coffers before they started withdrawals for his Super plus other undeserved benefits. No PM since Goaf except Howard has put anything towards their Superannuation.
The last two Dills have not only bludged their way through life but have also sent us broke.

Dear Individual,

Howard has cost the taxpayer far more than any of the previous former
PMs. And that's saying something. Plus, try to get the
facts of what Howard neglected during his time in office
that ended up costing much more to fix once he got kicked out.

The disengagement from politics has been under way for years,
driven by parties that promise growth and improved lifestyle
with no strings or sacrifice attached. Voters know this is
nonsense yet they still mark down politicians when, they don't
deliver.

Howard has cost the taxpayer far more than any of the previous former
PMs. And that's saying something.
Foxy,
aye but he's also put more money into the till than any of his successors & that's saying something also.

Dear Indy,

But at what cost to Australia?
And the neglect that crept in to our asset base is still
not rectified on many fronts - and will end up costing a fortune to
fix.

"aye but he's also put more money into the till than any of his successors...."

Howard sold $72 billion dollars worth of government assets.....

That is saying something.

Here's an example of Mr Howard's style:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/pm-notches-up-record-jet-bill/story-e6freuzi-1111114456294

"PRIME Minister John Howard has set a new record for his taxpayer-funded RAAF VIP jet taxi service between Sydney and Canberra.

Because Mr Howard chooses to live at Kirribilli House on Sydney Harbour and not at PM's official residence at The Lodge in Canberra, he uses a VIP jet to commute from home to work and back whenever Parliament sits.

During 2006 the flight bill to taxpayers was $187,530 for direct operating costs (fuel, spares, crew) or $1.6 million based on the full cost (lease, overheads) to the RAAF of operating two Boeing 737 business jets and four smaller eight-seat Canadair VIP jets for the Government."

During 2006 the flight bill to taxpayers was $187,530 for direct operating costs
Poirot,
Prime Ministerial pay history
Effective date Salary
2 June 1999 $289,270
6 September 2006 $309,270
1 July 2007 $330,356
1 October 2009 $340,704[3]
1 August 2010 $354,671[4]
1 July 2011 $366,366
1 December 2011 $440,000
15 March 2012 $481,000[5]
1 July 2012 $495,430[6]
1 July 2013 $507,338[7]
Salary
The prime minister is the highest-paid member of parliament.
Ministerial salary is expressed as an additional percentage on top of the basic parliamentary salary. The Remuneration Tribunal's Report Number 1 of 2006[8] confirms the prime minister's additional salary as 160% of her or his parliamentary salary, i.e. the prime minister earns in total 260% of the salary of an ordinary parliamentarian.
The prime minister's salary is about five times that of the average full-time adult salary of $67,116, as of February 2010.[9]

individual - The salary of US president Obama is $400,000 a year.

So our prime ministers is worth $107,338 per year more, something wrong with that.

People do not become PM of Australia or President of the US for the "salary". I don't believe Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd or Barack Obama aspired to the top job, for the pay. I can't envisage Mr Obama saying to Mrs Obama "I think I'll run for president, its pays 8 grand a week, that a lot better than I'm getting down at the car wash."

So our prime ministers is worth $107,338 per year more, something wrong with that.
Philip S,
Yes and, according to Foxy that's ok especially that the ALP PM's salary increased by almost 200 Grand since Howard the Terrible.
I find just so disgusting how much money is syphoned off by our public servants for nothing but more expenses in return.
I just hope that the Coalition will rid this country of the Peter Principle appointees from the ALP era.

Dear Indy,

Our political system needs reform.
Political candidates do have positive
qualities but when they have to be party
to pre-selection decisions that reward
patronage, not merit, it makes things
difficult.

Foxy,
glad you see it in the real light. Going back to the hypocritical & insensitive title of this thread
I would like to add that given the massive population & logistics in the indonesian archipelago they're doing several hundred times better in keeping control than our authorities have recently.
I have asked this before here, imagine 220 million Australians. Scary eh ?

BTT

PhilipS if there's one thing I've noticed about Indonesian representatives it's that they consistently put Indonesian interests first.

It was illuminating to watch the Q&A broadcast from Indonesia a while back. Despite any anti-(Indonesian)-establishment labels that might have been conferred on them the Indonesian panelists were very much for putting Indonesian interests first, and accepted little to no blame for the illegal immigration racket.

A similar ABC selected panel in Oz would have been loaded with QC's, MC's and wannabe JC's all pushing the line that Oz owed the rest world a living, and our borders should be wide open.

Not suggesting for one minute that we should all toe-the-line, but we should not be surprised when countries,like Indonesia, use every trick in the book to preserve their territorial integrity--outside of OZ it is very much the norm .Nor should we be surprised if our own border controls are hard to implement with so many hangers-on working flat out (often with govt funding) to stifle them at every turn.

I found it odd that Mr Abbott was running around during the election campaign making unilateral statements concerning Indonesia without any reference having been made to the Indonesians in the first place. His payments for information internally to Indonesian citizens and his buying boats from Indonesians. Would we tolerate the Indonesian government making like statements about Australia without any reference to our government, I think not. Mr Abbott most likely thinks we are still in the days of colonialism and he as a "superior" can dictate to the "lesser" in Asia.

I've noticed about Indonesian representatives it's that they consistently put Indonesian interests first.
SPQR,
Whose interests did you expect them to put first ? You see, they got their priorities right unlike our ALP Governments who don't put Australia's interest's first.

Dear Indy,

Which governments have the habit of selling to foreign
investors everything that's not nailed down in this
country?

I find that large tracts of Australia can be sold to
foreigners very disturbing. I don't care if the buyers
are from Indonesia, China, or elsewhere, such enormous
areas of our land should stay in Australian hands for
future generations. As one reader asked in Saturday's
The Age, (Sept. 14, 2013), "What's wrong with a clearly
defined long-term lease that includes immediate annulment
should land, water, or animal mismanagement occur?"

Once we sell them the land - they can do what they want
on it.

It really is frustrating that Indonesia won't lift
a finger to stop the boats yet it seems that we're
considering letting them buy cattle farms and give
them millions in aid. No wonder they don't take us
seriously.

Foxy,

While many might agree with your last paragraph, it was the Gillard/Greens government that approved the sale of Australia's mammoth Cubbie Station to the Chinese government.

Cubbie Station is a huge cotton farm with water rights -with water being drawn from guess where. As a tip, the property runs along 28 kms of the Culgoa which is part of the Murray-Darling Basin system.

Whichever side of government allows Australian land and water to be sold as commodities to foreign interests, they always step behind bureaucrats to defend themselves, in this case the Foreign Investment Review Board.

Mr Swan and the Gillard/Greens government of which he was the federal Treasurer were willing to put China's arable land, water and energy security beyond Australia's.

Forget political parties, what is needed in government is transparency of decisions and frequent independent audits.

Dear OTB,

Well stated and valid.

Thank You.

Thank you.

What is also forgotten is foreign ownership of trophy real estate.

As a general comment, comments being made by the Indonesians are just part of their hard-ball negotiating style. They won $$ and concessions from the outgoing PM and they want to double-dip from the incoming government. Unfortunately diplomacy is about that.

Dear OTB,

I don't envy any government in having to deal with the
Indonesians.

And talking about diplomacy ...

I've just finished reading an article in the Saturday Age,
Sept. 14, 2013, written by Paul Barratt (former secretary
Department of Defence), and others. They express their
concern of:

" The US President's seeking
US congressional and international approval to launch
a punitive military action against the government of
Syria, which would almost certainly bring further suffering
and disruption to populations in the region."

"The newly-elected Australian government may soon have to
decide whether, how and under what circumstances Australia
would support our major ally in another armed intervention
in the Middle East."

They ask the pertinent question:

"How and by whom should a decision to send Australian troops to
war be made - by the Prime Minister or by a broader
consultative process?"

Foreign ownership should be restricted to citizens of countries which allow ownership for Australians in return. No ifs no buts.
Foreign aid can be structured that only goods & services are provided, no money. Indonesia could possibly come to the party if Australia said the less boats that arrive in australian territory or waters the more foreign aid will be coming their way.
Australia could actually re-stimulate a lot of manufacturing industry by using australian made products as foreign aid.
The rich in poor countries have enough wealth, they don't need any cash from us. Their poor don't need money either, they need goods that can't be stolen from them by their rich.
It really is as simple as it sounds.

individual,
It is not that long ago that we were actually supplying the Russian Army with Greatcoats because we produced the best woo and made the best material. I think the company was Onkiparinga or something like that. Now we have no wool, no mills and no market.
We are even now importing water from New Zealand.

"it is not that long ago that we were actually supplying the Russian Army with Greatcoats"
chrisgaff1000 please tell me it was not to the "Bolshwviks" not only were they about to invade us, so said Pig Iron Bob, now I find out after all these years they were going to be warm doing it. Did we ever sell rice to the Yellow Peril, please tell me its not so.
"We are even now importing water from New Zealand" and Fiji, after all we are a dry continent and some parts don't get much rain. Could tell Barry to turn on the desal plant at Kurnell, after all its costing the NSW taxpayer enough, we could buy all the water in New Zealand for the cost of it. LOL

Did we ever sell rice to the Yellow Peril,
Paul1405,
I am surprised you're still using that outdated racist term. It won't get you any mileage here.
However, some Australians have actually sold their land to Chinese instead of keeping it in australian ownership. Talk about money being king.

Dear Individual,

The government just borrowed $800 million
probably to buy back Indonesian boats.
This will undoubtedly fuel the boat-building industry
in Indonesia. - They'll be able to build more boats
and transport more people over here.

Unfortunately Foxy my sweet, our new government is going to have to borrow money for a few years, just to make the interest payments on Labors wasteful spending on the credit card.

They are going to have to drop some of Labors projected spending on NBNs, NDIS & Gonski among other things, or the borrowing to pay the interest bill will still be required when our grand kids are old & grey.

Foxy,
That's not how it works. They'll only get compensated once or so my guess goes. They'd then be wasting all that money on a second boat for which they won't get compensated & get imprisoned on top of that. I don't know where you get your 800 million from as the average boat over there is probably no more that 15-20 grand if that. I have yet to see a good indonesian boat bringing illegals, they only use clapped-out old tubs which their chinese owners count on losing anyway.

Dear Hasbeen,

Don't worry so much about your grandkids.
Things will move at a much faster pace than that
under this government. You should worry about where
you'll end up in your old age.

Dear Individual,

I was merely being facetious (tongue lodged firmly
in my cheek). This was my attempt at a bit of humour
on Australian politics.

"I am surprised you're still using that outdated racist term. It won't get you any mileage here." I was being rather flippant with that reference, Indi it was your Tory Party of Australia, led by the founding father of today's Liberal Party, Bob Menzies, that constantly push the line that the "Yellow Peril" was heading our way, in the 1970's John Howard pushed the same line, has he changed his view. At what point in time did The Liberal Party decide it wasn't so, and they had got it wrong. Like so many other things history shows the conservatives are very good at getting it wrong.

Like so many other things history shows the conservatives are very good at getting it wrong.
Paul1405,
That's not even ignorant, that's outright idiotic.

Dear Individual,

No Paul's right.

That's not saying that stupid people are conservative.
Although many conservatives happen to be stupid.

Foxy,
Examples please of things more wrong from the Coalition than those attributable to Labor.

@Paul1405,

<<history shows the conservatives are very good at getting it wrong>>

Your Green party briefings do not pass for "history".

To get things wrong you have to be in the contest. The Greens have never been in the contest!