Seems the Abbott government has come up with a new asylum seeker policy. Indeed, it could prove a real financial winner for the enterprising criminals who profit from the disgusting trade of smuggling desperate asylum seekers to Australia, figures of $5,000 to $6,000 for each scum bucket has been thrown around. Not only do these pirates of the high seas profit from the payments made by their human cargo, they nay also now be on Abbott's payroll. Abbott has been ducking and weaving when confronted with the question of our Government actually paying these criminals a bonus to conduct ocean cruises with desperate people on board, around the Timor Sea, then return their human cargo from whence it come, or some other place, not that Abbott would much care. The ducking and weaving by Abbott is a dead set give away that the story is true. How do others on the forum feel about their tax dollars being paid to these low life criminals?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-refuses-to-say-whether-australia-paid-people-smugglers-20150612-ghmo9v.html

Well, it is immoral to pay others to hurt and cheat.

Relatively however, it is not as immoral as the other things the Australian government is doing in that regard, such as actively stopping boats on the high seas and arresting the people in them: that is even worse - that is true piracy, not what the people-smugglers are doing, which is "merely" theft and fraud.

The courageous and moral solution is for Australia to withdraw from the refugee convention, whose spirit it doesn't intend to keep anyway.

Withdrawing from the convention would enable Australia to allow refugees who do somehow manage to arrive at its shores to be here, but without giving them any social handouts or a legal status as the convention requires. This in turn will drastically reduce the number of arrivals, especially of economic migrants, without the need for criminal behaviour near Indonesian shores in which the Australian government currently engages.

Paul,
Asylum seekers lie about this sort of thing all the time, remember the false accusations of cruelty and torture made against RAN personnel? Boat people are in the main criminals on the run, desperate certainly but their testimony can be taken with a grain of salt.
Has it ever crossed your mind that even if the ship's companies involved in the return were paid by Border Force agents that they may have been legitimate contractors hired from an Indonesian port to ferry the passengers back to their point of departure and not "people smugglers"? After all the boat people claimed they were apprehended, transferred to a customs vessel for four days and then embarked on different vessels for their return journey, it sounds to me like a legitimate arrangement. That would also explain the secrecy on the part of the government, they would need to protect the identities of the contractors lest they be targeted by the gangsters and corrupt officials who run the smuggling routes.

Dear Paul,

The Immigration Minister has denied it.
The Foreign Affairs Minister has also denied it.
The Prime Minister has refused to either deny or
confirm it. So it's a ripe old mess.

Should we pay people smugglers?
Of course not!
That would be insane.
It would encourage more boats - as it would become
a business model. The people smugglers could then
buy new boats, transport more people - knowing
that they'd be making money not only from the
poor desperate boat people they're transporting
but from the Australian government as well.
For the people smugglers it would be a never-ending
source of money and a win-win situation.
For Australia - it would be a disaster.
It would also affect our relationship with Indonesia -
who is currently asking for explanations from our
government.

What a stuff up - all round.
But not answering questions about this matter does not
help. The voters deserve answers as does the Indonesian
government.

I would say, that as it is going to cost Oz taxpayers at least $50,000 each, up front for each gate crashing illegal that makes it to Oz, it is a bargain.

In fact, in view of the proven long term cost of keeping these gate crashers on welfare, a hundred thousand dollars for each one stopped would be damn good value.

Of course we must not train people smugglers to see this as a new business opportunity, & we most definitely must not worry the sensibilities of our greens. Their constitutions are not able to handle too much of the real world. After life with the fairies at the bottom of the garden, these facts of life in the real world are a bit hard for them to handle.

Hasbeen,

"Of course we must not train people smugglers to see this as a new business opportunity..."

Like dangling $$$ their way?....in the vicinity of "... a hundred thousand dollars for each one stopped"...which...."would be damn good value."

This is Abbott's best debacle yet - and even the likes of Hasbeen can't decide quite how to defend it.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/indonesian-police-chief-hidayat-confirms-wads-of-cash-paid-to-people-smugglers-20150614-ghn9et.html

"Fairfax Media is aware of the contents of a detailed official report submitted to the Indonesian National Police in Jakarta, who are now also investigating the incident, and has seen photographs of stacks of $US100 bills allegedly paid to the boat crew.

The report outlines claims by the boat's captain, Yohanis Humiang, that an Australian official gave each of the six crew members $US5000 on the condition they never engage in people smuggling again."

"Another source showed Fairfax Media a photograph of six stacks of $US100 bills with the serial numbers and names of the people who were supposed to receive the money. The photo forms part of the report to the National Police.

The crew asked for the money be sent to their villages but for now it is still at Rote police station."

And this one is not merely a localised outrage - the world press is all over it.

BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-33105531

CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/12/asia/australia-smuggling-payment-claims/index.html

Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/12/us-australia-indonesia-asylum-idUSKBN0OS08Q20150612

Jakarta Post
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/06/13/indonesia-demands-answers-australia-asylum-boat-payment.html-0

BBC - Manus Island
http://linkis.com/www.bbc.com/news/0nQ80

To name a few....

What interests me is that we are alleged to have paid each crew member about $5K each to turn around but aren't the passengers supposed to be paying $10K plus each for the trip?

I realise the crew aren't necessarily the smugglers who are taking the passengers' money and are probably just hired lackeys but they would have some explaining to do when they get back.

What happened to those Vietnamese fishing boats we bought to replace the fibreglass ones we use to send them back.

It seems we are spending a lot of money on boats that have "stopped".

Nevertheless I believe it happened and makes us an international joke.

There are countries where it is alleged that officialdom and entrepreneurs make tidy sums from welcoming economic migrants and facilitating their smuggled, illegal entry to the target countries of their choosing.

The first priority must be to break their business model. The best way of doing that is to prove to the economic migrants that the criminal people smugglers do not deliver what they promise.

In short, restore as best we can the Pacific Solution of John Howard that was destroyed by Kevin Rudd, who was later was disgraced and reviled by his own Labor party for his poor judgement, refusal to take advice and general stuff-ups.

This was outrageous and how soon some forget,

http://tinyurl.com/na5ll3b

Personally, this whole People Smuggling racket, is beyond me ? If a 'leaky boat' attempts to land on an Aussie territory, with the clear intent to disembark illegitimate refugees, than the government should do all things possible to prevent such a landing, without the need of a some government figure unwittingly becoming party of a technical malfeasance ?

I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing other countries, and that morally corrupt United Nations, trying to tell Australia what we 'must' do, concerning who can land on our sovereign territory ! This country is presently 'AWASH' with all manner of criminals who've gained ingress by engaging in a cleverly structured process of deceit and trickery, while posing as legitimate refugees. And by so doing, selfishly denying bona fide refugees, immediate sanctuary !

If the government has paid these smugglers to turn back, they're knowingly aiding and abetting a crime. Turn them back at the muzzle of a .50 cal. Barrett, if they'll not turn round voluntarily !

Incidentally, any outrage expressed by Indonesia, resulting from Australia's decision to turn these vessels back, tough ! They've not got a moral leg to stand on, given their intractable stance on executing people !

Obviously Greens/Labour voters have extremely short memories. No shame with 1200 plus drownings and over 1000 kids in detention. Now they want to be moral policeman. Please give us a break from your hypocrisy. You are about as sincere as Ms Triggs.

o sung wu,

I have to say that those 'leaky' boats are usually not so leaky before being sabotaged, hull and engine, after the mobile phone call is made to the land-based contacts who inform authorities, advocates, activists and the media (not necessary in that order) to arrange for the taxi cab in the form of a patrol boat from the desired host country (Australia, for instance).

Although even rafts of packing crates would have been sufficient when the Australian navy was being required by the feckless Labor+Greens government (Gillard and Greens Bob 'the pirate' Brown) to sail all of the way to Indonesia to do what the Indonesian navy should have been doing.

It is a matter of fact that negative stereotype of Asian built boats is absolute rot. Their fishing boats are very highly regarded as well made, strong and sea worthy. That applies to craft years old too, where they are as strong and sea kindly as the day they were made by skilled craftsmen using techniques proved through the passage of years.

Major US manufacturers of luxury boats have been having them made in Asian shipyards for years. My family has owned several cruisers in the 42-65' range. Their preferred make was usually constructed in Singapore but recently, Malaysia. Almost all of the top quality 40'-75', Grand Banks are from Asia. Nordhavn, Krogen, Marlow, Outer Reef, Grand Alaskan, Horizon and so on are made in Asia.

Work boats for fishing are hand made in solid high quality timber by local shipwrights with exquisite joinery.

The people smugglers who plied their noxious trade (including drugs and all manner of other illegal cargoes, but people smuggling is obviously more profitable and lower risk to the gangs) would not have been anywhere near as successful without the contacts in Australia who directly and indirectly supported them.

Authorities could document and publish the money trails to 'out' the SOBs in Australia who flea off people smuggling, many even justifying their money making as 'moral', but that would only tip off the small but highly organised syndicates to change their approaches.

runner, Ms Triggs is very serious, and unbiased despite a few gullible people falling for the government's claims to the contrary.

Is the rate of 1200 drownings over the 6 years Labor was in power really worse than the mystery number of drownings since then? You don't know and can't know!

And while there were a lot of children in detention when Labor was in power, they weren't in detention for so long.

If this was really about the drownings, the Liberals wouldn't've blocked Swap The Boats in parliament. And if it were really about the drownings, those who come here on seaworthy vessels would be treated as though they'd arrived here by plane.

_________________________________________________________________________________

o sung wu, on the issue of states' rights versus human rights (something the USA once fought a civil war over) I favour the human rights. Why don't you?

_________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu, economic migrants are unlikely to be after handouts, as the handouts don't amount to much compared to what they can earn working.

Dear Aidan,

<<Yuyutsu, economic migrants are unlikely to be after handouts, as the handouts don't amount to much compared to what they can earn working.>>

Perhaps, but it doesn't end with handouts: since those who arrived without permission have no legal status, they cannot open a bank account; they cannot have property registered in their name; if they're robbed or if their employer doesn't pay, they cannot call police; and if sick or injured they cannot go to hospital. I wonder how prosperous they can get under these circumstances.

They could of course remain indefinitely as servants/maids/slaves in Australian households or farms, but I don't believe that too many would find this attractive enough to risk their life at sea.

The refugee convention requires giving them a legal status, but once Australia withdraws from that convention (which it doesn't intend to keep anyway and does whatever it can to circumvent it anyhow), it will no longer be required to do so.

Nothing of course prevents Australia from accepting as many genuine refugees as it wants into Australian society - the others should be able to enter the continent of Australia, but not automatically become members of Australian society.

Hi there AIDAN...

'Mystery' number of drownings since then eh ? You don't know and can't know ?

And neither do you AIDAN !

You carelessly state that you favour human rights over States rights.

What exactly are you inferring there old boy ? What, we don't have any 'humans' in Australia ? What unmitigated nonsense you speak ? Ever Australian deserves to have their rights protected just as much as these alleged refugees ! Any *legitimate, *bona fide *refugee will be accorded everything we're humanly capable of giving them !

However, every manipulative and conniving criminal, artfully posing as some poor wretched refugee ostensibly fleeing for his life ? While he's setting his compass and carefully steering the most direct and shortest course, towards the closest Aussie Social Security Office ? Geez we've been taken as mugs for the last seven or so years ! They can all now bugger off, with the kind assistance of the business end of a serviceable Barrett .50cal.

I honestly can't believe AIDAN, how you and others like you, who harbour the same opinion, are so dupable and credulous in this matter ?

No.

The Government has convinced me that these evil people smugglers who make a profit from human misery and that we should take every measure possible to crush their despicable human trafficking.

Slipping them a quiet $5000 under the table is not taking steps to crush their despicable human trafficking. It is financially supporting it: the exact opposite of trying to stamp it out. It is the Government saying one thing and doing another.

It is hypocrisy. Blatant and unashamed hypocrisy. But I bet the rusted on conservatives around here will find some way to defend yet another failure from a truly appalling Government.

Oh well, they're only fooling themselves. Swinging voters are not so easily fooled.

. Swinging voters are not so easily fooled

come on Tony look at the gullible public who voted for Rudd. Only the very gullible could possibly exchange Howard for Rudd.

//come on Tony look at the gullible public who voted for Rudd. Only the very gullible could possibly exchange Howard for Rudd.//

Runner, I am thinking more in terms of where I am going to cast my future vote. When you provide me with a working time machine or blueprints for a working time machine then I will give more consideration to where I cast my past vote. If that is physically possible.

o sung wu, I never claimed I did know the number of people drowning while trying to reach Australia since the Libs got in. I merely highlighted the dubiousness of your claim that it was less than under Labor.

There is nothing careless about my statement that I favour human rights over States rights. It doesn't in any way imply that "we don't have any 'humans' in Australia" and there's no way a reasonable person could infer that unmitigated nonsense from my words – especially as I gave the example of the American Civil War. Unless you're suggesting there were no humans in the confederate states, in which case I don't think anyone is likely to take anything you say seriously.

What I was actually implying is that Australia is treating refugees as if they're not human. And that doing so is morally wrong. Refugees are not a threat to the rights of Australians. And we're certainly not according any *legitimate, *bona fide refugee everything we're humanly capable of giving them - and nor should we. But what we should give them (but currently aren't) is a fair go.

You, and many of the politicians, assume without evidence that most asylum seekers are criminals. But the number of genuine refugees out there is so high that this is extremely unlikely. Where there are criminals they should be dealt with, and if there's any doubt at all in their refugee status, it should be reviewed if they commit a crime in Australia. But it's persecution, not justice, that most people are fleeing.

__________________________________________________________________________________

runner, only the very gullible could possibly exchange the PM who kept us out of recession during the GFC to the PM who stripped the rights of workers but taxed them more.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu, you seem to believe having people here with no legal status is a good thing. Why? Should't the protection of the law extend to everyone?

In terms of stopping the boats, I think this is a brilliant idea.

If every boat's crew, over the next month or so, was paid to turn around and go back, and if you were a desperate refugee, would you trust them ever again ?

If all they do is to just take your money, take you out to sea, take Australian money and bring you back to Indonesia ?

This could spell the end of the entire trade. Perhaps the Europeans could try something similar in the Mediterranean.

Not much chop for the poor refugees, but a stroke of evil genius.

Joe

AIDAN my friend, your use of the word evidence is somewhat cockeyed, considering my previous vocation ? Furthermore I made no reference apropos those who drowned, none whatsoever. My knowledge of criminality associated with some of these refugees who've tricked their way into this country I would respectfully assert is well superior to yours ! Nothing, I repeat nothing you could say, would persuade me to review my assessment of these people. Accordingly I bid you a good night.

I agree, another brilliant idea along with the orange lifeboats.

If labor had the brains and the nuts to do it we would not be supporting 50,000 plus welfare for lifers, and a large number of people would not have become victims of crimes due to there incompetence.

It' got my vote. Thumbs up.

o sung wu,

It appears that your rebuttal to Adrian's response largely consists of the, "Trust me. I was a copper. I'd know." approach without actually providing much in the way of evidence or reasoned argument.

<<My knowledge of criminality associated with some of these refugees who've tricked their way into this country I would respectfully assert is well superior to yours !>>

Well, as a criminologist, who has worked closely with police, I'm aware of the fact that police often don't record race; let alone refugee status. So how is it that you came to know about the criminality of asylum seekers? I'm not for a second suggesting that it's impossible. The more I learn, the more I doubt how much I know (kind of like the Dunning-Kruger effect in reverse, I suppose). I'm just not aware of a method by which you could have come to know what you claim to know. So if you could let me in on it, I'm sure it would be valuable to any future research that I do.

<<Nothing, I repeat nothing you could say, would persuade me to review my assessment of these people. Accordingly I bid you a good night.>>

And it's likely that therein lies the problem with your entire worldview (http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Ham-Nye-debate-in-a-nutshell-via-exploring-our-matrix.jpg).

Yep loudmouth, you can bet the Europeans have a fact finding team over here right now, trying to learn how we do it.

Anyone who thinks voters will be turned off by anything the government does to stop these gate crashers from getting to Oz is a dill.

Dear Aidan,

<<Yuyutsu, you seem to believe having people here with no legal status is a good thing. Why?>>

I only suggested that under the circumstances, the alternative would be even worse, being to physically seize those who manage to arrive in Australia, arrest them, possibly for many years, then throw them forcibly somewhere else.

Seizing people physically, arresting them and throwing them out by force is violence, thus unacceptable. On the other hand, avoiding to give them something (i.e. legal status), while ungenerous, is not a crime.

<<Should't the protection of the law extend to everyone?>>

Well as I don't believe in the concept of law to begin with, I need to take the liberty of modifying your question slightly:

"Should't the protection of the state extend to everyone?"

The protection of the state is, or should be, by mutual agreement. I already stated elsewhere on OLO that individuals should not be forced to be protected by the state if they do not so wish, that at least we should be able to opt out. Also, there are many whom Australia already doesn't protect - I refer to those who do not live in Australia and aren't Australian citizens, as well as those who do live and were born in Australia, but are not humans.

It's very nice indeed to be able to protect everyone who arrives on our shores (and so wishes), but it is not morally obligatory. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to simultaneously avoid violence AND grant protection to every arriving person - if we tried, then we would be flooded by 10,000,000's refugees and even more than that economic-migrants, as a result of which our standard, quality and safety of living would drop to that of a 3rd-world country.

The government currently solves the problem by using violence, which I find unacceptable, so sadly, and I do mean sadly, remains only the next option of avoiding the gifting of protection.

Once again the Abbott Government has proved it totally lacks any kind of 'political savvy' when it comes to what Australians (voters) will or will not accept, budgets, knighthoods, housing, you name it, they are out of touch. No matter how the conservatives dolly it up, the facts remain, if true, cash payments by the Australian government have been made to criminals, end of story. Just like the Cocky Joe Hockey comments, that in itself will prove to be unacceptable to the average voter. It can only equate to votes lost.

Foxy "The Immigration Minister has denied it.
The Foreign Affairs Minister has also denied it."
There is a possibility they were lying. The conservatives have a long tradition, staring with Howard's 'children overboard' of lying on the issue of asylum seekers.

Jay, your sub contracting theory, I don't buy that one, at all.

As usual, charge on in before the facts are clear. We should at least wait until Abbott admits it; but no, as soon as someone makes an allegation against anything or anyone Australian, all the knee-jerkers jump the gun. This story comes from people smugglers themselves - I rate even Abbott above rubbish like that. But the good old Australia-knockers are not interested in a fair go for people they hate.

What if payments were made, though? In this alleged case, the cost was $25,000. Far cheaper than keeping the illegals here for the rest of their lives!

In the latest development the matter has been refereed to the Auditor-General for investigation. Has Australian tax dollars been paid illegally to criminals? If so should there be prosecutions?
Could we soon see government payments to organised crime to tackle the ice epidemic? the list of payment is endless. How much has Hockey budgeted for pay offs in 2015/16?

@ Paul1405, Monday, 15 June 2015 9:45:50 AM

LOL, you only need a microphone and one of those ill-fitting KMart suits from the wardrobe department to be chasing targets down the street, 60 Minutes style. There you go again, to win another Richard Carlton Award for making stories from out of the air,

Richard Carlton for the memory challenged, 'shock, horror, shame' addicted leftists,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raBCfPVFzHU

Paul1405, you Fox and ors need to take a cold glass of water and have a good sit down in the shade. You have been hyperventilating since even before Abbott was elected.

Oops, don't mention Abbott (or Israel, the US, Brits or any of the multitude of trigger words) to a headline-hunting Green.

Heh, heh, remember to breathe.

Paul, don't be so gullible.
The children were thrown overboard, I saw the video of them in the water.
What you either did not know or didn't want to know, was that they
were thrown overboard because the vessel had been scuttled.

Either way would you want people who would scuttle a boat under passengers
children included ?

Back to the present, if Jay's suggestion is correct that it is a very
valid action to pay the companies fee.
The other possibility is if this was the boat on its way to New Zealand
then Australia would be in a different position stopping the boat at sea.
Alternatively, they may only say they are going to New Zealand with
intention of ducking into Darwin of Cape York.
Hasn't anybody else thought of that ?
They could offer the money to return to Indonesia, they may have
convinced the passengers and/or crew that such a voyage was impossible.
It may have not had suffient fuel capacity to reach New Zealand.

Am I the only one that thinks that sort of trickery would be going on ?
Surely you are not all as gullible as Paul ?

Beach, you might have a shred of credibility on this, if you did not continually attack on this very forum every politician and other forumites holding views that are seen by you as being left of the thoughts of Genghis Khan. Your continual labeling of such good folk as pinko, lefty, commie, bolshe, Trotskies etc etc and etc leaves you open to a charge of bias!
I am merely echoing the thoughts and opinions of a very concerned Australian public. I cannot condone criminality, at the moment this is all alergation, but where there is smoke there is sure to be fire! Will you not agree?

sorry its a repeat (from another thread) but must be said

Please keep it in the news. Its makes Labour/Greens look hypocritical, incompetent and portraying crocodile tears. Despite having Triggs, Mann and other Abbott haters on their side, the public can see clearly that Abbott has saved lives, money and by and large stopped illegal entrance in this country. I hope Labour/Greens keep reminding the Australian public of this simple fact. I personally spoke to someone involved in the smuggling business a couple of years ago who told me how thrilled they were when Rudd reopened their business. What a joke!

Paul said;
Jay, your sub contracting theory, I don't buy that one, at all.

On the news today there is a video of the passengers disembarking from
a yellow commercial ferry. This might be the ferry that was paid to
bring them back to Java.

I am unable to make the connection but until you know you should not
assume it is not the vessel that was contracted.

Hi Paul,

Back to topic (although it's fun sinking the boot into all our demons, isn't it?):

: if you were a refugee, genuine or not, and you paid all the hard-earned savings of your family, your brothers, cousins and grandmothers, to get on a boat, and the b@stards only brought you back to where you started, what would you do ? Get on another boat ? Pay another 'ransom' ?

So how soon before the trade dried up ? Devilishly cunning !

Joe

To pay them you have to catch them or stop the boat, the navy should just fire a shot in front of the boat move forward and your boat will be sunk and you will be put on an orange boat going back to Indonesia or go back now. Your choice.

Phillip S;
A lot cheaper than providing one of those orange lifeboats !

G'day there LOUDMOUTH...

You're right, I didn't think about in those terms ? Though do you believe any of our politicians are clever enough, to think up such a cunning strategy, devious to be sure, but cunning Emmm ?

And now to my little mate, the Professor Emeritus A J PHILIPS...?

You know the more you say, the more suspect I am of your bona fides A.J PHILIPS ? Awhile back you described yourself as studying criminology, a little later, an LLB, along with a close (personal) association with a 'chuckling' detective somewhere up in Qld ? It would seem prima facie, the precise verity of your academic eminence, deviates or contrasts, according to the exact point you wish to illustrate ?

In your latest piece, you now describe yourself as a Criminologist, '...who worked closely with police...' ? Police being singular, referring to your 'chuckling' detective mate in Qld.? Or does it mean within a structured squad, a task force, UC, or what -precisely, A J PHILIPS ?

You see my friend, in all the years as a detective, I never 'once' worked with, or requested assistance from, or even sought advice, or clarification, even prior to 'jumping the box', from a criminologist. Sure, forensic medical officers, forensic dental surgeons, accountants etc. all manner of 'expert' witnesses - but there was never a need for 'expert' guidance of criminologists ?

The only reason for this apparent 'glaring incongruity', we down here are lagging well behind, in our (Australia's largest) CIB ? Alternatively, our superiors never thought it necessary to engage their services, as it were ? What do you reckon A J PHILIPS ?

paying people smugglers probably not nearly as unethical as receieving bribes for not to give cleaners decent wages in exchange for union membership ah Bill? Oh that's right no comment. The silence from the alp (sorry abc) deafening.

//f you were a refugee, genuine or not, and you paid all the hard-earned savings of your family, your brothers, cousins and grandmothers, to get on a boat, and the b@stards only brought you back to where you started, what would you do ? Get on another boat ?//

No, probably not. But your gedanken only addresses demand, and only from some consumers - those who might potentially be repeat customers. I have a suspicion that the people smuggling trade isn't one that relies on repeat custom for it's profitability: I suspect it relies on drawing in new customers. So enacting policies that seek to dissuade repeat custom probably isn't going to go a long way towards breaking the people smuggling business model. And throwing money at it certainly isn't.

//So how soon before the trade dried up ?//

With a constant influx of new customers to provide the demand, and a bunch of cashed-up people smugglers who can now afford even more boats to provide the supply? Don't you mean how long before the trade dried up?

//Devilishly cunning !//

Devilishly cunning my arse. I don't which genius thought up this policy, but I want whatever they are smoking.

Giving large sums of money to the criminals whose criminal behaviour you are trying to prevent is counter-productive at best. And it certainly sends the wrong message to the voters.

It was indeed a thoroughly shambolic performance in QT today from those ministers responsible for ducking and weaving on the issue.

Julie Bishop gave a confusing reply and scuttled back to her seat muttering something about intelligence - and not being allowed to share it - Lol!

Tones donned a spectacular faux smug-bastard expression during the motion to suspend standing orders.

And Dutton told us he was going to give a clear statement - which consisted of him blathering that "We've stopped the boats".

They would be the boats that keep coming back to get cash to make them go away again - great stuff!

Here's the best take on the confused reaction from the govt being caught without a suitable plan of defence.

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2015/06/15/government-denies-paying-smugglers-unless-they-did-which-case-it-was-good-idea

"Government Denies Paying Smugglers Unless They Did In Which Case It Was A Good Idea"

Yes, cheaper but you run the risk of them loading up the boats so they will get caught and paid to return to Indonesia.

Hi Philip,

Yep, maybe once more, then ...........

We'll see, won't we ?

Get paid by Australia to return to the place of departure?

The skippers, crews and the criminal travel agents behind the smuggling deals might find out what some of those economic migrants are really like very soon after the ship changes its course.

There would be some very dangerous SOBs indeed among the economic migrants.

Immigration and law experts have stated that giving
people smugglers money would be "unprecedented."
It could constitute a form of people smuggling or
bribery. This conduct would also be a breach of
both domestic and international law.

Whether this was indeed done needs to be judicially
investigated. And most appropriately - on the
800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta. No one should
be above the law. The bedrock of our society today.

Sterling stuff - and I can't say I'm surprised at some of the comments on this thread.

Many of you seem to think bribery by the state is a wonderful attribute to this shambolic govt's already sordid record.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/15/jakarta-demands-bishop-retract-claim-indonesia-failing-to-secure-its-border?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

It's all going to end badly, of course...a bridge too far by shonky Abbott and Co, despite the likes of Loudy concluding that it's some sort of evil (criminal?) genius.

Oh well...they are entertaining in their way - although it's sad that we Aussies have to bear the shame of their follies.

So much for the humanitarian concerns of some of the forums 'Usual Suspects', No concern at all for the lives of defenseless men, women and children. Paying off criminals should be of scant regard to this mob, when you consider they are prepared to accept the Australian Navy blowing unarmed civilians out of the water.
"the navy should just fire a shot in front of the boat move forward and your boat will be sunk". Killing so many on board, the carnage of innocent men, women and children dead in the water is of no concern to the hateful among us. Such comment is disgraceful in the extreme.

Paul,

"So much for the humanitarian concerns of some of the forums 'Usual Suspects', No concern at all for the lives of defenseless men, women and children. Paying off criminals should be of scant regard to this mob, when you consider they are prepared to accept the Australian Navy blowing unarmed civilians out of the water.
"the navy should just fire a shot in front of the boat move forward and your boat will be sunk". Killing so many on board, the carnage of innocent men, women and children dead in the water is of no concern to the hateful among us. Such comment is disgraceful in the extreme."

Yes...I agree.

We have on OLO these days quite a tight knit coterie of far-right fundies who regale us daily with views that would sit quite comfortably with regimes Australia has decried in past history. Of course we have a govt who reflects the same values - so much for progress in the wake of WWII...we're diminished by such rhetoric.

Take this vile comment from Mr Faux civility, o sung wu:

"...They can all now bugger off, with the kind assistance of the business end of a serviceable Barrett .50cal."

I wonder how many women and kiddies would go down in that volley?

Doesn't take much for some to display brutish regression, it seems...so much for civilisation. These jokers slam foreigners for their so-called callous disregard for human life - then carry on like this!

Grotesque...

Paul1405 - When you put something in quotes it helps if you quote the whole sentence not just part of it that suites your biased agenda.

Here is the whole sentence just for your selective information.

"To pay them you have to catch them or stop the boat, the navy should just fire a shot in front of the boat move forward and your boat will be sunk and you will be put on an orange boat going back to Indonesia or go back now."

You have sunk to a new low here, posting part of a sentences as if it was all that was said.

To quote you "No concern at all for the lives of defenseless men, women and children." Are these defenseless people from the same place, nationality, etc as the ones who rioted and caused over $60 million dollars damage to accommodation they were supplied not counting the other riots they have been involved in. Are they they same as the 100's who have committed crimes since coming here, I will answer for you potentially YES.

Turn them around.

Poirot - You also are now guilty of selective quoting.

Try quoting the whole sentence not just the bits that suite your agenda.

Hi there PAUL1405...

I realise you're a deeply committed, and professed humanitarian, and for that I respect you enormously. But surely you must now realise that amongst many of these boat people there are a great number of those who are engaged in the systematic rorting of Australian immigration authorities, furnishing false ID's and fictitious antecedents, even evading officials attempting to learn of their original nationalities.

And now Paul here's the rub - because of the selfish actions of these illegals, the really legitimate refugees, who will do EVERYTHING possible, in order to convince the Oz authorities of their bona fides, by providing them with every shred of documentation, even crudely written letters from family and friends, all offered up as a 'references' of sorts, these poor buggers are further relegated back down in the queue.

The essential difference between a legitimate, really needy refugee, and a fake is this ? The fake will do every possible to make it difficult for authorities to return them to their original country. The real lynch-pin, these frauds, thoroughly understand and therefore manipulate, the entire, primary port of entry procedural undertaking ?

They have their answers down pat, and well rehearsed, lamenting the loss of some, or all modes of identification, that would substantiate their refugee claims ?

Whereas, the legitimate and desperate bona fide refugee, when they arrive here in Oz, they know absolutely nothing about our initial (entry) screening procedures. Consequently they've no idea how intense the initial interrogation might be ? Moreover they're petrified, to the point of acting like a stunned 'roo caught in the headlights of an approaching car. It's as simple as that my friend.

Genuineness and legitimate desperation, literally pours from these poor buggers, you can spot 'em a mile off, believe me.

"Poirot - You also are now guilty of selective quoting.

Try quoting the whole sentence not just the bits that suite your agenda."

Jolly good, Philip - that "was" the whole "sentence" (in common practice, the three dots preceding it were to indicate that it was part of a paragraph)...but here's the entire paragraph:

"However, every manipulative and conniving criminal, artfully posing as some poor wretched refugee ostensibly fleeing for his life ? While he's setting his compass and carefully steering the most direct and shortest course, towards the closest Aussie Social Security Office ? Geez we've been taken as mugs for the last seven or so years ! They can all now bugger off, with the kind assistance of the business end of a serviceable Barrett .50cal."

There, there...that makes it all so much more civilised (not)

(You should check your facts before strutting around giving orders:)

Put simply Philip S you said if the boat moves it is to be sunk. I can only assume you intend for the navy to sink the boat with its gun following a warning shot across it bow to stop, classic gunboat mentality. Then the survivors of the sinking, along with the dead plucked from the sea are to be loaded onto some orange boat and returned to Indonesia. That seems clearly to be your intention.

o sung wu, I can never ever condone shooting innocent unarmed people, no matter what others may or may not have done.

Some very silly statements on here.
Returning a vessel and its passengers to the port of departure could
never be construed as people smuggling.
By no stretch of the imagination could you come to that conclusion.

Not unless you were so one eyed that no matter what was done it would
always be people smuggling.

How about putting an equal amount of effort in defending Bill Shortlan
on his dodgy pay agreements with employers, or is it a non subject.

Bazz, if you want to have a go at Silly Billy and his dubious dealings while at the AWU, be my guest, fire away, feel free. Start the discussion when its convenient. I'll join in but don't expect any defense of Shorten by me.

Hiya Paul,

You suggest, in one of your paranoid episodes,

"No concern at all for the lives of defenseless men, women and children. Paying off criminals should be of scant regard to this mob, when you consider they are prepared to accept the Australian Navy blowing unarmed civilians out of the water.
"the navy should just fire a shot in front of the boat move forward and your boat will be sunk". Killing so many on board, the carnage of innocent men, women and children dead in the water is of no concern to the hateful among us.'

Gosh, that's terrible. But ....... has that happened yet ? Aren't you jumping the gun a bit, so to speak ? Maybe your mum should break in and stop you watching those Tarantino movies.

Paying off the crew of a smuggling boat may be just the solution to the entire traffic. End of: nobody in their right mind paying tens of thousands of dollars to end up back on the coast of Java.

People will have get in the queue, however it may be devised.

Wait and see.

Joe

No one should be above the law.
No even the government running this country.
And they certainly should explain to the voters
of this country if what they are doing in our
name is against both domestic and international
laws:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/five-questions-the-abbott-government-needs-to-answer-on-the-people-smuggling-payment-claims-20150615-ghnzxz.html

It is ironic that on the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta -
we have to even discuss this question of governments being held
to account. I would have thought that nobody being above the
law would be something we would all take for granted. The law
if after all the bedrock of our society today.

Dear Foxy,

<<The law if after all the bedrock of our society today.>>

Imposing laws is a form of a violent attack on innocent people.

Are you saying, without remorse, that the bedrock of your society is violence?

Dearest darling Foxy,

What you talking about ? Boats are contracted to bring refugees and others from Indonesia to Australia. Let's presume that the Australian government authorises Customs/Border Protection officials to pay the ships' crews to take the boats back to Indonesia, presumably their point of departure.

If you were a bona fide refugee, would you scrounge all the remaining savings off your relations and get on the next boat ? Or, painful as it may be, would you say 'bugger it', fill out all the necessary forms and wait your turn ?

Yes, with fifty million refugees in the world, that may be the only alternative. Ghastly, ghastly, ghastly, but unless problems can be fixed up at source, the only one for fifty million. Ghastly.

Yes, we ARE the lucky country.

Love always,

Joe

Poirot -

Here is what you posted.
"the navy should just fire a shot in front of the boat move forward and your boat will be sunk". (I fail to see three dots. Looks like you are also guilty of reposting what someone else has posted as being a quote without checking to see if it is accurate.)

To quote you
"(You should check your facts before strutting around giving orders:)"

I don't see how this illegal payment of money to people smugglers by our Government will work in any case.

If these smugglers take money off desperate refugees and then also pocket some more easy money by some idiot Aussie Govt puppet out on the high seas, then I should imagine that is a huge incentive to keep doing it.

This Government trumpets on about how it has 'stopped the boats', but yet here they are still steaming towards our shores. Now they are paying the smugglers for the privilege? Really?

Even worse is the obvious admiration some adoring posters to this forum have for the shonky Abbott and Dutton lies and shady deals carried out in our name.
I think good ol' Tones has spent too much time at Howard's ('children overboard) place.

Philip s,

"Poirot -

Here is what you posted.
"the navy should just fire a shot in front of the boat move forward and your boat will be sunk". (I fail to see three dots. Looks like you are also guilty of reposting what someone else has posted as being a quote without checking to see if it is accurate.)"

I was quoting Paul in that instance - and not o sung wu - as you well know.

That quote was accurate in the sense that it was what Paul had posted.

I thought you were referring to "my" quote of o sung wu.

Now I've finished with your pedantic blather so you can toddle off and police some other post.

........

Loudmouth,

"Dearest darling Foxy,"

"Love always,"

I don't know about Foxy, but you're making me nauseous...you patronising little sweet talker you.

I'll bet you've got all the boys around here quivering in anticipation - waiting with baited breath for the day you decide to whisper sweet nothings to them.

And ya don't have any probs with this shonky govt being open for business with people smugglers? Not that I'm surprise the Abbott govt outfit has sunk to these means, but being as we're a signatory to certain conventions, it seems a little untoward for us to be doing deals and showering cash on the very people we've been demonising since forever.

What a crooked pack of charlatans we have in charge : )

Dear o sung wu,

What is it about retired NSW police detectives? I have just recently been subjected to a similar diatribe by a rather rotund gentleman who is the beneficiary of the pre-1988 largesse in the form of a very generous NSW police pension indexed to match his earlier wage. He too was banging on about refugees ripping off the system, of queuing at the local dole office, of expecting handouts. Later he was complaining about his mate who had also left well before his time but grabbed a lump sum of well over half a million dollars thank you very much.

This report talks of nearly 20% of NSW coppers being “restricted or absent” in some areas in 2011.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/439674/danger-money-legislation-changes-affecting-police/

Rorting of the NSW police death and disability scheme got so bloody bad that in 2011-12 it was costing the poor taxpayers almost the same each year as the wages bill for the entire force, over 3/4s of a billion dollars and expected to hit twice that this year.

My sister knew a young NSW detective, nice enough bloke, but who got out after serving less than 12 years and is now doing very well in business and real estate. He is also collecting an extremely generous pension because of the 'stress of the job'. At least he has the decency to be a little bit embarrassed by it.

He jumped after the government extended to pre 1988 benefits to those who joined later. The result was detailed here;

“In a letter to the NSW Police Association, Gallacher said the scheme had to change because medical discharge rates increased by 367per cent from 2007, and long-term sick leave by 152per cent.”

Now I have no idea about your own circumstances so will not point any of this directly at you but many of your mates certainly have got their snouts in the trough in a fashion that pretty well outstrips all other public servants bar the pollies.

Cont..

Cont..

When Howard was dog whistling over Tampa I decided that despite being very busy running a couple of businesses I had to do something so I stuck my hand up to teach a refugee English. I was assigned a Vietnamese fellow who was a doctor in his home country but being Catholic and a child of a former South Vietnamese army figure, life was made especially difficult for him. He spent the first few months receiving benefits after arriving but quickly found work in a vegetable shop while also delivering pizzas at night. I met him weekly for nearly two years, working to improve his English rudimentary language skills. He was determined to pass the requirements for medical English which were of quite a high standard and expensive.

But with a young son he parked the goal to become a qualified doctor and instead strove for a house and a private education for his child. He's currently employed in a food processing plant doing some pretty arduous work, constantly in single figure temperatures and with hands that are a mess from the dampness and cold.

Last weekend was the occasion of another spin around the sun for me. He and his son paid a visit as they do each year even though it is nearly 10 years since I stopped formally teaching him. The gift is always embarrassingly generous. This is a man who is very grateful for the chances he has received. He has not rorted the system and I'm very proud to be part of a nation which gave him sanctity and opportunity.

My brother is an ex federal Policeman and he often talks about having to leave before he had become 'institutionalised'. By that he meant being part of that jaded group of coppers fixated on wages, conditions and leave.

My experiences are obviously completely different to yours but they, and the reported facts, do lead me to take any accusations from former NSW policemen about anyone else rorting the system with a very large dose of salt.

Foxy & Susie,
Perhaps you did not read my last post.
In it I pointed out that it could not be illegal to pay to have the boat sent back.
Returning a boat and passengers to port of departure could not be people smuggling.

Also it would not be iullegal to make that payment.

It really is that simple.
Why is it that no one understands that ?

With Tony Abbott, saying he will do "whatever is necessary" to stop the boats, and some on here calling for shots across the bow and sinkings, while another talks of using "the business end of a serviceable Barrett .50cal." What can we expect from the radical right presently in office? How far will the Mad Monk go with the'whatever is necessary' philosophy? We have in our lifetime witnessed tyrants and despots applying the 'whatever is necessary' phiosophy to perceived problems, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein applied their own versions of the 'whatever is necessary philosophy to their perceived problems, with terrible results for humanity. Will this government go all the way, as some on here advocate? As one said there is no problem until it actually happens, or is there?

Poirot - Epic fail on your behalf, reposting something from someone else without checking if it is correct.

To Quote you. "Now I've finished with your pedantic blather so you can toddle off and police some other post." Translation I don't want to admit I was wrong so I will verbally attack the person who pointed out my error.

Toni writes

'It is hypocrisy. Blatant and unashamed hypocrisy. But I bet the rusted on conservatives around here will find some way to defend yet another failure from a truly appalling Government. '

is it possible for the Labour/Greens to ever feel any shame. Now that it is exposed that Gillard/Rudd has paid smugglers you would think they would just SHUT UP. But shameless people led by the abc/sbs just roll on with their moral indignation. Pathetic.

Philip S,

I'm not required to check if another person's post is "correct" when I am quoting them. When you quote someone, you are quoting what they said or wrote - not analysing their stuff as to its veracity or its abridgement.

Therefore, I couldn't give two hoots whether you think Paul didn't include "a whole sentence". We're not bound to include every part of statement if it's not pertinent to the point we're making.

If I was you, I'd get cracking on all the rest of the posts on this forum where people have cherry-picked items for the embellishment of their own arguments. I'd say there would be thousands for you to trawl through - so off you go...and stop wasting my reading space with your ridiculous pedantic squeaking.

One can always rely on Paul's posts for a mixture of confected outrage, mangled facts and rehashed one liners from the green song sheet.

Here are some Facts:

1. No one has established that any payments were actually made, the only claims have been from those profiting from the smuggling i.e. the smugglers, the indonesian police and SHY, all of whom are wildly unreliable.

2. Stopping the People trafficking is based on "asylum seekers" paying thousands of $ each to reach Australia. Paying this money to end up where you started is a seriously bad investment that is unlikely to encourage further customers.

3. If payments were made as claimed, they were not to people traffickers, just to drivers of the boats, so it is difficult to see how these payments would incentivise the smugglers to send more boats,

4. Finally, given that on the high seas the UN charter on refugees does not apply, and the interception of human traffickers is legal, it is difficult to see where paying the Indonesian drivers of Indonesian vessels to return to Indonesia with passengers that departed from Indonesia can be illegal considering that payment of criminals as informants to reduce crime is accepted practice world wide.

I guess that the main source of concern for the greens is the rapidly dwindling number of detainees that is robbing SHY of her one issue (thus provoking paranoid delusions that security agents were watching her)

"If payments were made as claimed, they were not to people traffickers, just to drivers of the boats..."

Lol!....however it's likely to incentivise drivers to take up a smuggler's offer.

Nice to know that it's just "drivers" out for a sea jaunt who have been paid, and not those nasty people smugglers!

(Apologies to Philip for posting outside his "whole of sentence" edict:)

Dear Bazz,

Paying people smugglers to take people to Indonesia
according to our own immigration and law experts
is not only "unprecedented," but it does constitute
a form of people smuggling and bribery - which is
against both domestic and international law.
Ask any lawyer. Also - remember that business dealings
(paying crims) is a slippery slope at the best of times.

P,

It may incentivise the fishermen to volunteer to drive the boats, but given the collapse of the trade, it is far less likely to boats for them to drive. (and there was never a shortage of drivers before clogging up the courts and jails in Aus under labor)

Foxy,

Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. Given that the boat drivers are unlikely to be officials or other persons in charge of public or legal duties, the accusation of bribery is ridiculous.

Secondly sending Indonesian boats crewed by Indonesians and passengers that departed from Indonesia back to the closest port in Indonesia is not a crime, I challenge you to show which law has been broken.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Let us wait and see what develops with this matter.

It's not me you have to challenge but the immigration
and law experts who are telling us that paying
people smugglers constitutes a crime
and is against domestic and
international laws. I am not a law expert.
I am simply quoting what we are being told by the
experts. Google the information for yourself if you
want to learn more on the subject - or contact a
lawyer.

Lol!...

"Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. Given that the boat drivers are unlikely to be officials or other persons in charge of public or legal duties, the accusation of bribery is ridiculous."

I reckon it's gonna take us a full day to untangle SM from that convoluted reasoning - rhetorical gymnastics at its most supurlative.

Fancy all those "boat drivers" turning up on the high seas with their hulls full of desperate people - and totally unconnected with any people smuggling...boggles the mind!

The international convention and expectation is that any naval vessel, upon encountering a master of a vessel who could be putting his passengers or crew at risk, for instance by operating unsafely or is acting illegally would be directed back to the port of departure'

It is relevant that these are Indonesian registered and Indonesian skippered and crewed boats.

The Indonesian government has responsibilities is is avoiding, but are obvious internationally.

There is a lot of misinformation about and it is aimed at giving oxygen to the criminal gangs that operate internationally, not only in people smuggling but in the trafficking of drugs and sex slaves to take a couple of examples, and to the hangers-on such as lawyers, NGOs and bureaucrats who make their dough and careers out of the economic migrants.

Perhaps the following website may clarify the
questions of what laws Australia is breaking if
it pays human traffickers to keep migrants away:

http://qz.com/428105/all-the-laws-australia-is-breaking-if-it-pays-human-traffickers-to-keep-migrants-away/

Yes, Poirot, paying ships' crews to take people back to Indonesia is likely to encourage an increase in the number of boats. Let's call that 'supply'.

But one problem: leaving from, and arriving back in, Indonesia may have a dampening effect on the number of people willing to pay for the round-trip. Let's call this 'demand'.

So there could be a rapidly growing divergence between supply and demand - an over-supply of boats, and an under-demand of passengers.

Microeconomic theory would suggest that the smugglers will lower their prices to encourage greater demand.

But paying to buy something that you don't ever get, and then being asked to pay for it again, and again, might please Gerry Harvey but there may be diminishing enthusiasm on the part of customers. So it may be with refugees in Indonesia, desperate but not stupid.

So smugglers could lower their prices to near zero and still have no takers.

Isn't that likely ?

Just trying to help :)

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You just don't get it.

Try reading the link I gave in my previous post.

Desperate people are going to continue to come
to Australia. And paying people smugglers is
not only encouraging criminals to continue with
their trade - but it's also breaking laws.
The people smugglers are not about to give up
a lucrative trade - especially when they're
earning money from not only desperate people
but also the Australian government.

I am truly surprised that you see nothing wrong
with what the government's is doing.
Shame on the government and shame on you!

Foxy,

I have seen a lot of rhetoric in the news, but no one offering an actual legal opinion, just waffle on generalities such as "paying smugglers is illegal"

Secondly, having made similar declarations of illegality of intercepting boats and holding people at sea, only to have their challenges thrown out of court, I would say their credibility is somewhat tarnished.

The clue to when people are blustering is when the word "may" (non committal) is being used. "if you follow xx diet, you may lose 20kg a week" etc.

P,

I was unaware of how easily your mind was boggled. Just for you I will try and use small words.

To be bribed, you need to be "an official or other person in charge of public or legal duty",
This in no way applies to people smugglers
=> People smugglers can be paid but not bribed
=> You are talking drivel.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Try reading the link I gave. It
does list all the laws Australia is breaking
as well as the legal experts making the claims.

Poirot - Quote "I'm not required to check if another person's post is "correct" when I am quoting them. When you quote someone, you are quoting what they said or wrote - not analysing their stuff as to its veracity or its abridgement."

So what you are saying is it okay to Quote something someone else has writen even if it is wrong.

Taking your statement into account I will take anything you Quote from other sources as suspect to errors.

Foxy,

The article was written by an activist journalist and the only lawyer quoted already has a few facts wrong such as: “There’s also the legal issues about the power to intercept, the power to detain, and the power to turn these people around.” Which was already settled in the high court in the government's favour.

The rest of the allegations as has been shown in the past are extremely tenuous, and are generally made to muddy the waters.

Foxy, I read the link you gave but I can't see how it would cover
a boat acting illegally even if it was really heading for New Zealand.
Two points the commander of the intercepting vessel may have decided
it was not seaworthy enough for that voyage, fuel capacity etc, and
2nd that as it had not cleared legally from an Indonesion port that it
should be returned.

Naval vessels, and customs vessels can act as law inforcement agencies.

Shadow Minister,
I think those that are in a panic have got themselves
worked up to such an extent that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

It might be better to let them calm down over a few days or perhaps
find something else to get all stirred up about.

Dear Shadow Minister and Bazz,

Thank You for your civil responses.

As I stated earlier - I am not a lawyer
so I don't know all the ins and outs involved.

However, Bazz's suggestion to wait and see what
develops is an excellent one.
We'll all see the results and outcomes soon enough.

Hi there POIROT...

Why don't you acquaint yourself with exactly what's going on across our borders ? Your hatred of the LNP is so palpable I reckon you'd vote for Mussolini himself as Labour leader, if you thought he'd unseat 'shambolic' Tony ABBOTT ? A vile comment ? Perhaps ? A figure of speech more likely.

I regularly booze on with an ex colleague of mine, who's part of a national intel. group, and some of the suspicions and misgivings they've got, concerning some future incursions, if true are very worrying indeed ? True, they're only suspicions at the moment, still ?

Your remarks concerning your repugnance for me, and my obvious intransigent attitude in this matter ? Well it's very well founded you can believe that, therefore I'll not for a moment resile from that hard line, regardless of what people may think of me at this time.

As you've now distinguished me, as 'Mr Faux civility' ? Well it's your call I suppose POIROT ? Still I'd much rather rest comfortably in this, my (alleged) brutish and sadistic character, than to be so totally devoured in a 'haze of hatred' for just one ordinary political party and it's leader, than to be completely consumed by every single word, every decision, or statement that emanates from them or their spokesperson ?

Personally POIROT, I couldn't bear to exist in such a volatile state of enmity or execration toward anyone or anything, for that reason I feel very sorry for you.

"We'll all see the results and outcomes soon enough."

Some Indonesian officials are currently complaining that they haven't received their share like the boat-crew.
If they haven't received it yet then they will receive it soon and the story will be closed.

Well if, as suggested, the Labour Government had also paid people smugglers to return refugees back to port, would all the Liberal-lovers on this forum still think it is all such a great idea?

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Mate when you put a question, it's a question ? To answer you I don't know ? If you're implying, by your 'snouts in the trough' inference, well obviously you've already made up your mind, therefore anything I could add would be moot ?

As I've stated ad nauseam, I did over 32 years in the job, therefore one might extrapolate that as 'having my snout in the proverbial trough as well ? I've a comfortable super pension, augmented by a DVA War pension of 100% (non taxable) so yeah, my snout's quite content thank you ? Oh by the way, I paid into my super, as all government employees are required to do, but you already know that don't you, just forgot ?

Your student with a enviable work record, is really not that unusual. My experience with Asians per se. They're a demographic well used to working hard, except those of course who don't ? Asian criminals are both well organised and hard to penetrate, still that's not your precise point - Asian people generally, are very hard working and dependable employees, and that includes their academic pursuits as well. Your student is in no way remarkable, other than the personal sacrifices he (and his wife?) was prepared to make to help put his child through a good education, and by establishing his own permanency in his adopted country by way of owning a house. A marvellous addition to this nation I would've thought.

Apropos your initial enquiry. Higher than average instances of police on sick report, or those seeking early retirement, the reasons for which are complex, and often further complicated by those in the command structure, who've forgotten what life's like at the workface ? NSW is no different to any other State force. I can't speak for the Feds ? There's an old saying, you wear your body armour 'in reverse' ? Sounds stupid, it's not !

Susie,
I don't think anyone would be keen to sup with the devil.
However if it has saved Australia some $million in processing or
accommodation at Nauru or somewhere then it is worth it.
It certainly is not illegal.
How come we only now hear that the Labour Government paid out ?

Could it be that was for security reasons ?

Hi Suse,

And if it works, will the Labour-lovers trumpet that it was their idea in the first place ?

Dear Foxy,

I didn't say that I supported the idea, just that it might work. As it happens, I believe that the refugee quotas should be increased, especially given the dreadful conditions of life for people in Syria and for the Rohingya in Burma.

Yes, of course, ultimately the problems have to be resolved at source, but that doesn't seem to be likely any time soon. In the meantime, an affluent country like ours should be doing more.

But no queue-jumpers - and please don't say there isn't a queue. Of course, it would not be a straightforward first-come-first-served system, because it would have to take into account the dire severity or otherwise of a particular person's situation. But all in all, yes, there would be a queue of applicants to process. All things being equal, why should anybody be able to short-cut that process ?

Joe

o sung wu,

"Personally POIROT, I couldn't bear to exist in such a volatile state of enmity or execration toward anyone or anything, for that reason I feel very sorry for you."

Er...I'm not the one who posted twice that he'd like to see people off by wielding the muzzle of a .50 cal. Barrett. It kind of gets my gander up when we're talking of defenceless women and children bobbing around on the ocean in desperation.

So your statement: "Personally POIROT, I couldn't bear to exist in such a volatile state of enmity or execration toward anyone or anything...." kind of falls flat when you're espousing that kind of dire action.

So I'm: ".... totally devoured in a 'haze of hatred' for just one ordinary political party and it's leader, than to be completely consumed by every single word, every decision, or statement that emanates from them or their spokesperson ?"

Lol!....we have one of the most incompetent, sneaky, dishonest govts ever to hold tenure. A govt and a leader who provides headline fodder, hilarity and dismay every second day - I criticise them because they are so profoundly hopeless and the usual suspects here yodel "hater".

What a joke - stump up a competent Coalition and I'll be happy - got that?

.....

SM,

You'd do well to stop playing with semantics. Not technically bribery, my foot. Not technically people smugglers, my foot. What do you call people who turn up with with a boat load of people attempting to smuggle them onto Oz soil?

Well, golly gee...I'll give you 24 hours to work that one out.

Here's the money.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/people-smuggler-cash-stacks-paid-to-send-asylum-seekers-on-a-suicide-mission-20150616-ghpa36.html

"And in a blistering attack, the head of the people smuggling division of the Nusa Tenggara Timur province, Ibrahim, said sending 65 asylum seekers back to Indonesia on two boats with just a drum of fuel each was akin to "a suicide mission", asking "where is the humanity?"."

Oh dear Paul, I guess one case where you have waited until you fou d out what the other side was doing before bagging Abbott. At least then you would not have to wipe the egg off your face.

Personally, I don't care what Abbott does to stop the rot Rud caused, so long as it works as I would suggest a hundred grand spent over there would save a hundred million here.

It could well go down as a stroke of genies, but please do remember, RUDD caused this and Abbott is simply trying to not only fix something labor couldn't, but something they also caused.

The Indonesian police are upset because if paying works less people will use the smugglers, hence there cut of the profits will dry up.

In Indonesia you could not congregate the so called refugees anywhere without the local police knowing about them.

Good evening to you POIROT...

'...defenceless men, women and children bobbing around in the ocean desperate...' and you would know that, how ?

Sadly POIROT it seems as if just about everything on this Site gets your 'gander' up ? It's a wonder you can even tolerate giving 'the Forum', anything but a 'fleeting glance', given the emotional distress you must feel each and every time a sadistic soul like me, points the muzzle of his M82A1 Barrett above the parapet ?

Your venom for those of the LNP and their followers, is really chilling, almost eerie. It's as well our language is merely speculative and allegorical, rather than speaking in strategic or tactical terms ? Someone with a highly receptive state of mind, may assume a 'conspiracy of hate' is somehow emerging from within the suburbs. And that would never do ? Best I put the Barrett to bed, and you send a warm letter, expressing your utmost support, for your local Liberal Party candidate and our Prime Minister. And in so doing, both of us may well assuage anyone who's job it is to appraise Sites such as this ?

Philip S,

Agreed.

There is money to being made out of economic migrants, there and here.

Significantly less being made by the horde of lawyers, consultants and bureaucrats here since the Abbott government came to power to interrupt the noxious trade.

onthebeach - Don't forget the millions that the charities are making to look after them, at the expense of the people they originally were set up to help Australians.

Too bad for them there is no convention that says you have by law to look after your own people and make sure they are ALL housed, fed and receive medical help

o sung wu,

"Your venom for those of the LNP and their followers, is really chilling, almost eerie..."

My "venom" for the likes of Abbott has a very sound foundation - this man is seen as a mendacious fool - almost a crackpot - and not just by many in Australia, but also by much of the world's press. He's a dangerous idiot who we'd be better served if he was selling dodgy used cars to the unwary.

Any passing "venom" toward you, on the other hand,has "nothing" to do with your support for the current Coalition.

Articulate as you are, and supposedly humble, you're quick to deploy your brand of scathing eloquence - so that someone who has a genuine beef with an incompetent and foolish govt becomes, in your methodology, someone with "venom" that is "chilling, almost eerie".

Let me tell you what's chilling and almost eerie - and that's your ability to shape shift on these threads.

"Sadly POIROT it seems as if just about everything on this Site gets your 'gander' up ? It's a wonder you can even tolerate giving 'the Forum', anything but a 'fleeting glance', given the emotional distress you must feel each and every time a sadistic soul like me, points the muzzle of his M82A1 Barrett above the parapet ?"

Don't lecture me about getting my gander up. Anyone who seen your caustic retorts when yours is up would know that's the pot calling the kettle black.

And yes, yes...we all know by now that you like to repeatedly mention your gun. But thrilling as it is, I think I'll mosey along, if you don't mind....it's all a bit to chilling and eerie for my liking.

Philip S, my quoting of you was correct, and it showed your total lack of humanity, wriggle all you like. Tell me, what concern do you have for these people in boats. You favor the Australian navy sinking their craft if they fail to stop after a warning shot has been put across the bow, do you not? Men, women and children in the drink, end of story. Stopping or continuing would be a matter for the 'captain' and not the passengers, unless somehow they took control.
Lay off Poirot, all you are attempting to do is deflect attention away from your real disgusting attitude to the lives of these unfortunate people.

How many of the 'Usual Suspect' are now putting themselves forward as forum legal experts on domestic and international law. Me old sparring partner, Shadow Minister, is forever touting himself as the forums resident Clarence Darrow, something he is clearly not. Fortunately Bazz, I take your legal opinions with a grain of salt, Shadow might think he is some kind of legal wig, you however when it comes to the law appear to be a know all version of Dennis Denuto, its the vib, its Marbo, well its blatantly obvious you do not know the law at all and only pretend too. Well when it comes to defending the legal actions of this atrocious government of yours, you pretend to know the law.

Foxy please do not say "I am not a lawyer so I don't know all the ins and outs involved."

Not knowing the law is no impediment to one giving a learned legal opinion, just ask Shadow, Bazz and a few other conservative posters on here, they do it all the time.

Philip S, no egg on my face, I am no Labor supporter, and have little regard for Silly Billy, or his predecessors, on this matter. I am a fully paid up member of The NSW Greens. Since Rudd, nothing Labor does surprises me. Before the last election I regularly said on here Australia needed a dose of Abbottism.

Poirot,

Did you actually pick up a dictionary for the first time and realise that crooks cannot be bribed. Was it a light bulb moment for you?

I could similarly claim that labor murdered 1200 asylum seekers, but the word murder is incorrect, and gross negligence is more applicable.

Secondly I never claimed that the drivers of the boat weren't people smugglers, just that the money was not going to the organizers of the people trafficking so your claim of incentivising smuggling was false.

Poirot and Paul,

How do you feel about Labor paying the people smugglers when they were in power?

Shadow Minister,

"Secondly I never claimed that the drivers of the boat weren't people smugglers..."

Here's what you posted:

"If payments were made as claimed, they were not to people traffickers, just to drivers of the boats..."

Yes P,

That's what I said Work it out.

Still no reply on Labor paying people smugglers? I guess your sanctimonious argument has collapsed.

We now know that Labor was also handing money over - to the wrong people! And the boats kept coming. At least the Coalition knows who to pay.

What do you want me to say, SM?

That it's better to pay for intelligence and stop the boats embarking in the first place than playing ping pong with them on the open sea, stuffing cash in their pockets and setting them adrift when they run out of fuel?

Here's a detailed account of what allegedly took place on the boat concerned...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-17/indonesian-documents-detail-boat-turnback-and-alleged-payments/6551472

One thing is clear - the boats have not stopped - despite Australia jettisoning the last remnants of its humanity. Imagine, all that psychological torture and physical degradation in the camps, all the "goodness knows what hanky-panky" on the high seas - and still the boats come.

Paul1405 - You are delusional if you think posting part of a sentence is as you put it quote "my quoting of you was correct, and it showed your total lack of humanity, wriggle all you like."

What you are saying is it is okay to cherry pick out the parts of something to suit your agenda even though by doing that the whole context in which something was posted is askew.

Taking your statement into account I will take anything you Quote from other sources as suspect to errors or a blatant lie by you.

You further show your lack of diligence by attributing a post by another person to me.
To quote you "Philip S, no egg on my face, I am no Labor supporter, and have little regard for Silly Billy, or his predecessors, on this matter. I am a fully paid up member of The NSW Greens. Since Rudd, nothing Labor does surprises me. Before the last election I regularly said on here Australia needed a dose of Abbottism."
Please be so kind as to show me where I made any comments like that to you or any others

P,

At least now we have established that you are in favour of paying people smugglers, however, I am interested in how you know what the smugglers were allegedly paid for in each case. Given that you only have the reports from the people smugglers that in the past have been shown to be wrong.

"Bill Shorten is being warned against pursuing the “confected outrage” at claims of cash payments to people-smugglers amid signs that Labor used similar ­tactics to disrupt the passage of asylum-seekers."

Besides, here is proof of Shorten's corruption

http://money.images3.org/images/gallery/uploads_big/money/A-pile-of-money-wallpaper-721.jpg

Poirot - They may still be coming in small numbers but it will be no where new 50,000 plus welfare for lifers under Dudd and Dillard.

Corrected

Poirot - They may still be coming in small numbers but it will be no where near 50,000 plus welfare for lifers under Dudd and Dillard.

Good morning POIROT...

Actually might I enquire as to how much credibility do you personally place on the accuracy of the ABC's account of this matter ? And the sincerity and truthfulness of the Indonesian government's allegations apropos (any) remuneration made to these people smugglers ?

Most certainly, whenever the ABC can drew a bead on the abilities of our PM, they will of course. Their loathing of the Liberals is well known within media circles, and why not, after all they're public servants, and they're only protecting their organisation from the ravages of government trimming even cuts, together with a greater degree of scrutiny of programme equitability and impartiality. Not an easy task for ABC executives I would think ?

Indonesians...well let us just say, very occasionally, they may confuse themselves as to the veracity or otherwise of many of their assertions or allegations ? A 'staged' press photograph proves nothing in normal western jurisprudence ?

Perhaps in order to understand why "stopping the
boats," has become such a big issue in our country's
political agenda - we need to take a look at this
country's past history.

It just may explain a great deal:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/02/3624658.htm

Foxy,

The reasons are many, not least of them the thousands drowning.

Fox,

This is shorter and should help failing memories,

http://tinyurl.com/p2mdrhk

Hi there FOXY...

Thank you for that link, I did read it. Actually I don't think anyone here actually objects to giving succour to bona fide refugees ? What the problem is, and will continue to be, is we've been 'taken in' quite a few times now, so with every potentially new arrival, there's this expectation we'll be once more 'suckered' just one more time ?

Furthermore, now the boats have stopped, many people believe the whole thing was nothing but a commercial, 'people smuggling' racket. And as I said in an earlier thread, the legitimate refugee, is further disadvantaged because of the hardened more suspicious attitude of the authorities, whenever anybody does manage to navigate or manoeuvre a vessel through the existing naval blockade ?

FOXY, may I ask you a question ? How would you stop these illegitimate people, posing as distressed, genuine refugees, entering our country ? A really tough, almost unfair question I guess ? Particularly if you're a person that has a profoundly humane, charitable and compassionate proponsity towards all people ?

SM,

"At least now we have established that you are in favour of paying people smugglers.."

Nice one - do you verbal people often, or is this a special occasion?

"Foxy,

The reasons are many, not least of them the thousands drowning.'

Yes, indeedy...it's "so" obvious that we are concerned for their safety. Here's an example:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/people-smuggler-cash-boat-captain-speaks-20150617-ghprpi.html

"Mr Yohanis also claimed the Australian authorities "didn't care" when one of the wooden boats, Jasmine, ran out of fuel on the way back to Indonesia.

"Panic ensued among the passengers onboard, it was like in an emergency situation, they were going to kill each other," Mr Yohanis said. "At the time I was scared: What to do?"

General Endang asked Mr Yohanis if the Australian Navy and customs ships were still there when Jasmine's engine stopped.

"They were in the back, they already said: 'OK you just head [to Rote Island]," Mr Yohanis said.

"So they ignored you?" General Endang asked.

"Yes, after we were let go, they don't care any more," Mr Yohanis said."

And concern for their welfare must also be the reason why we incarcerate them in filthy camps and inflict all kinds of evils upon them.

It's all very "moral" according to Tones.

Dear O Sung Wu,

May I have a go at this tough, almost unfair question?

"How would you stop these illegitimate people, posing as distressed, genuine refugees, entering our country"?

I would not stop them physically, but on arrival give them nothing, no welfare, no healthcare and no legal status whatsoever, not even police protection - they could come, but Australia owes them nothing.

The use of laws is too crude to distinguish between genuine refugees and economic opportunists, thus government which is reliant on laws, has no chance there - but ordinary people who rely on common-sense instead, can make that distinction and those ordinary people, myself included, will personally adopt and help the genuine refugees and not the economic opportunists, who would therefore learn that coming to Australia is not a picnic.

(understandably, this solution goes contrary to the refugee convention, which would therefore have to be abandoned)

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not sure that we've stopped the drownings at sea.
After all the current government only tells us what
they want us to know - the rest is hidden from us
due to supposed "security" and other reasons. And
we haven't really "stopped" the boats. We've simply
re-directed them elsewhere. Making it the problem of
others while shirking our own responsibilities.
The problem of asylum seekers has not been solved
at all. They will keep on coming. They are desperate people.
It's an illusion to appease the gullible in this country.
A political tactic.
And putting people in detention centres in horrific conditions
(especially children) is shameful. Sure the numbers of
children in detention is lower now - but even one child - is one too many.

Dear Poirot,

Our current PM - needs to stop with the rhetoric, and evasion,
and answer the questions being currently asked about
paying people smugglers in Parliament. No one is above the law.
And this is not a matter of national security at all.
That is a bogus claim.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I don't have an answer to your question as to how do we stop
people from abusing the system. There will always be those
who will abuse the system - whether they are from overseas
or whether they're from this country. You as a former police
officer know that well and truly. What I would like to see
is a more humane way of tackling the problem of asylum
seekers within our legal framework and law, and the human
rights and refugee agreements to which we are signatories.
At present - what we have is a disgrace and our reputation
globally is going down the drain. (for want of a stronger word).

P,

Not verbaling you, to quote "That it's better to pay for intelligence and stop the boats..." Perhaps you only approve of Labor paying the smugglers.

The main difference is that labor failed to stop the boats, the coalition succeeded, and the voting public is fully aware of it.

However much that idiot SHY try conflate the issues in the detention camps, it is far better than the thousands drowning under Labor.

cont'd ...

Dear O Sung Wu,

Until people have been assessed through the acceptable
international procedures - there is no way of knowing
who of them is a genuine asylum-seeker and who is an economic
migrant. However, it should be of some comfort to you
that almost all of the ones that have claimed refugee asylum
status in the past were found to be genuine.

SM,

Here's what I said:

"What do you want me to say, SM?

That it's better to pay for intelligence and stop the boats embarking in the first place than playing ping pong with them on the open sea, stuffing cash in their pockets and setting them adrift when they run out of fuel?"

"The main difference is that labor failed to stop the boats, the coalition succeeded..."

If the boats are "stopped, how come we're paying people to take them back? How come we're providing boats to send people back? How come we're holding people on ships before returning them?

I mean, it's a simple question....all these boats that are apparently "stopped"..ie. "aren't there" - apparently "are there"...ie. are not "stopped"?

Foxy,

I know you too well to think that you are so dim as to believe that line. As soon as any news gets out via Indonesia or elsewhere it is in the papers, and unless Australia has silenced every single reporter in Aus and Indonesia, there have been no drownings.

And if the PM has said no laws have been broken, why does he have to follow labor's failed policy of megaphone diplomacy on the details?

P,

You are the one trying to claim that the payment to smugglers is illegal, but condone it all be it in different circumstances. Secondly you have no certainty that money actually changed hands, or if it did what it was for. If the ABC is right and the money was paid by intelligence agents the extraction of intelligence to disrupt further attempts is more than likely.

Secondly, if reports were correct, the boat was in a bad way, and intervention was necessary to save lives, the return trips are done from outside the Ind territorial waters with enough fuel for the 20km journey to Ind but not the 300km trip to Xmas Island.

No one drowned as probably would have happened if the boat had not been intercepted.

Secondly in 18 months only one boat's passengers have made it to Aus with maybe 20 attempting the journey, compared to about 20 a month 2yrs ago. The boats have all but stopped and your playing with semantics is not going to change it.

SM,

"You are the one trying to claim that the payment to smugglers is illegal, but condone it all be it in different circumstances...."

I haven't condoned anything....

Paying for intelligence is common practice - intercepting smugglers on the high seas and/or in Australian waters and showering them with wads of American dollars is not.

"No one drowned as probably would have happened if the boat had not been intercepted."

They only reason it was intercepted was to send it packing with a minimum of fuel - seemingly giving it the best chance of coming to grief.

These are the leaky sub-standard boats that the govt is now using:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/vietnamese-boats-unseaworthy-government-sources-say-20150311-1411bi.html

"The fleet of brightly coloured wooden Vietnamese fishing boats that the Australian government will use to turn back asylum seekers are unseaworthy and ethically wrong to use, marine sources in Darwin say.

A government official and a local fisher say they were shocked at the building standards of the 20-metre green, blue and red fishing boats that will replace the garish orange lifeboats that were deemed "unsinkable".

"The first boat the shipyard launched sunk, and it had to be retrieved with a crane," the government worker said.

"The materials are a really poor quality as well as the craftsmanship. They are completely unsafe and not a passenger boat."

Hardly any fuel and a crap boat.

We have no idea of what's been going on up there or how many people have come to grief - or anything else, for that matter.

If I believed any of you really cared about the drownings I would give you some kudos...but it's merely a convenient catch cry for you to bleat while backing all the other cruelties inflicted under our border policies.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You ask - why does the
Abbott-led Coalition - have to follow
Labor's "megaphone" diplomacy? That's
being somewhat hypocritic.
Who was it who chased Labor at every turn
asking for boat numbers?

But back to your question -

I wasn't aware that "megaphone" diplomacy
was what was being asked of Mr Abbott and his team.
Merely accountability, explanations, and answers on a
potentially suspect criminal act. After-all
if they broke the law in our name - and it is in our
name -
we as voters as entitled to know.

Under
our system (Thanks to the Magna Carta),
no-one is above the law. And that is how it should
be. This is not a matter of national security.
And suggesting that it is - is merely a political
tactic and a diversion.

Monstoring Labor and insisting on answers to
questions on boat people worked a treat for
Mr Abbott and the Coalition. Now it appears that it
has created a straitjacket for them in having to
confront those issues in government.

I guess that the take-out from the Gillard era was
that undermining trust was the political gold that
could tear down a government. But in honing
negativity to a fine art in opposition undermines
public confidence in the institutions of government and
creates a monster that now threatens to consume
them in power.

There's a German Proverb that states:

"You can't control the wind, but you can adjust
the sails."

And that is precisely what Mr Abbott needs to do -
and do quickly.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

Thank you for giving my ridiculous question a go ? Your thoughts are worthy of consideration, however they'd never stand up to anything but a cursory examination in this country unfortunately. Where there's a compulsory requirement for everyone to first genuflect, and obediently recognise, everything and anything, the all powerful United Nations require us to think and do ? Failure to do so, may result in them becoming very cross with us, to such a point they may never consent to speak with us again ! Your passive welcome, bereft of any assistance, is indeed meritorious to be sure ! In fact it's a brilliant idea, Thank you YUYUTSU.

Page 1 this thread.

Poirot "This is Abbotts best debacle yet"

Paul "the ducking and weaving by Abbott is a dead set give away that the story is true"

Foxy "so its a ripe old mess" "What a stuff up - all around"

These are some comments when the usual suspects thought they had Abbott with a smoking gun and jumped right in for the kill.

Now egg on faces all around. How keen they are to get the goods on Abbott. Most amusing!

At least the Labor party had the sense to shut up when they realized that some juicy info could be leaked about Labor when in office. Not a word since, and they can thank Julie Bishop for alerting them.

One would think they would learn from other occasions. Recall allegations of Navy torture of asylum seekers by hands on hot engines, shown to be lies and a spying scandal which was shown to occur when Labor was in office.

They should just admit that the 'illegals' issue is lost for them and that the LNP did what Labor said was impossible in stopping the boats. This matter alone will get the LNP re-elected.

"If the boats are "stopped, how come we're paying people to take them back? How come we're providing boats to send people back? How come we're holding people on ships before returning them?

I mean, it's a simple question....all these boats that are apparently "stopped"..ie. "aren't there" - apparently "are there"...ie. are not "stopped"?"

Poirot

Playing word games again Poirot? The boats have been stopped from landing in Australia. The Government has never claimed they have (or could) stop the boats from departing Indonesia.

Is the boat and crew in question the boat that was heading for New Zealand, the one the NZ Gov't request help with? If so, is it possible the New Zealand government made the pay off, if a pay off actually happened?

Dear Banjo,

I am amazed that you and others on this forum would
not find it at all disturbing that the Prime
Minister by refusing to deny that his government
paid people smugglers to take intercepted asylum
seekers back to Indonesia.

Michael Gordon in his article in The Age, Saturday, June
13, 2015, says that "the explanation for neither
confirming nor denying reports in the Fairfax Media is
that he doesn't want to give information "to our enemies,"
by commenting on operational matters."

But as Gordon points out "this answer gives those very
enemies reason to believe they may profit, courtesy of
the Abbott government, if their enterprises are
intercepted on the high seas."

"Rather than close down the people smugglers' business model,
it suggests another source of profit.
And as Gordon says - that is the practical consequence.
However, just as disturbing are the leagal, moral, and
diplomatic questions that are raised by the implicit
confirmation that the government has taken its
end-justifies-the-means border protection policy to an,
until now, unimagined extreme."

None of this seems to bother some people.
Well that's their choice.

However, it bothers me a great deal.

And the moral justification that Mr Abbott has stopped
the deaths at sea, been able to close mainland detention
centres and save taxpayers' money. Are all solid out-comes
as Michael Gordon confirms. But the question needs to be
asked - at what human cost?

We're told that - "one thousand men remain in limbo on
Papua New Guinea's Manus Island in conditions that those
able to witness say are in breach of international
treaties. Many carry the scars of the violence that ended
the life of Reza Barati".

Gordon says that "about the same number including over 100
children, remain in detention in tented accommodation on
Nauru, where a dozen security guards have been sacked over
allegations of sexual assault and child-abuse."

"The unrepudiated assertion that the government has paid crew
to return asylum seekers, highlights the lack of transparency
and accountability that pervades this area of policy."

cont'd ...

So lets take a look at some other questions
that Michael Gordon raises:

1) He tells us that
the legal question is simple enough.And asks -
"If the government has paid crew employed by
people smugglers to take asylum seekers to
somewhere they don't want to go, does this
not amount to trafficking? If not, why not?"

2) Gordon then says -
"The moral question is equally clear: if it
is wrong for desperate people to pay people
smugglers to take them to safety; how can it
be right to pay those working for these
smugglers to take the very same people back to
an uncertain limbo?"

3) Gordon points out that the diplomatic question
should be answered soon enough. "Having made its
objections to turn-backs abundantly clear on
multiple levels and on multiple occasions, how will
Indonesia react? Not very well," he suspects.

Another vital point in all of this is that
"At a time when countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia
and Thailand are recognising the need for a regional
agreement to deal with people movements, as opposed
to the deterrence framework championed by Australia,"
under the Abbott-led Coalition, "it also reveals
Australia to be out of step and alone."

And if criticising this deterrence framework
some people find objectionable.
Then they need to look at themselves in the mirror
and explain why they don't find it objectionable.
Because it is a disgrace - and shameful!

NO one from the regressives have ever been able to give an answer as to how morally wrong it is to leave thousands in refugee camps who have no money to pay smugglers while those who throw away papers, pay smugglers get to come here (at least under Labour/Greens)at the genuine refugees expense.

Very very selective outrage as usual by the regressives.

While you are still arguing among yourselves 5 DAYS AFTER the thread kicked off, you might  have missed the fact that Abbott has nothing more to say on the subject and has moved on.

I reckon I've exhausted everything I'd like to add to this debate ?

To recapitulate my assertions concerning many (not all) of these boat people. Together with my strong objections to their unfettered access to this country and the generous benefits we offer, are these:-

Many are Muslims. Anywhere there's a large assemblage of Muslims, there's often armed dissent !

Some are criminals, using the semblance of distressed refugees to gain entry to this country.

Some are purely (economic) acolytes in pursuit of a Nation renowned for providing it's citizens, with generous Social Security benefits.

Those who're left, are most likely bona fide refugees ? Who're unfortunately grouped amongst those others (described herein), who've got quite a different agenda altogether ? Making it just that much more difficult, to obtain the protection and succour they so desperately need.

All because of the chicanery and deception practised by (some) of these fraudsters arriving here by boat, having destroyed every single document of identification in the process ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Do a bit more research into the myths that
surround asylum seekers. Especially what
percentage of them are in fact either muslims
or criminals.

It's interesting that when being assessed in the
past most of them turned out to be genuine
refugees.

Dear Foxy,

There are currently fifty million genuine refugees around the world, in hell-holes on almost every continent. Out of those fifty million, perhaps fifty million are entitled to be selected as part of Australia's annual quota of genuine refugees.

I'm all in favour of increasing the annual quota, to include some of those in extra-desperate need, such as people from the war zones in Syria and the Rohingya currently being persecuted by the Burmese government, in cahoots with local reactionaries.

Fifty million. If any are wealthy enough (or can scrape up the fare from their dirt-poor relations), should they have some right to jump the queue ? I don't think so: there are many, many more who wouldn't ever able to do even that much.

IF Abbott allowed every boat-load to arrive in Australia and counted them as part of the annual quota, what impact would that have on those others of the fifty million genuine refugees ? Wouldn't it exclude an equivalent number of them from every getting here ?

Fifty million. How much should Australia's annual quota be ? How many , out of fifty million, could we take ? All of them ? Obviously not. Then, how many ? And surely the most desperate ? Not those in third countries with the cash to get on a boat.

Now that Abbott has found a way to stop the boats in their tracks, as it were, and deprive the entire smuggling racket of its income, we can get back to welcoming genuine refugees who have done all the right things, applied, waited, vegetated, and taken their turn.

Increase the annual quota, by all means. Take the most desperate, as Howard did in 1999 with the Kosovars. Anybody remember the Kosovars ? A bloke pushing his grandmother over the icy mountains in a f....ing wheelbarrow ? Ah, such short memories.

Then along come that UN idiot Shetty, suggesting we should take economic migrants as well. Two words:

India.

China

Hi FOXY...I will do that, but for now I've exhausted any further comments I'd like to make on this topic. Other than to conclude by adding, many, I repeat, 'many' of these 'genuine' refugees, quite precipitately somehow evolve or mutate themselves, from being desperate Islamic refugees, into something else altogether different ?

Therefore instead of our Social Security, or our Health systems, rendering them necessary assistance, they fall squarely under the aegis of police and the security intelligence services ? Seemingly, our Immigration Authorities, are neither sufficiently trained or adequately resourced, to properly screen each and everyone of these potential refugees. Nothing unusual about that, some even confound our Intelligence Officers, such is their deeply prepared cover ?

Somehow FOXY, I don't believe I'd ever convince you. Any convincing that need be done, I'll leave for you to observe, as they'll predictable unfold, for all to see in our community !

Foxy,
I am not disturbed at all that the PM will not comment nor that labor will not comment further either.

All we have is some allegations so do not be surprised if the stories change. There is not evidence that money was even given and if so what for? It could well be that we paid for information, which is standard practice in Asia.

It seems that Gordon, like you, was beating the story up, but Paul Sheehan, also of the Fairfax press, virtually ran an almost identical story to what I said this morning. It would save you embarrassment if you wait until more facts come out before trying to hang Abbott.

Even if we did pay the crew to go back to Indonesia, for whatever reason, has it not occurred to you that the people smugglers will soon run out of customers if the customers do not get what they have paid for.

Fox, "It's interesting that when being assessed in the past most of them turned out to be genuine(sic) refugees"

There I fixed that for you. One of the criticisms of the Rudd and Gillard governments is that those responsible for making immigration decisions turned a blind eye to the obvious abuses to conceal the shattering negative consequences of the foolish Rudd's bloody-minded decision to trash Howard's working Pacific Solution.

The economic migrants knew the drill and were coached by the international criminal gangs and by the members of the gangs already in Australia and their hirelings and apologists - many who swing from the Aussie taxpayer's teat, regrettably.

Two years ago Rudd changed his mind and so did his Foreign Minister and many of his ministers, to realise that trashing the Pacific Solution was naive.

<"AUSTRALIA needs a tougher assessment regime for asylum seekers to stem the growing number of economic migrants coming by boat, Foreign Minister Bob Carr says.
Senator Carr, who switched his support from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd in Wednesday's leadership ballot, said the make up of people arriving by boat had changed in recent years.
There was evidence a growing number of boat arrivals were economic refugees, and not asylum seekers, from countries like Iran, he said.
"These are increasingly not people fleeing persecution," Senator Carr told the Senate during question time on Thursday.
"They are paying for passage with people smugglers.">
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/carr-flags-tougher-boat-policy-under-rudd/story-e6frfku9-1226670716464

Foxy - Quote "It's interesting that when being assessed in the past most of them turned out to be genuine refugees."

You forget the fact that the public servants etc that were assessing them admitted something like only a very small percentage were properly checked.

Dear Banjo,

I agree with Mark Kenny's evaluation
that "the political threads of asylum
seeker policy are now so inflamed that
a rational discussion over push and pull
is hard to imagine, much less lead to
anything approaching a genuine national
consensus."

What we have at the moment despite so
many people's earlier immigration anxiety and
national security now reveals concerns
of the dangers of unchecked power.

As Kenny tells us -
"The revelation that the Australian government
may be secretly paying people smugglers to turn
their boats around, suggests to many that the
architects of policy are as short of a compass
as the hapless souls they would deny."

Kenny points out that domestically, Abbott
has been on a winner...

That many people even "suspended judgement of what felt
like an un-Australian levels of operational
secrecy regarding "on-water matters" so as to
deny the "human filth" and "criminal scum" of
the people-smuggling trade the tools and product
needed to keep going."

However, Kenny says - that "suspension must surely
now be withdrawn. Whatever it takes is a dangerous
idea in any endeavour, but when carried out in
secret and in the denial of a human crisis, it risks
being criminal itself."

You will probably not agree with Kenny but I do.
"It is time for a return to proper levels of
accountability."

Bits that the cherry-picking Fox edits out,

Kenny says,

"It understandably rankles the Abbott government that it has not been given credit for ceasing the calamitous deaths at sea under the previous administration's supposedly more "humane" policy.

However well intentioned, Labor's approach was a disaster."
[SMH, June13, 2015]

Labor PM Rudd, not someone who would ever take advice and who wantonly destroyed John Howard's successful Pacific Solution, was later to backflip and admit along with his Foreign Minister, Bob Carr and other Labor frontbenchers that it was economic migrants, illegal migrants, who were paying the international people smuggling gangs.

Actually due to the word limit - I usually
try to put in the gist of what the author
stated.

What was also left out was:

"Delivering on Tony Abbott's notorious three-
word commitment to stop the boats turned crucially
on putting another three-point principle
into action: when it came to boats seeking entry
show no weakness, no equivocation, no exceptions.
Vessels intercepted would be turned aroung or their
human cargo taken into custody to be warehoused in
deliberately awful tropical conditions - children
and all. Nobody, but nobody, would be settled here."

As Kenny tells us "delivering the policy brought bitter
criticism on Abbott, but, like it or not, his
absolutism also saw the pernicious people smuggling
trade neutered - and therefor countless deaths at sea
avoided."

According to Kenny - "this was its moral foundation, and
frankly, it was a pretty hard one for the left to crack."

However Kenny goes on to point out -

"Now, however, even that appears to have been inundated,
as the unpalatable politics of immigration anxiety and national security reveal the dangers of unchecked power."

And that is the point Kenny is making in his analysis.

"Like the boats themselves, the revelation that the
Australian government may be secretly paying people smugglers
to turn their boats around, suggests the architects of
policy are as short of a compass as the hapless souls they would
deny."

He sums up, "Whatever it takes is a dangerous idea in any
endeavour, but when carried out in secret and in the
denial of a human crisis, it risks being criminal itself..."

"It is time for a return to proper levels of
accountability."

Poirot,

Now that you have accepted that paying minor criminals to disrupt smuggling activities is common practise on land, what on earth is wrong with doing it at sea? Real answer please, not just your opinion.

Foxy,

If the PM was required to reveal security information at the request of the opposition there would be no security, especially now that there appears to be no crime.

As for Michael Gordon the far left journalist who believes that returning people rescued from a sinking boat to the nearest shore as per international law is crime, he is free to lay charges. As with most drivel that comes from his mouth, I believe he knows he is talking crap and won't go beyond flatulent posturing.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We shall have to wait and see what comes out regarding
this entire issue. One thing is clear - this is not a
matter of national security. That's bollocks.
People smugglers should not be pulling up to
Customs vessels with the expectation that they are a
"floating ATM."

The executive director of the Human
Rights Law Centre, Hugh de Kretser, said the claims
left Australia open to breaching various laws and the
secrecy from the government was extraordinary.

"If true, there are serious questions about whether
these payments breach Australian law, Indonesian law,
and International law." he said.

If you don't like what Michael Gordon writes, there are
plenty of other journalists you can read on social
media.

However, they're all saying the same thing.
You can of course always turn to Piers Ackerman,
or Andrew Bolt. They may be more to your liking.
Kindred spirits and all that!

Dear Shadow Minister,

You raised the topic of flatulence in your last post.

Did you know that your body produces anywhere
from 1 cup to a half gallon of gas a day and as a
result you should be passing gas about 14 times a day.

My advice to you is:

Get a dog!

I agree with TISM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQShSBhzG40

R.I.P. Tokin' Blackman

Foxy,

It's clear that far left whingers don't think that boats trying illegally to get access to Australia is not a security issue, while the majority of Australians do.

As for the boat drivers that sold out their paymasters and drove the illegal immigrants safely back to Indonesia rather than spending 5 yrs in jail, considering that they just screwed their bosses out of $millions of future business.

Shadow,

It is interesting how you down play criminality and the Liberal Party. I recall our debate concerning the criminal active of the NSW Liberals and the findings of the ICAC, another example of you justifying party members criminal activity with a " what ever it takes" attitude. You are now doing it again, do we see a trend here?

Paul,

It is interesting how you downplay criminality and the Greens. I recall our debate concerning the bribery of the greens by the biggest corporate donation in history, and the taking of dirty money from the unions. Perhaps before you divert the thread yet again we should concentrate on the successful legal challenges against the activity against illegal boats during the coalition. Having trouble remembering any? That's because there weren't.

Every time the coalition moves against the people smuggling industry the Labor/green coalition enabled, there is a great squawking from the left about how many laws the coalition is violating especially from those that clearly have no clue with respect to refugee or maritime law.

As a clue here are some common mistakes by the squawkers:
1 The UN charter covers asylum seekers that have arrived in Aus, not those in international waters.
2 In maritime law it is acceptable to stop and board a boat on the high seas if it is in distress, appears to be smuggling people, drugs, or heading illegally to Aus.
3 Those intercepted that have not committed a crime can be returned from whence they came or the nearest port.
4 Paying criminals to disrupt criminal operations is legal and is ongoing in every country in the world.

anyone familiar with the definition of people smuggling will immediately understand why accusations against the navy for people smuggling are so absurd. -- People smuggling (also called human smuggling) is "the facilitation, transportation, attempted transportation or illegal entry of a person or persons across an international border, in violation of one or more countries' laws, either clandestinely or through deception, such as the use of fraudulent documents"

Dear Shadow Minister,

If it is so obvious to you that the government
has not broken any laws - then why doesn't the
Prime Minister simply answer the questions being
asked and have the matter end. By refusing to
answer guilt is implied.

Indonesia has had a lot to say and the 'fact-checking' (LOL) taxpayer-funded national broadcaster duly reports Indonesia's tainted and twisted messages giving their propaganda and negotiation strategies undeserved oxygen and credibility.

This is Indonesia, one of the very few countries that has NOT signed up to the "Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) or Sua Act, (which) is a multilateral treaty by which states agree to prohibit and punish behaviour which may threaten the safety of maritime navigation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Suppression_of_Unlawful_Acts_against_the_Safety_of_Maritime_Navigation

"As of June 2015, the Convention has 166 state parties, which includes 164 UN member states plus the Cook Islands and Niue. The 166 states represent 94.5 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet".

Sadly, Malaysia is also an exception.

It is interesting that the apologists for the economic migrants are not concerned about their criminality, such as in conspiring to or actually damaging ships' engines and hulls and the criminality of the international gangs they support of course.

Shadow, you have once more drifted off into Fantasy Land and are allowing your imagination to run wild. The Greens have never ever been before the ICAC on corruption charges, or any charges for that matter, unlike that conga line of CORRUPT LIBERALS who tried to apply the Abbott philosophy of "whatever it takes" and they took plenty, the whole scurvy bunch, from Boozy Barry and his bottle of plonk, right down to Andy Cornball and Bad Hazzed.

These sub-contractors of yours, operating those cruises out of Jakarta and being paid $5000 a day by the Little Aussie Battler, I want to know if they are fully paid up members of the Indonesian branch of the Liberal Party? Now that they are under the employ of one Tony Baloney Abbott what more can we expect? Payoffs to pimps, cash to criminals, bank rolling of bank robbers, where will it end.

Foxy, did you not see our fearless leader casting a meaningful eye over the Magna Carta just the other day, obviously checking the law as it applies to payoffs to people smugglers. The MC had nothing to say on the subject, so it must be legal. SM our resident legal eagle is always at the ready with a bit of jurisprudence to protect the shenanigans of his beloved Liberal Party, who can blame him, they do no wrong, so he tells us.

More good work by Abbott and Co. The Greens & some on this site will be horrified.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/iran-may-take-b...

Iran may take back failed asylum seekers

AUSTRALIA and Iran have had discussions about the return of failed asylum seekers being held in immigration detention camps.

IN return for Tehran taking them back, Australia would offer scholarships to Iranian university students, The West Australian reports on Friday.

Australia would also offer Iranian citizens work and holiday visas and Iran might be allowed to build consulates in Sydney and Melbourne.

Foxy,

There are enough cashed up refugee activists that if there was even a smidgen of a chance of succeeding, there would be an application to court. As clearly no Lawyer or barrister will touch it, there is by implication complete innocence.

Paul,

I know that you are distraught now that your leaders Crusty Minge and Adam Bent got stabbed in the back and Syphilitic Hansen Young is Wandering around Manus trying to get someone to look at her.

You are kidding yourself if you believe that the greens are not as corrupt or worse than anyone else. Anyone taking backhands from the CFMEU to do a dirty deal against a labor party member has a serious ethics deficiency.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wish that this matter would die a quiet
death.

Well, Sir, that's not going to happen.

Why should activists pay lawyers - when a
judicial inquiry is in the cards.
That way it will be transparent and accoutnable -
something the current government is not.

cont'd ...

Dear Shadow Minister,

Hey - you might find Chris Graham's suggestions
for Mr Abbott enlightening - (all things considered).
I know that you don't usually like articles in "New Matilda,"
They're not as fair and unbiased as your usual sources
from "Limited News." (or is it "News Limited?")
but the suggestions are really worth considering.

http://www.newmatilda.com/2015/06/14/forget-people-smugglers-heres-10-criminal-enterprises-tony-abbott-should-be-giving-cash

Ah about time for good news. I like the word thousands.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/28495080/canberra-ready-to-depo...

Australia has moved closer to sending thousands of Iranian asylum seekers back to Tehran, with the Abbott Government on the verge of an historic agreement to deport detainees.

The West Australian understands a high-level Iranian delegation visited Australia this week to draw up a memorandum of understanding that would allow the return of Iranians held in immigration detention camps, some for several years.

In return for taking back failed asylum seekers, Australia would offer scholarships to Iranian university students.

The Government may even agree to turn down its strong travel warning advising Australians not to go to Iran.

Australia would also offer Iranian citizens work and holiday visas and Iran might be allowed to build consulates in Sydney and Melbourne.

The Iranian delegation, led by director-general for consular affairs Ali Chegeni, met Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton over two days.

Any deal with Iran — once dubbed part of the axis of evil — would be a major shift in Australian foreign policy.

It is believed any deal would demand there would be no retribution from the Iranian regime towards returned asylum seekers.

Almost 300 Iranian asylum seekers are on Manus Island and 166 on Nauru. Another 440 Iranians are in detention centres on the Australian mainland and 8000 have bridging visas.

Under the former Labor government, Iranians comprised a big proportion of the asylum seekers making their way to Australia on boats.

But though many were found not to be refugees, the government was unable to return them to Tehran because Iran refused to accept them.

Immigration officials often pointed to some Iranian asylum seekers as being the most troublesome to manage in the detention centre network.

o sung wu,

If my last humble request to you didn’t do anything to pacify you in my attempt to sincerely acquire some information from an experienced person, then nothing will.

Why the need to be a smart alec about it? If you will remember, I received some severe abuse from yourself a few months ago (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6653&page=0) and despite that, here I am trying to seek some further information from you with the utmost politeness. Well, I give up. It is clear from your abuse that you have been caught out on your claim regarding the criminality of asylum seekers.

You had no way of determining whether or not you were dealing with was an asylum seeker. You just invented a story to make it sound as if they were criminally inclined when you had no way of knowing. You used your role as a former cop to fool others and that is dishonest.

Then, in an attempt to distract from that, you raise the issue of my cop cousin that you don’t believe exists because he’s actually educated. Well, if it makes you feel any better, he’s still a bit of a racist bigot, but that’s understandable given the fact that racist stereotypes are a coping mechanism for police. It provides them with a sense of predictability and thus prevents them from suffering levels of stress greater than what they already do.

Once again, you can make it sound like criminologists are just a bunch of academics who wouldn’t have a clue, but many of them are former cops who would set the record straight if criminologists really were as clueless as what you make them out to be. Yet none of them ever do.

Funny that.

Finally, you may never have had close contact with criminologists yourself, but there are 10.000 police in Queensland, and there would be even more in NSW, so it’s not unusual that you never had any contact with them.

By the way, my qualifications don't change according to the situation. I am now a qualified criminologist, to your dismay, obviously.

This is good news. If successful, the initiative finally overcomes immigration mistakes readily acknowledged by senior Labor ministers (eg Bob Carr, Foreign Minister) of the previous Rudd and Gillard+Greens governments.

<Canberra ready to deport Iranians

Australia has moved closer to sending thousands of Iranian asylum seekers back to Tehran, with the Abbott Government on the verge of an historic agreement to deport detainees.
..

Under the former Labor government, Iranians comprised a big proportion of the asylum seekers making their way to Australia on boats.

But though many were found not to be refugees, the government was unable to return them to Tehran because Iran refused to accept them.

Immigration officials often pointed to some Iranian asylum seekers as being the most troublesome to manage in the detention centre network.>

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/28495080/canberra-ready-to-deport-iranians/

Philip S,

Have the nuclear bomb crazy Iranians suddenly become the flavor of the month with the conservatives, our new bosom buddies no less. Did not that great buffoon of the right George Wubbleu Bush describe them as part of the "axis of evil" as "helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction." (29th January 2002). What has changed, is it a (new) case of 'My enemies enemy is my friend'. Can we expect Tony Baloney to be inviting Iranians around to the lodge for a fun Sunday afternoon, a BBQ and some light entertainment, a beheading or three. Just like George, who at one time was a friend of The Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

I like this bit " It is believed any deal would demand there would be no retribution from the Iranian regime towards returned asylum seekers." Now that is a doozy, no retribution, short of electric shocks, acid baths and beheading's.
Beach can be down at dock side loading them on board ship with his cattle prod!

Foxy

Could you please comment on this one, it is an absolute shocker! It follows in the footsteps of Liberal Party Founder and military coward 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies who in the 1930's, after a two week visit to Nazi Germany, described Adolf Hitler as basically "a good bloke"! John Howard's support for racism during the 1970's South African rugby tour. I would say its up there with the best corkers of the Liberal Party.

When he was PM, Kevin Rudd and many of his ministers, his Foreign Minister Bob Carr being the spokesman, freely admitted that many claimed 'asylum seekers' were in fact sly, opportunist, economic migrants who had taken advantage of Australia's generosity and goodwill towards refugees.

Bob Carr and others went on further to say that some boats were 100% economic migrants, opportunist rogues who disposed of their papers at sea and used rehearsed stories, having set out to deliberately defraud the system. It is regrettable that there are always some who would be their apologists and are likely to be deriving some benefit from doing so.

Paul1405,
As a supporter of the Greens 'Watermelon' faction, you might think it is all a bit of a lark, but no-one else would applaud scoundrels who set out to abuse special conditions, displace genuine asylum seekers and take advantage of the Australian government and public to swing from the taxpayer's teat for life.

Beach, just put up the evidence for what you say. I'll be happy to read it. Bob Carr saying something does not necessary make it true, now does it.
People fleeing Iran, by you sides own admission a "murderous regime" could not be refugees, come come old boy. You want to return them to whatever would befall them.

Foxy,

What judicial is in the cards? You're dreaming.

This is yet another successful boat turn around, and as usual we will have the greens and activists huffing and puffing about illegality, and then once again they will retreat with their tails between their legs.

Thanks for the link to Chris Graham's article, and for reminding me of what a useless blog it is. I'm left wondering whether CG is pretending to be a moron or is the genuine article. Either way, the only reason to read the NM is if you are a far left whinger, distressed by reality and need some fantasy.

Foxy,

SM reckons - "This is yet another successful boat turn around..."

End of story.....

"Whatever it takes" - "By hook or by 'crook'" - possible criminality and getting down and dirty with people smugglers is all in a day's work for the Coalition apparently.

Providing just enough fuel for a boat to be out of sight when it runs out and the on-board panic starts is wonderful stuff, apparently.

Providing no other supplies to the boat that has been set up to drift without power on the high seas is splendid, apparently.

And then in the next breath, SM will regale you of the altruism shown by this the govt in acting to prevent drownings.

I wonder how many boats have been sent packing with minimum fuel and have foundered with no support available - and those on board have succumbed to the depths?

Poirot - "I wonder how many boats have been sent packing with minimum fuel and have foundered with no support available - and those on board have succumbed to the depths?"

ZERO! until to you prove otherwise with absolute certainty.

Paul1405 - Your comments regarding " the nuclear bomb crazy Iranians "

Western countries and Isreal have been claiming they are only a few years away from getting the Atomic bomb trouble is that claim has been made for like 20 years, where is it BS.

CH,

"ZERO! until to you prove otherwise with absolute certainty."

Precisely!

Which kinda sums up the reason for all the secrecy..."operational matters", etc.

You can usually guarantee that some pretty bad stuff is going down, once a govt seeks to cloak transparency.

But ya can't prove it.....which is why it's instituted in the first place.

(Stuff tends to morph into view in the fullness of time though....)

Poirot,

Also in the habit of making stuff up are you?

What's wrong with Australia taking all legal measures to prevent the massacre of women and children?

Also what is wrong with giving the boats returning to Indonesia ample fuel to reach the mainland 20 odd km away, but not enough to get to Aus? Again nothing illegal.

It is interesting that you find the death of 1200 to 2000 people under labor/greens so trivial, and zero deaths at sea under the coalition such a crime.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Plenty is wrong with the actions of the government.
By refusing to deny that his government paid
people smugglers to takeintercepted asylum seekers
back to Indonesia, Mr Abbott has given the green light to
the deadly trade that he supposedly despises.

Just as disturbing are the legal, moral and diplomatic
questions raised by implicit confirmation that the
government has taken its end-justifies-the-means border
protection policy to an, until now, unimagined extreme.

Questions need to be answered. The government is not
above the rule of law.

Dear Poirot,

Shadow Minister is doing his usual defending
of an indefensible situation - that needs
explaning. I don't understand why the Prime
Minister can't explain his government's
actions, and the reasons behind them.
Or deny the actions if they did not happen.
Then the matter would close down. At the moment
the question of - how paying people smugglers to
take people to Indonesia was contributing to
"stopping people smugglers" remains somewhat
difficult to define.

Immigration and law experts in newspapers have stated
that giving people smugglers money would be
"unprecedented," as it constitutes a form of people
trafficking and bribery.
Apparently this conduct is a breach of both
domestic, international, and Indonesian law.

SM,

But they didn't give them "ample fuel".

They put them in one of Australia's new sub-standard boats, supplied them with enough fuel to run out before they reached land, didn't give them any other supplies, initially accosted them in international waters, juggled them around a bit within Oz waters, then sent them packing - to what would have been their doom, had the other ship not been able to take them on.

And all in the service of "....taking all legal measures to prevent the massacre of women and children?"

(Funny way to go about it)

So pleased you approve.

"...and zero deaths at sea under the coalition such a crime."

Like CH says...you can't "prove" that. We've only got the govt's word for it.

Notwithstanding that they're such a trustworthy bunch Lol!

Hi Foxy,

"The reason lovable Tones is not being forthcoming is because he doesn't have to. He's well and truly bunkered down behind fortress "operational matters" and therefore can get away with treating us all like mushrooms.

He doesn't particularly care what we're saying about him because he's merely politicking in order to wedge Labor on his beloved "terror tooting"

It's a tried and true method for dragging the populace with you...just ask Goering, who knew a thing or two about the tactic:

Quote: "...after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"....voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I love transparent government, don't you!

"Just as disturbing are the legal, moral and diplomatic questions raised by implicit confirmation that the government has taken its end-justifies-the-means border protection policy to an, until now, unimagined extreme." That's a bit dramatic Foxy.

If we were discussing someone who was arrested on terrorism charges, or a dodgy Labor politician accused of wife beating, you would be adamant we use the word alleged until the crime was proven, but you aren't calling this an alleged payment are you? You've judged and handed down your decision, an action I've seen you scold others for doing.

You refuse to believe there is any positive rationale in not divulging the operational strategy; you also cannot see that if the smugglers were regularly paid to return their passengers, their passengers would no longer be able to trust them and would be inclined to not gamble their hard earned savings.

Like Poirot and some of the other conspiracy theorists, you both choose to assume there is a sinister right wing plot at work. Foxy takes no umbrage with Poirot's false accusation that people have died at sea under this government; possibly even holding the same view. Perfectly acceptable if you are Left leaning but totally out of order from the Right.

And for the umpteenth time Poirot drags out her favourite Herman Goering's quote, the one she obtained from the Climate Change Alarmist Handbook, as proof the Government is duping us.

This forum would be boring without Foxy & Poirot; although I admit sometimes I tend to fall asleep half way through some of Foxy's long winded contributions, especially when I see she's repeating herself with an almost identical comment to one's she's already posted couple of times previously in the same thread.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I appreciate your comments and your views.

However, by not denying, the Prime Minister
implies it did happen. All that is being asked
of him is accountability and transparency -
seeing as these are very serious allegations.
And considering that the man went after union
"slush funds" with great relish, went after
the Human Rights Commissioner, went after
Peter Slipper,et al, he can't now hide behind
"security," and operational matters.
That is simply a political tactic and it is
not credible. Voters are being treated with
disrespect. If he does the chasing when he sees
political gain in it for him. He can't expect not
to be chased in return when he's suspected
of being at fault. BTW - The evidence has been provided
by witnesses that it did happen. The Indonesians
have proof.

Foxy, do you remember a couple years ago some conspiracy theorists were saying President Obama's birth certificate was forged and requesting he provide an original to prove them wrong. Obama said he wasn't playing that game and refused to cooperate. Does that mean they were right and he isn't actually an American?

"BTW - The evidence has been provided by witnesses that it did happen. The Indonesians have proof." - Foxy

Showing a table full of American $100 bills is not proof. In fact there are now allegations Indonesian official took briefs from the smugglers. Who can you trust in Indonesia with any certainty?

The recent mass murderer in South Carolina was arrested, there is a living eye witness to the crime, yet the news is calling him the alleged murderer.

Oh come on Conservative Hippie, you must be very naive if you think there is no truth to this story.
If it was false, the PM would be falling over himself to get to a microphone to deny it.
But he is being very secretive and hesitant about comments on this issue, which says it all.
The news reporters would not all be carrying on about these Government payments to people smugglers unless there was some truth in it either.

If, as the PM and his besties are muttering, that there has been 'nothing illegal' done by the Government in this matter, then why not explain to the Australian people exactly what has been done? This rubbish about it being an operational matter is wearing a bit thin now.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Are you serious?

A Prime Minister's illegal actions cannot be compared
to an American President's birth-certificate.

You surely jest.

"A Prime Minister's illegal actions cannot be compared to an American President's birth-certificate."

Both men are Leaders of their country, both accused of something they don't feel deserves ongoing discussion.

In what way do you see no relevance?

A.J. PHILIPS...

I've told you previously, I don't like you very much. I don't like the arrogant style in which you've hitherto prosecuted your opinion. Simply put young fellow, I don't like 'know all's', nor do I have any regard for your chosen metier. Having witnessed and heard some of the aberrant nonsense emanating from one of your more 'celebrated' colleagues, none other than that eminent Professor, Paul WILSON, Chair of Criminology, Bond University, I've had more than my fill of your nebulous vocation.

Interestingly, Prof. WILSON (complete with gold earring, now aged 60+?) had been waxing lyrically about one particularly (notorious) crook that I'd previously arrested, and for whom, I'd been case officer. A miscreant that I know very well indeed. Prof. WILSON was so 'far off' with his analysis and the real facts, concerning this bloke and his violent crimes, it was breathtaking ? My only relief came, with the realisation the good Professor was still ensconced in Queensland, hopefully he would remain there until his retirement ?

If the funds were paid it was done by Australian spies who are exempt from the law. The Prime Minister did not personally hand over the money, if it was even done, and if our spies did it then nothing illegal happened. Spies don't ring the PM to ask if they can get on with the job.

Why do you insist our PM committed an illegal activity?

I realise you really want to pin something on Abbott but this issue really is a flea on an elephant.

And, why aren't you showing any concern that it is likely the Labor Government did something similar while they were running the country.

It seems you have got a very selective interpretation of Right and Wrong. Right is always wrong and Left is always right, right?

Governments pay rewards for information leading to the apprehension of alleged criminals. Isn't that so ? Is that illegal, or even immoral ?

Police no doubt pay informers as long as their information is useful. Isn't that so ? Is that outside the law, or even particularly immoral ?

The Federal government has a policy of stopping illegal boat-loads of illegal immigrants from reaching Australia. Support it or not, any properly-elected government is within its rights to enforce that policy.

If boats leave Indonesia without proper clearances for their passengers to leave Indonesia, then that's more likely where an offence has occurred.

Australian officials stop the boats, pay off the crews (and pretty cheaply, by the sound of it), either transfer passengers to safer boats or simply re-fuel the ones the poor silly buggers have paid to get on, and turn them back to Indonesia.

Illegal ? Probably not.

Immoral ? Probably not.

Effective ? Probably. How many more people will willingly pay money, only to get a round trip back to Indonesia ? Probably none.

Ah, so that's why some people are exercising themselves over this, along with that little girl, SHY: because it will probably work.

Right. So let's get back to processing genuine refugees, in hell-holes around the world, people who have been in them for decades, and who have had no alternative but to wait their turn.

THEY are the people we should be feeling compassionate about. Double the quota for truly desperate people, by all means. But don't just look for sticks to shove up the government; don't just use illegal immigrants for your own purposes.

Joe

Oh, seemed I missed that one eh, A.J.PHILIPS... I completely overlooked that small 'gem' from you ! Another clear sign of my rapidly approaching dotage ?

So you assert '...raciest stereotypes are a coping mechanism for police...' are they now how very interesting ? And how would you know ?

You see A.J.P, this is precisely what I meant when I said, I didn't like the arrogant way, in which you prosecute your opinions ? And here's an example ? You've never been a copper, so how would you know ? What do you mean, by 'raciest stereotyping' ? What relevance does it have with stress ? What stress, for whom, and what circumstance, precipitates this mythical 'stress' ?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I see no relevance because one is
accused of committing illegal acts during his time
as Australia's Prime Minister. The American President
was being slurred for his birth certificate. A time
for which he cannot be held accountable - surely
even in your eyes. Chalk and cheese between the two
cases. And if you can't see the difference between
the two, then you do have serious problems of judgement.

Well Foxy, I have obviously trumped you as it appears you've wigged-out in total denial with that flawed logic.

Do you wear a diamond studded eye-patch or the common pirate style?

You don't see the relevance because you don't want too. Obama was only being 'slurred' where condemning Abbott publically without the solid evidence is not slurring.

Why can't you get this in your head, Abbott did not pay anyone! Abbott has not personally committed any crime and you cannot provide any proof he did. Do you think he quickly flew up there, paid off the crew, flew back and now denies it? Obviously he didn't so you have nothing on him personally.

Would it kill you to say Abbott has allegedly condoned the payment rather than repeatedly claiming Abbott has committed illegal activities. Can you name the specific law Abbott supposed broke that would constitute an illegal activity. Come on, what law is it?

Your hypocrisy shows when you completely ignore commenting on the strong possibility the Labor government has done the same thing. Where is your outrage in this regard?

One thing you have proven time and time again is once you make up your mind on an issue you are not going to give an inch, regardless of how faulty your argument might be.

This is too much like arguing with a stubborn woman, to continue any further.

o sung wu,

There's a lot of people on OLO that I don't like, but I'm not rude enough to tell them.

Of course you're not going to like me. You like to feel like you're somewhat of an expert on criminal justice matters (and after 35 years experience, you ought to be) so when someone shows you to be wrong on the topic, the frustration of that is going to be interpreted as a problem inherent with the other person (e.g. an arrogance) and manifest as a disliking for them. That being said, I'm not really a "know all". The more I learn the more I realise I don't know.

I'd be interested to hear what this criminologist said that was so wrong. Perhaps all his former-cop colleagues hadn't corrected him? Speaking of which, I had three lecturers who were once police (they always had interesting stories to tell), and a lecture one of them was giving made me think of you. He was discussing the ways police exacerbate tensions with ethnic groups and I imagined you shaking your head and saying, "What would be know?!"

<<So you assert '...raciest stereotypes are a coping mechanism for police...' are they now how very interesting ? And how would you know ?>>

Because that's what the evidence suggests. I'll let you do the research on that one. That's not always going to be the case, of course.

<<What do you mean, by 'raciest stereotyping' ?">>

You know, assuming that all "Lebs" are the same, for example. Do I really need to explain such simple concepts? You know what racism and stereotyping are.

<<What relevance does it have [to do] with stress ?>>

I already explained that.

<<What stress, for whom...>>

The stress of dealing with unpredictable and potentially dangerous situations. Less thought is required when assumptions can be made about certain groups.

<<...and what circumstance, precipitates this mythical 'stress' ?>>

Oh come now. Don't pretend you didn't know that policing is highly stressful.

Anyway, can I take it that you had no way of measuring the criminality of asylum seekers?

Foxy,

You have not yet established that any "illegal" activities occurred (other than the illegal attempt to smuggle people)

it all over folks, our next PM from the Iranian Liberal Party has made a statement on all this people smuggling and boat people stuff, its now crystal clear and Tony totally agrees with the following.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpPZKwayH_pWPF20Ls0hgVw

CH,

"Foxy takes no umbrage with Poirot's false accusation that people have died at sea under this government..."

Okay, Mr Stickler for the Facts - which false "accusation".

I "surmised" that that may be the case - and that we have no way of knowing - and that judging by the way that boat was sent packing, that it may be a possibility.

Merely rationalising the situation.

That's not an accusation.

CH,

"...Can you name the specific law Abbott supposed broke that would constitute an illegal activity. Come on, what law is it?"

Okay...."Australia" and the laws it may have breached:

"Australian criminal law: Any such payments are likely to have violated section 73.3.A of the Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code and also contravened the Australian Migration Act. The criminal code and the migration act both outlaw people smuggling, or providing assistance to people smugglers.

Australian maritime law: Under Australia’s Maritime Power’s Act, Australian customs and Navy have the power to intercept and detain vessels in Australian waters, and detain people on board those boats in Australian waters.

But if the people smugglers were in fact in international waters and heading to New Zealand, these powers of detention would not be triggered, leaving Australia’s government in violation of its own maritime law.

International law: Australia is a signatory to the International Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, and any payment to people smugglers would be in contravention of this law.

Indonesian law: The crew of the boat in question are being held in Indonesia on charges of human smuggling and bribery. Both Indonesia’s anti-human trafficking bill, which makes the “giving and receiving of payments” related to trafficking illegal, and its anti-corruption bill may apply."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/16/all-laws-australia-breaking-if-it-pays-human-smugglers-keep-migrants-away

How's that for starters?

Regarding the Goering quote:...let's face it, that's exactly what vacuous Abbott and his equally vacuous govt are doing. Noting that chaos and serial back-flipping are the only tangible achievements so far.

Every week or so they organise a flag draping ceremony where Abbott steps up to pull out his "the death cult is coming to get you"...."submit or die".... rubbish.

What a hero!

A.J.PHILIPS...

You can take it in any way you like my friend !

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Of course I can't prove what the Abbott-led
Coalition government did or did not do regarding
paying people smugglers. I have cited various
sources and their opinions on this discussion.
The latest is as follows:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/five-questions-the-abbott-government-needs-to-answer-on-the-peoplesmuggling-payment-claims-20150615-ghnzxz.html

By refusing to answer questions the PM
allows the allegations to remain.
I may not be able to prove anything. But at the same
time you are not able to disprove it either. So we're
at a stalemate and personal accusations of each other
really have no bearing here. I may well be stubborn,
but so are you. Our stubborness has no bearing on this
matter.

It looks like we shall have to wait and see what comes out
in the wash further down the track. Pressure on the PM
from Parliament may help.

All that's happening
at present is that things are not looking good for the
Abbott-led government. If the Senate proceeds with a
call for a judicial inquiry - perhaps the truth will out.
Until then name calling doesn't achieve much.

Here are all the laws Australia is breaking if it pays
human traffickers to keep migrants away:

http://qz.com/428105/all-the-laws-australia-is-breaking-if-it-pays-human-traffickers-to-keep-migrants-away/

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Here is another link that may help you understand
why this issue is such an important one:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/abbott-government-acts-as-law-unto-itself-to-stop-boats-strip-citizenship-20150617-ghprjt

Foxy and Co - What would you prefer to have another 50,000 plus mostly economic invaders, your taxes raised to support them of course we also get the criminal element among them (lock up your underage sons and daughters).

A hand full of dollars upfront to turn take them BACK to where they came from, sounds good to me and sorry for you most Australians.

No one has actuIally said the PM personally gave the smugglers money CH, so you are being a bit hysterical about that, and far too personal about the views of others here.

The point is that there is no possibility that our dictator PM doesn't know exactly what is happening out there on the high seas to the unfortunate asylum seekers and his war-like naval 'solution' to turning back the boats,

If he didn't know, he would have denied the accusations, but he hasn't.
So, he is lying to the Australian people, just like Howard lied about the 'children overboard' debacle.

Maybe Labor did the same thing, but isn't it a bit convenient for anyone to find that out now? Surely our Indonesian or Journalist friends would have jumped on that long ago if it were true?

I can't stand lying pollies of any party who blatantly lie to their people.

Poirot,

Once again, you have only got it half right. There are a few exceptions where one is allowed to intercept and board a ship in international waters:

1 Where the ship appears to be illegally heading for one's own territory,
2 When the ship is in distress and,
3 When the ship is trafficking people (which dates back to the days when the British were trying to stop the slave trade)

So certainly condition 3 applied, and considering that the boat Looked in trouble and it had left from West Java (the furthest point in Indonesia from NZ and the closest to Xmas Island) the claims to be heading to NZ were somewhat dubious and so conditions 1 and 2 would also have been legitimate. All of which is why the case the activists brought against the Gov for intercepting and detaining the Indian asylum seekers was thrown out of court.

As for returning the asylum seekers to their original destination and nearest port of call, to foil the people smugglers, the activists can huff and puff, but don't have a leg to stand on.

The 'Usual Suspects' on the forum and rusted on Abbott supporters, me old sparing partner Shadow Minister included, who will claim to be a civil libertarian, have little or no regard for the fate that would await refugees return to Iran, a country legendary for its human rights abuse. In negating their international obligations the Abbott government would send these poor people to an unknown fate in Iran, along with a so called "no retribution" promise from the Iranian regime. These Abbott sycophants have the hide to call themselves civil libertarians!

http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/reports/index.1.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwnpSsBRDH3pT2-7q55R4SJABRiNyT5Ek3x0RdMTPUafQ-0evRRHtTADgrBnBxGI041W2MKhoCGunw_wcB

Poirot, "But if the people smugglers were in fact in international waters and heading to New Zealand, these powers of detention would not be triggered, leaving Australia’s government in violation of its own maritime law"

It does not suit the apologists for illegal migrants and their international criminal gang travel agents, however the international expectation and agreement is that any naval vessel can and SHOULD intervene where the master of a ship may be acting unsafely or illegally. That applies to the safety of the vessel, crew and passengers, and other vessels.

Particular attention is paid to the port of departure and the flag of the vessel and nationality of its master.

It is NOT unusual for smaller vessels to be monitored and hailed by naval vessels - which we all respect and doff our flags in respect.

Some here might be aware that a naval vessel WILL intervene where suspected piracy is concerned and may even sink it.

I am not the only one to have posted this information and links before.

It is unlikely that Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries where people smugglers ply their trade are not aware of the economic migrant opportunists and assorted criminal low life who engage them and ensure the high profits that lazy criminals demand to continue their operations.

Indonesia and other countries have always had convenient loss of sight where foreign money is concerned and there is a chance to embarrass the 'white' countries they are prejudiced against. However their corrupt government officials would have an eye for business possibilities anyhow.

It is nothing short of amazing how the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster is unerringly unquestioning of and gives oxygen to, highly questionable and probably politically tainted anecdotal *bleep* from Indonesian and other Asian 'sources'. One wonders whose interests the ABC serves. Bring back independent Auntie, or sell this over-stuffed, redundant media outlet.

We have a new class on the forum 'the wig and gown brigade', who offer so called legal opinions on the doings of the Abbott government, naturally their legal opinions are nothing but codswallop at best, trying to defend the indefensible actions of Abbott and Co.
Fellas where do you pick up your legal outfits, Ludlows of London.

A gem: "their international criminal gang travel agents" Beach are these the same international criminal gang travel agents that the Abbott government has possibly paid thousands of dollars to? Just asking.

SM,

"So certainly condition 3 applied, and considering that the boat Looked in trouble and it had left from West Java (the furthest point in Indonesia from NZ and the closest to Xmas Island) the claims to be heading to NZ were somewhat dubious..."

Jeez, you're a genius!

But let's have a little looky at the route the boat took before (and after) Australian authorities bounced it around.

There is a map of the route in this article, if you'd care to scroll down.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/people-smuggler-cash-stacks-police-say-were-paid-to-send-asylum-seekers-on-a-suicide-mission-20150616-ghpa36.html

Here's the same map posted on twitter.

http://twitter.com/Qldaah/status/611758992432365568

They did embark from West Java - however, it appears they were going in the opposite direction to Christmas Island.

So your comment: "....the claims to be heading to NZ were somewhat dubious and so conditions 1 and 2 would also have been legitimate..." is negated.

Looks to me that that is exactly the direction they were heading - which makes the intervention in international waters outside Australia's jurisdiction.

"As for returning the asylum seekers to their original destination and nearest port of call, to foil the people smugglers, the activists can huff and puff, but don't have a leg to stand on."

Doesn't look like the original destination or even the nearest port of call to me.

They jazzed 'em around over a period of days, then sent sent them packing with enough fuel to see them stranded at sea.

.....

otb,

"....however the international expectation and agreement is that any naval vessel can and SHOULD intervene where the master of a ship may be acting unsafely or illegally...."

"It is NOT unusual for smaller vessels to be monitored and hailed by naval vessels...."

But perhaps it is a tad unusual for naval vessels on behalf of their govt to then shower the captain and crew with US dollars?

After bouncing them around for several days in Australian waters....

Actually A J PHILIPS, there may be a way to use your knowledge to answer several queries my good friend and counsellor, STEELEREDUX put to me around the 16th of this month, @ pp 11-12 ?

In part, he asked several questions with a clear inference that members of the NSW police we engaged in a systemic rorting of 'snouts in the trough' activity, therefore 'ripping off' the taxpayers of NSW ?

Being of a lowly rank, I was unable to answer his questions, because I had no idea of the precise figures of members on extended sich report or otherwise, save for 'squad mutterings' as to whether this activity was in reality, taking place ?

As it would appear, you have all these figures, stats, data, closely at hand, and you believe you have a good handle on police culture, may I defer STEELEREDUX'S questions to you ? In so doing, you may well provide that good gentleman with a far more accurate and concise precise of the 'facts' associated with his inferences - thank you.

Somebody above asserted that the Abbott government was actually aiding people-smugglers by taking people back to Indonesia.

By that logic, if I bought a TV from Harvey Norman, and then took it back and got a refund, I would be buying it twice ? If a copper caught one of his informers nicking stuff out of a jeweller's, and paid him to take it back, he would be aiding and abetting a theft, twice over ?

Surely, in logic, if

attempting to smuggle people = (A),

then

taking them back = - (A) ?

i.e. an action, and a counter-action ? A - A = 0 ?

But the business model is not just back where it stated: from the customers' point of view, they have paid $ x for 0 result. Would they do that again ?

To join up some of these analogies, if Harvey Norman sold you a TV, then took it back, would you buy another one from them, only to have the same result ? So would you pay for yet another one from them, in the fond hope that they would let you keep it this time ?

I know of a Harbor Bridge going cheap.

Joe

P,

Thanks for recognising that the Australians were justified in boarding the boat. However, considering that when it was intercepted it was only a few 100km from Darwin, and according to reports unlikely to survive an open sea journey, the conditions 1&2 are still in play, but as you conceded #3 fully justifies their intervention.

Secondly they were returned as per the requests of the captain of the boat, so again entirely legit.

I notice that even labor is acknowledging the many lives saved by the coalition's policy. Pity the left whingers are so cold hearted.

Poirot, "But perhaps it is a tad unusual for naval vessels on behalf of their govt to then shower the captain and crew with US dollars?"

Your evidence is? Why are you not applying the same standard of proof that you demand when those you support stand accused?

However to answer the hypothetical, no I wouldn't believe there is anything wrong in it.

It is quite usual for naval and maritime marine vessels to assist repair of a disabled vessel and to supply fuel and provisions. In the case of a naval ship trying to ensure that the crew and passengers were safely shipped to land and preferably the port the vessel departed from, there would be no problem giving the master money for himself and to ensure a crew. Just a bit of lateral thinking, no problem. You should be applauding the initiative.

The naval vessel has its own business to attend to and supplying a skeleton crew is a last resort and made unnecessary by that solution. It costs a small fortune for the naval vessel to escort even for a short distance and as said before, it has its own priorities.

However the allegation is all hypothetical, speculative gossip without proof from a credible source. So why are you not criticising the unfairness of the allegations, unsubstantiated gossip as they are?

SM,

I note you've done a huge whizzy and your proposition that: "... it had left from West Java (the furthest point in Indonesia from NZ and the closest to Xmas Island)...the claims to be heading to NZ were somewhat dubious "

Has now conveniently morphed into: "...considering that when it was intercepted it was only a few 100km from Darwin..."

At least we know you're flexible.

Your second criterion - "When the ship is in distress" - is the only one that holds up and adheres to certain conventions to which Australia is a signatory.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/government-turn-back-boat-policy/4979898

"Australia has jurisdiction over an area 12 nautical miles from the Australian shoreline (including the mainland and territories such as Christmas Island and the Ashmore Reef), which is in effect part of Australia and is known as the 'territorial sea'.

Foreign vessels have the right to 'innocent passage' through the territorial sea. Australia also has rights over a further 12 nautical miles of territory, which makes up the 'contiguous zone', within which Australia can exercise the control necessary to deal with infringement of "customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws" within Australia or its territorial sea."

"Professor Donald Rothwell of the Australian National University College of Law, one of several legal experts consulted, told Fact Check the Government has a legal right to stop boats with suspected unlawful non-citizens if the boats are within Australia's territorial or contiguous zones, in other words, within 24 nautical miles of Australian shores.

He said Australia can only stop boats located outside these zones in rare situations such as illegal fishing in some areas or a breach of UN resolutions (such as the carrying of weapons of mass destruction) in international waters. It can also stop boats if it has the consent of the flag state of the vessel, in this case Indonesia."

And of course, rescuing a boat load of people in distress only to subsequently provide no provisions and little fuel so as to render them stranded at sea, is a little odd, don't you think?

otb,

"...It costs a small fortune for the naval vessel to escort even for a short distance and as said before, it has its own priorities."

Yes, and considering that, it's most interesting to note the choofing around the navy did with those people on board.

"....In the case of a naval ship trying to ensure that the crew and passengers were safely shipped to land and preferably the port the vessel departed from..."

They didn't end up anywhere near their port of departure. After being ferried about a bit, they were pushed off with no provisions,and just enough fuel to guarantee they weren't "safely shipped to land".

The only "provision" rendered was wads of cash as bribery to the captain and crew....which you appear to think is a wonderful way to conduct business with the smugglers.

"....speculative gossip without proof from a credible source..."

Lol! I hope you're not alluding to the premise that the present Australian govt could be deemed a credible source.

.......

SM,

Your conditions "1" and "3" would only be permissible if consent of the flag state of the vessel was granted.

Poirot,

As I said, I answered your questions as a hypothetical, not directed at any particular instance you might be claiming at the time. With respect, that saves dealing with the constantly moving goal posts and the game of tit-for-tat, where you constantly boob.

The short answer remains, apply the same standard of proof that you require for those you support to the allegations you are making against others you obviously don't support. Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

I am not taking sides when I say that I see no legal impediment to the captain of any navy vessel doing what you allege the Australian Navy did. The better question is why certain Asian countries are not minding their shops in keeping with international expectations and being good citizens in the region.

P,

Professor Rothwell is partially correct. There is written and accepted law within the 24Nm contiguous zone. However, in international waters, there are certain things that are forbidden, but the rest are based on precedent, and there is plenty of precedent for intercepting people traffickers. Other countries such as the USA and the EU nations have been intercepting people smugglers or illegal immigrants for decades.

As they departed from Indonesia, they can lawfully be returned to Indonesia, as can travellers with invalid visas travelling by air.

As for the intended destination of the boat, I still don't believe that they were headed for NZ, but simply that it was convenient to make that claim to fend off interception.

Sorry, o sung wu. I've been trying to get back to you, but it's been a bit like this on the other thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo

I'll see what I can find.

John Key New Zealand's conservative PM and Abbott buddy, is furious that Abbott would pay off people smugglers, that were engaged in smuggling people to NZ. Key's described such payments as "illegal". so much for the buddy stuff!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1506/S00249/paying-people-smugglers-is-pretty-illegal-mr-key.htm

Paul,

What twaddle, your link is to a statement by the greens trying to say what John Key should say.

This is what he actually said:

"Mr Key said there had been no official confirmation, and the issue was a matter for Australia and "I wouldn't critique that, anymore than I would critique Australian tax policy".
"You can make the case [for paying people-smugglers] both ways," Mr Key told the Paul Henry show. "Once a boat gets in your territorial waters, there is nothing you can do."

SM,

We can all cherry-pick.

Here's some more of what he said (source: Sky News):

"New Zealand's Prime Minister has ruled out paying people smugglers and criticised the logic behind such a decision."

"'It is not my policy, it is not what the New Zealand government does,' John Key.

In an interview on 3NEWS, he conceded there were arguments both ways and went on to say

'You are paying the very people that you find actions abhorrent and also it is slightly double dealing because people have actually paid them to go on the boat so what sort of people are we dealing with?

'They're taking money both ways but the point is, it's not my policy, it's not what the New Zealand government does,'

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/asiapacific/2015/06/22/nz-pm-criticises-paying-people-smugglers.html#sthash.t3UGVof3.dpuf

(Funny way to withhold critique?)

Poirot,

Considering that Paul made a huge porky stating:

"John Key New Zealand's conservative PM and Abbott buddy, is furious that Abbott would pay off people smugglers, that were engaged in smuggling people to NZ. Key's described such payments as "illegal"."

Key was neither furious, nor described the payments as illegal.

From your own quote, Key stated that it was not NZ policy to pay people smugglers. A statement of the obvious considering that NZ does not suffer from the scourge of illegal smuggling as it is too far away.

Secondly, Paying people smugglers is odious, but far less odious than fishing dead children out of the water.

finally, Key clarified the issue with "You can make the case [for paying people-smugglers] both ways,"

So Paul's comment was a lie.

SM,

"Secondly, Paying people smugglers is odious, but far less odious than fishing dead children out of the water."

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

From all reports, Australian authorities under-fueled the boat - guaranteeing it would run out of fuel before it reached landfall (which it did). How is this not putting lives in danger?

Combined with under provisioning this boat for its journey in a sub-standard boat - it appears the authorities were deliberately endangering the lives of those they had already "rescued".

How am I supposed to take seriously the proposition that what's going on up there cloaked under "operational matters" is about saving lives?

Poirot, "Australian authorities under-fueled the boat"

Absolute rubbish.

Poirot,

You mean reports from the people smugglers. So you are just going to regurgitate their propaganda.

Face it. Nothing was illegal, and all your huffing and puffing has collapsed. Nothing will bring back the 1200+ that drowned under the incompetent labor/green regime.

Hello there A J PHILIPS...

Don't worry, just take you time. Personally I've no idea whether or not STEELEREDUX has any legitimacy in what he's claimed, coppers represent a big target ? My own knowledge comes purely from those I've worked with. or those I've known ? The culture, I understand thoroughly, the figures ? Not at all. Thank you

As if the Oz govt is doing what it's doing because of concern for the welfare of asylum seekers.

Say it all you like - the govt and Opposition (belatedly, when they were in govt) hit upon a great vote puller - all they had to do was successfully tap the insular fearful vein of Oz - and Voila!.

Whoohoo! chase them away where possible - and imprison the ones who managed to get through - kiddies n'all - and serve 'em up a bit of depraved psychological torture, hot tents, sexual abuse, (not to mention, introducing legislation making it a crime for doctors, teachers, etc, to report abuse in these places) - and then tell everyone you're tryin' yer darnedest to stop 'em drowning.

Have your minions repeat ad nauseam the same spiel on public forums - and Bob's yer uncle.

Pull the other one, SM, it's got bells on it.

Poirot,

I know that the left whingers forget the 30 000 detainees including 1000s of children that labor and the greens left the coalition to deal with, and the thousands of dead women and children as an inconvenience rather than as a stain on your reputation.

So having slaughtered 1000s of asylum seekers due to ideological rigidity and complete incompetence, your sanctimonious finger wagging is wildly hypocritical and complete joke.

SM,

"So having slaughtered 1000s of asylum seekers due to ideological rigidity and complete incompetence, your sanctimonious finger wagging is wildly hypocritical and complete joke."

Well, now you're getting hysterical.

I wonder when we'll find out exactly what's been going on up there?

Because we all know that once a govt classifies a "peacetime" mission as "operational matters" and cloaks it in secrecy - that stuff is going down that wouldn't pass muster out in the open.

Elementary, my dear SM.

Shadow,

Not only is Abbott upsetting our neighbor to the north, he is also upsetting our neighbor to the east, New Zealand! Abbott will have to learn he cannot go around interfering in other countries foreign policy. New Zealand have indicated they will not have a bar of payments to people smugglers.

"Speaking to reporters in Parliament on Monday, Key said he knew about the boat, but not about any potential payment made."

"Key said the first he heard of the claims was through the media and he had not been advised of payments to the smugglers.
Any payment made was not on New Zealand's behalf."

Obviously, with Abbott interfering in New Zealand's foreign policy, it is understandable John Key would be furious with him, just like the Indonesians are.

Just noting that the altruistic LNP and Labor are currently voting against mandatory reporting of child abuse and assault on Nauru.

Warms the cockles of yer heart, doesn't it - the concern shown by the govt and Opposition for the welfare of children detained

What a bent, sordid and degraded nation we are becoming.

P&P,

I can clearly remember the altruistic SHY when asked about the drownings at sea effectively said "crap happens"

Warms the cockles of yer heart, doesn't it - the concern shown by the greens for the welfare of women and children drowning.

What a bent, sordid and degraded nation we used to be.

That's a bit lightweight, SM.

Why only a few posts ago you were complaining to Paul about his supposedly failing to post accurate quotes:

"What twaddle, your link is to a statement by the greens trying to say what John Key should say.

This is what he actually said:"

Now you're posting things of this nature:

'I can clearly remember the altruistic SHY when asked about the drownings at sea effectively said "crap happens"'

I don't suppose you'd be interested in scurrying off to find the piece where SHY "effectively said "crap happens"?

Don't mind Paul and I. We'll wait patiently until you return....

Forgive my ignorance...

Who are SHY? I asked google but gave up after three pages of hits having nothing to do with refugees.

Anybody want to shed some light for us poor ignorant hill folk?

Hi Poirot,

The on going systemic abuse of children in detention is a shameful chapter in our history. Back in 2014 the SMH reported that no less than 33 cases of child sexual abuse cases in detention centers in Australia had been reported. A hall mark of this government is its failure to properly investigate these and other allegation of abuse of women and children within Australia and on both Naru and Manus Islands where abuse of detainees was also widely reported.
When Morrison was minister he was very dismissive when ever these allegations were raised. He really didn't want to know about them, so much for his so called christian values.

Toni, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, one of the few people in the Australian Parliament who has any genuine concern for asylum seekers at all.

//Toni, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young//

Thanks Paul.

//one of the few people in the Australian Parliament who has any genuine concern for asylum seekers at all.//

I hope that isn't the case.

I also reckon it probably isn't the case. I reckon there are lot of politicians of all stripes who care about asylum seekers more than their spin doctors will permit them to express. Personally, what I'd like to know is what Ken Wyatt MP feels about all these boat people invading his land.

I think I might write him a letter and ask him.

P,

When 200 asylum seekers drowned off Java in December 2011, what was Greens Senator Sarah Hanson Young’s response? “Tragedies happen. Accidents happen.”

Took 20 seconds, next time do your own research.

Paul,

SHY cares nothing for asylum seekers, it is just a political soap box that she can whinge on.

SM,

Hanson Young was replying to a question as to whether she took responsibility for the drownings - she didn't just come out and make a cold-blooded announcement.

Of course you would run with it - and I note upon googling that the right-wing sites were the ones making a meal of it.

So here we go - just like Abbott's "s... happens".

Attributing a derogatory meaning to statements such as these - delivered in response to highly emotionally charged situations - is pointless, save for petty point scoring.

But you go for it - it's built on fluff and nothing - as is evidenced by your additional flummery: "SHY cares nothing for asylum seekers, it is just a political soap box that she can whinge on."

Poirot,

Here is more of the text which sums up the careless hypocritical attitude of the greens to the humanitarian disaster they helped create, that the majority of Australians are now wise too:

"So it is that while the Senator can cry in parliament for children in detention she was also able to check out a band at a pub, and tweet happily about it, while Australians risked their lives trying to rescue asylum-seekers and retrieve their bodies on the night 48 died at Christmas Island almost five years ago.

Later, after yet another disaster and in response to questions about Greens culpability through their open-borders approach, Hanson-Young famously said “tragedies happen, accidents happen.”

The policies favoured by Hanson-Young and the Greens were implemented by Labor from 2008. They led to the arrival of more than 800 boats, 51,000 asylum-seekers and the deaths of at least 1200 people on attempted journeys.

They saw detention centres built and filled in every state, tens of thousands of people put through detention, and anything up to almost 2000 children held in detention at any one time.

They also saw Australia’s generous humanitarian intake of refugees outsourced — with all the places taken by people who had been able to pay people-smugglers anything up to $10,000 and no places left for refugees waiting in camps in Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia or elsewhere.

In short, it was an epic disaster for everyone except the criminal people-smugglers and a select group of their paying customers."

The problem that the Greens now have is that they are furious that Abbott stopped the boats and that they have no viable alternative, and all they have left to whinge about is the problems in cleaning up the Labor/Green mess.

Remember Howard left only 4 people in detention, and no deaths at sea for years.

SM,

Do the right thing and give us a link to the person you're quoting.

I'm not disputing the quote, but it's always nice to know which right-wing commentator I'm reading.

And none of this of course has anything to do with the fact that in recent years the planet has seen the highest refugee numbers since WWII...which is why instead of having "stopped the boats", they've merely become adept at chasing them away when they appear.

Yes, I know you like to lay into SHY - and translate "“Tragedies happen. Accidents happen.”"..into "effectively said "crap happens"

Do you also believe Abbott's "S... happens" means he couldn't give a hoot about our soldiers dying overseas?

Poirot,

You asked me for the quote and I gave it to you. You must really learn to use google. To find the origin of a quote, highlight it and right click Search google for "... it takes 5 seconds.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/chris-kenny-greens-hypocritical-on-mediterranean-refugee-drownings/story-fn8qlm5e-1227313194718

What it clearly shows is that SHY clearly believes that the deaths at sea are someone else's problem, and the fact that they are clearly caused by the people smuggling trade is irrelevant. That she went clubbing on the evening that people drowned showed how cold hearted she really is.

It is not possible to stop the drownings unless the boats are stopped. This lesson the EU is busy learning, and Labor learnt the hard way. Since OSB was put in place no one has drowned, and the 30 000 that labor/greens left in detention has dropped to about 3300 (1500 off shore) with children in detention dropping from over 2000 under Labor/greens to about 160 today.

Of all the immigration policies the coalition's is the most humane.

Shadow

Why does Poirot have to Google your lazy quotes from Uncle Rupts. Then again 100% of what you post is straight out of the No News News Limited is it not. Since when has any conservative govt in Australia ever shown concern for their fellow human beings? Not in my life time!

SM,

I think Tony Burke's characterisation of the Greens' policy on boat-people, as 'line-of-sight' refugees, was most appropriate.

With fifty million refugees in the world now, and probably very many who (a) have applied to seek refuge in Australia ASAP, and (b) don't have a pot to piss in, let alone thousands of their relations' hard-earned money, the faux tears of the Greens has always turned my stomach.

By all means, increase the annual quota of refugees; by all means, take in emergency intakes such as Rohingya and Syrians: fly them directly from, respectively, from Yangon, Amman and Ankara. We did it before when the Kosovars (oops - under a Coalition government) that sort of emergency help, and we can do it again.

Joe

SM,

Lol! - "opinion columnist", Chris Kenny - now there's a right-wing yabberer of renown!

Loudmouth,

"I think Tony Burke's characterisation of the Greens' policy on boat-people, as 'line-of-sight' refugees, was most appropriate."

"Here are a few quotes from Burke in 2008 - having wrested immigration fromthe LNP.

".....In the area of refugee policy the key themes running through the Labor platform are humanity, fairness, integrity and public confidence."

"Labor committed to abolishing the Pacific Solution and this was one the first things the Rudd Labor Government did on taking office. It was also one of my greatest pleasures in politics. Neither humane nor fair, the Pacific Solution was also ineffective and wasteful."

(My personal favourite)

"....the Howard government sought to outsource our international protection obligations to less developed countries when we should have been shouldering them ourselves."

" When we came to office there were people found to be refugees left rotting on Nauru because of a political decision taken by the former government to keep them there. I must say I was pleased to discover that the department were very keen to bring them to Australia quickly, and we did this in less than two months."

"......The Pacific Solution was not about maintaining integrity or public confidence in Australia’s arrangements. It was about the cynical politics of punishing refugees for domestic political purposes."

Nothing changes....

Poirot,

That was in 2008 just before embarking on Labor's single most sanctimonious and extravagant cock up in border security history. Oh how they must regret their hubris, telling everyone that asylum seekers were due to push factors, not pull factors and that relaxing border security would have a negligible effect on numbers in spite of the advice of their departments.

Australians now look back at this as one of the biggest lies that labor/greens told the voters second only to the carbon tax lie.

SM,

All it displays on this issue is that Labor reckon the govt is on to a great vote puller - especially in conjunction with the copious flag-drapings and fear-mongering presently undertaken by our dingbat PM.

So what we have is a govt telling us it's "stopped the boats" while simultaneously still prodding them away, by taking them on board naval craft, sailing around for a bit, dumping them in boats and paying the people who delivered them to take them away again.

I always figured if the boats were "stopped" it meant they weren't actually coming anymore - silly me!

"Australians now look back at this as one of the biggest lies that labor/greens told the voters second only to the carbon tax lie."

Lol! - you do have some gumption, writing such things...when your hero is a PM who lies at a rate of once every 24 hours.

So many lies and debacles that one layer is quickly overlaid with another.

Some have very short memories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

Poirot,

I see that you and other left whingers are trying to use schoolboy logic to take an extreme view of the meaning of stop the boats and trying to claim that this has not been met.

This might be rewarded with a few sniggers from others from the looney left, but 90% of Aussies know perfectly well what was meant and that Abbott has succeeded spectacularly, and think that those making the claim are pedantic idiots.

This follows the same pathetic and strained reasoning that claimed that the carbon tax was not a tax.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why don't you Google -
"Abbott's Lies."

Perhaps then things may become clearer for you.

The boats have not been stopped.
Merely diverted.
There's a difference.

Foxy

You are delusional. In the last year of labor/greens incompetence there were about 5 boats arriving a week. In the last 18 months less than 20 boats have been turned around. What happened to > 300 boats that didn't set sail?

P.S. why don't you google Gillard's lies?

"....In the last 18 months less than 20 boats have been turned around."

SM thinks Morrison, and now Dutton, threw up the cloak of "operational matter" secrecy so that we would know how many boats have been intercepted. His count so far only represents the ones the govt hasn't been able to hide.

We have no way of knowing what's gone on up there.

Regarding "schoolboy logic"...we lefties couldn't hold a candle to you on that one, SM - recalling the pages and pages of puerile smutty name-calling to the Greens that you used to delight in around here.

Lol!

Poirot,

Now the "I know nothing" defense. Really! Every time a boat is turned around it is in the news in Indonesia and in Aus. Seriously what do you suppose happened to the other boats. Were they sunk?

I am looking for a response above year 3 level.

Either they "disappeared" or they never came. Whatever is the reason, Abbott stopped them from arriving in Aus. People smuggler model is dead.

SM,
I do hope you are enjoying yourself with Paul and the girls.

I looked at my record with OLO and I started posting on the issue of the 'illegals' in 2006, so that is nearly 10 years and others were posting well before me.

Then the illegals advocates were making out the illegals were poor, persecuted persons who desperately needed our empathy. All a huge con job, as they flew to Malaysia on false documents then bribed their way into Indonesia and paid smugglers far in excess of air fares to get them to Aus. They were coached in what stories to tell our officials and, mugs we were, let them in.

It took a long time for the Libs to finally get tough enough to implement the Pacific Solution that stopped the boats from coming.

Then Labor abandoned that and in 6 years 50000 came in illegally with some arriving almost daily. At least 1200 drowned in the attempt, which is a Labor legacy.

Now the LNP has again stopped the boats, which happened a lot quicker than I expected, and it is almost unbelievable that some here are still arguing the issue. It seems Labor still has a policy of opening the borders once again.

I hope the issue continues as I am positive the electorate will not have that. The boats were stopped because people desired that and most people can see that the illegals are posers and fraudsters. Aussies are generous but do not like that being taken advantage of by shonks.

So don't argue too much now. Wait until the election and with a bit of burley we can get them biting again.

the one advantage of being a lefty that you can never be wrong. You can never stop the boats, oh you have not stopped the boats only diverted them. The science is settled with gw (sorry climate change) and now the heat is hiding in the ocean. Every prediction for the last 20 years has proven false. How many years at uni to learn how to be deceitful without blushing?

SM,

"I am looking for a response above year 3 level."

Coming from you, that's slightly amusing...considering your past regressions into primary school-speak.

"....Whatever is the reason, Abbott stopped them from arriving in Aus. People smuggler model is dead."

Which is what we'd expect you to say when it's clear the boats are still out there and the govt is caught red-handed paying smugglers to take them back.

Still, with this regime - anything goes.

runner,

".....The science is settled with gw (sorry climate change)...."

Yes, very clever...but it was one of Georgie Bush's right wing flunkies who came up with the idea to reframe "global warming" as "climate change" - as it was thought to sound less severe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Thanks for your run-by.....although your knowledge of climate science is only slightly more nuanced than my cat's.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I may well be delusional in expecting transparency
and accountability from the current government.
As well as any reasoned, intelligent, unbiased
commentary from you.

The current state of affairs is deplorable.
And at least for me - lies, rhetoric, and slogans
do not work.

Shadow
There is simply two lines of thought here, yours and the other conservatives who are willing to accept the Abbott line of "stop the boats" and do not much care as to how that objective is achieved. Be it by paying people smugglers or the extreme of applying some sort of gunboat mentality to the problem. You simply apply the ends justifies the means principle, end of story as far as you are concerned.
The other side of the argument is what those of us who in fact also support the objective 'stop the boats' but are unwilling to trade off our support for human rights and goverment openness and accountability. There is no way we are about to blindly accept the Abbott line of simply 'trust me" and all will be well!

So in your ideal world Paul, what possible solution can you offer? What is a better way to stop the boats, if you genuinely agree they need to be stopped?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

No - the boats need to continue.

As the AIM News points out -

"Apart from the mental gymnastics it takes to connect
the towbacks, pushbacks, detention camps and paying
people smugglers and reach the conclusion -
"The boats have stopped," (although we don't really
know if they have stopped due to the secrecy of
'on water operations') - what has actually stopped?"

The AIM news tells us - "for Mr Abbott to
have any hope of winning another election he needs the
boats to continue."

We're told that Mr Abbott and his colleagues "get all the
favourite headlines that the Murdoch media can produce about
how tough Mr Abbott is."

No matter what question is asked on what subject, the
answer always is - "We stopped the boats!"

"What we do is stop the boats by hook or by crook, because that's
what we've got to do and that's what we've successfully done!"

"And we'll keep on doing it!"

And as we know "when we have a population that thinks it is
okay that some people should die either in those offshore
detention camps or in sinking boats on the way to Australia -
then we have a population who no longer thinks all lives are
sacred and that it is okay for some people to die if we
don't like them."

The AIM News states -
"Once we have a subdued population that willingly accepts that
human rights are not universal and are the whim of the
government of the day - we have a population willing to blindly
obey for fear of the consequences.
Losing citizenship anyone?"

Finally -
"If we are willing to sit back and say it is acceptable for a
government to trash international conventions, human rights,
moral obligations, the end justifies the means - strip
citizenship of people on a minister's whim" and that
government " is not
accountable to the electorate or the media then why would we
think a government with that much power will stop at people or
boats?"

Dear Foxy,

Ah ! The 'wag the dog' theory: that if it's possible to benefit more from an alternative tactic, then it must have been chosen.

Also that could be termed the Thor Heyerdahl hypothesis: that if something could possibly be the case, then it is the case. If rafts could have sailed from South America to Polynesia, then they did. [Forget about the Frenchman who sailed the other way, to disprove the theory.]

Sometimes I wish I were paranoid, it sounds like so much fun.

Love,

Joe

'Thanks for your run-by.....although your knowledge of climate science is only slightly more nuanced than my cat's.'

must be embarassing for you Poirot that your cat has more sense than you.

Fox, "why would we think a government with that much power will stop at people or boats?"

Gosh! What do you imagine they might do? LOL

Kevin Rudd, his Foreign Minister Bob Carr and a host of his ministers freely admitted that Labor got it very wrong, admitting that a large proportion of asylum-seekers are merely economic migrants.

Tony Abbott has succeeded where Gillard and Rudd both failed.

Foxy,

Agreed, your lies, rhetoric and slogans don't work.

Poirot,

Far less people have been injured or killed under the coalition compared to the green/labor debacle. Even Labor is talking about keeping the successful and humane turnaround policy.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes, at a time of lies, rhetoric,
and slogans telling the truth is
considered a punishable act.

"The truth is incontrovertible.
Malice may attack it,
Ignorance may deride it,
but in the end, there it is."
(Winston Churchill).

Wake up Australia!

Foxy,

Then why are you ducking the truth?

Three incontrovertible truths:

The boats have stopped arriving in Aus,
The asylum seekers have stopped drowning,
The detention centers are emptying.

And finally it looks like Labor have been mugged by reality and will be adopting the boats turn back policy.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'll repeat what was said earlier -

"Apart from the mental gymnastics it takes
to connect the towbacks, pushbacks, detention
camps and paying people smugglers and reach the
conclusion - "the boats have stopped." What has
actually stopped?

We don't really know due to the secrecy of
"on water operations."

And as the AIM News pointed out -
"For Tony Abbott to have any hope of winning another election -
he needs the boats to continue. That way he and his
colleagues get all the favourite headlines that the
Murdoch media can produce about how "tough" he is and the
gullible voters buy it hook line and sinker."

Now we have another strategy being used to garner even more
favourite headlines - that of "our security." We're in great
danger in this country - don't you know that - we should be
afraid, very afraid - and the government will protect us.
All we have to do is vote for them again at the next election -
you betcha!

I don't expect you to understand - but you really should
read more than just what's printed in the Murdoch media.

Dear Foxy,

There are times when we just have to cop it: moral/legal/political or not, paying the boat crews to go back to Indonesia is probably working. Is it just possible that there is very little 'on' water matters' that the Government feels it has to be secretive about ? It could be that the word has got out amongst would-be boat-people to save their money and don't get on the next boat, just fill out the forms and wait like everybody else.

If so, then we can turn our attention to campaigning for a boost to the annual emergency-refugee intake, i.e. Rohingya and Syrians primarily, and the more expeditious processing of refugee application forms. Admittedly, those genuine refuges will probably arrive in Australia far more penniless than those who, in earlier times, could pay their way.

One lives in hope, but perhaps those genuine refugees will have learnt thoroughly the futility of religious extremism. Certainly, I would rather see a hundred Rohingya arriving in Australia than one returning jihadi, on his way to jail.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You're more generous than I am in your trust of
the current government.

The record of the Abbott-led Coalition government is
not good - especially as far as transparency and
accountability is concerned. And one of the pre-requisites
of a representative democracy is its citizens to have
access to information so that they can make informed choices.
If their reps deny access to the information the citizens
need to make these choices, or if they are given false
or misleading information, the democratic process becomes a
sham.

Citizens have the right of free speech and the public officials
need to tell the truth.

The current government has been sorely lacking in those
departments - and they did promise that they would be
a "no surprises," and accountable type of government.

Well guess what - One surprise after another -
and more to come!

Foxy,

You are amusing when you pretend to be dumb. The mental gymnastics could be easily managed by a child.

If people are prepared to pay to get asylum in Aus, but know that they will never get to Aus by boat, and simply waste their money trying, they will mostly never try, and the people smugglers will get no paying customers.

Secondly, if your delusion that the boats are still coming, where are the 200+ boats p.a. going? Certainly not to Aus or Indonesia. If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck its probably a duck. You are trying to tell me it's a grizzly bear.

Newscorp and Fairfax at least check their facts. The crappy ultra left whinge sites to which you constantly refer, wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit them.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Your opinion is well known on this forum.

You are of course full entitled to it.

However, mine happens to differ greatly from
yours but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't
continue to have robust discussions.

I look forward to our next one.
For me this one has now run its course.

Interesting times ahead prior to the next election.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I see I finally got to you.

We're making progress.

Yay!