Tony Abbott has done it. He has stopped the boats.

[ArthurPendragon]

What happens if some of those masked men in Ukraine flee to Australia, claiming to be refugees from persecution, when in fact they are war criminals, Russian or Ukrainian? Should we accept their stories at face value, regardless if they destroy their papers?

 

YES! LET THEM ALL IN!

 

I have to agree with MARYROSE on this. Unfortunately, no country in the world ( especially the stable ones) would allow open borders without vetting people, even if they are refugees. I'm supportive of humane solution to this problem, but if people destroy ( as said in the media) their papers, then we will never know who they were or what their history is.

 

Ultimately, it depends on the what the people in the host nation want. There is no backlash against non discriminatory legal migration among the Australians with top two migrant sources being in Asia, so the support for stopping the boats might be related to undocumented people coming in and not related to anything against other ethnicities.

[Guest littlesarah]

Why should you care how they label you? The important thing is to get the message over and not to give the impression the entire nation is behind the bone headed regardless of the colour of their politics. Common decency is not or should not be related to either side of the political equation.

 

I take your point - I'm very pregnant and tired of many things, particularly trying to reason with those who are so entrenched in their opinions as to be entirely unreasonable. I should be less defeatist, but my psyche is prioritising getting through the next few days ahead of trying to inform people who don't want to accept anything other than the government/popular media's stance. I've posted the data about numbers of people, background, the proportion found to have a genuine case, etc before; but here we are again with people choosing to believe whatever suits them. I don't know whether people in general understand the concepts of observer bias and logical fallacy that come into play when considering this sort of subject matter, or whether they just choose to ignore them (or believe that they are the exception to inherent human traits).

[Guest]

Many are going back to their homes voluntarily which is a good thing and it is a detention centre not a holiday resort.

They are meant to be functional not luxurious.

 

Being functional would mean them being safe right?. Not somewhere where they'd end up being murdered or beaten?

[Guest]

or because they agreed with Abbott's policies, didn't pay attention to any of the media, and only voted once.

 

He won on his manifesto, he's now acting on that. You don't like it? Tough. Put the toys back in the pram and you'll get another say in a few years.

 

 

I doubt Labor's policy will alter much in that time and The Greens are never going to win power. The 'PNG Solution' was Rudd's bid to win 'the race to the bottom' on this issue, i.e., the need to demonstrate to the Australian electorate (and Rupert Murdoch) just how tough they could be on asylum-seekers arriving by boat. Even this draconian measure wasn't sufficient to convince an electorate who'd been bombarded with fear-mongering by the media on this issue. Loathe it though I do, Abbot's position on this issue, and many others, is in accord with what the majority of Australians seem to want. If you want to know what Australia in 2014 is all about just check out it's government's actions on the environment, the huge rebate granted to Newscorp, the absence of a Womens Minister, and of course, their stance on 'the boats.'

[Parley]

Don't you find embarrassing to even want a women's minister.

And by the way Tony Abbott is the womens minister, but if I was a woman I'd be ashamed to think I needed one and that women wouldn't get anywhere on merit without a womens minister.

[Parley]

Wacko greenies make me mad as hell.

[Guest]

Don't you find embarrassing to even want a women's minister.

And by the way Tony Abbott is the womens minister, but if I was a woman I'd be ashamed to think I needed one and that women wouldn't get anywhere on merit without a womens minister.

 

Well you clearly do!. Personally I think it's absurd that a male Prime Minister should appoint himself as Minister for Women!. He'll be Science Minister next, because he forgot to appoint one of those as well! I've just had flashbacks to those Harry Enfield sketches from the early 90's lampooning 1930's public information films which exhorted women to "Know your place!" Maybe the 1930's, or at least the 1950's is where Tony Abbot wants to take us back to, Mum at home with the kids, whilst Dad is the head of the family and makes all of the decisions?

 

Nah, I think we've got a government that's already bit too full of middle-aged White males, supporting the interests of well, middle-aged White males. I suppose that's great if you're a middle-aged White male, but a bit sh*t if you're not. :wink:

[Parley]

Julie Bishop seems to be doing alright as Foreign Minister.

I don't suppose Julia Gillard needed one either.

 

No one ever said know your place, so don't misrepresent me or Tony either.

My point is a capable woman will not need a women's minister to get her into cabinet, and if I was a woman and only appointed to fill a quota I'd be insulted.

[dxboz]

Of course these people need to be vetted but let's not put them in a place of danger while we vet them

[Freckleface]

Of course these people need to be vetted but let's not put them in a place of danger while we vet them

 

Well it's the other detainees that make it dangerous so what's the answer? Individual cells? Because I for one don't want them in the community if they run amok when they don't get their own way.

[dxboz]

Freckles it's a hard one but they should not be in PNG. I don't agree it is the other detainees who make it dangerous - it's PNG residents. There are already thousands of asylum seekers out in the community in Australia on bridging visas and there are more getting put out in the community every day - have you seen any evidence of them running amok?

[wakeboard1980]

Yes a blemish on Australia to put it mildly. The plan was ill thought out and done on the hop to meet political considerations at the time. As has been mentioned countless times security and verification as well as health checks are done prior to release into community. Not all information will be available but the checking is pretty through. So much so that over fifty potential refuges are in detention, not because they are not proven to be in need of refuge but found or suspected to be members of what this country deems a terrorist organisation.

 

And this can happen very quickly can it?

[dxboz]

And this can happen very quickly can it?

 

yes it can

[wakeboard1980]

yes it can

 

How? I would genuinely like to know. All the people on here that have the answers that basically say.........let them go while they are processed, or do the checks and let them into the community. I would really like to know exactly how that would work.

Are there any other countries that do it the way people are suggesting? What are the numbers relating to people that just disappear and can never be found again whilst their claims are being assessed?

[Rossmoyne]

Some voted up to 15 times.

 

Can you prove that? If so you should contact the Electoral Commission. If not.... well it is hearsay is it not?

[Wellers and Whitehead]

So, are you proposing that every person who claims to be a refugee and claims to have suffered horribly, should be allowed into Australia, without any checks? Someone who throws away their papers is acting suspiciously. Perhaps they are perpetuators of the crimes, pretending to be victims. Plenty of Nazis did that after World War Two.

 

Where are the resources to process all these people? Many of them suffer from post-tramautic stress. Where are the doctors going to be found to treat them? Where are the hospitals? Where are the houses? Waiting lists for public housing already take ten years or more here in NSW. Are you going to tell people on those lists that they just have to wait longer because refugees are more deserving? Are you going to tell the same thing to people waiting for operations?

 

i am claiming that according to statistics 90 % of asylum seekers are 'genuine' therefore are fleeing persecution, harm, death threats etc etc..u get the gist.

nobody said without any checks, some checks are done before asylum seekers are released into the community. The stats of asylum seekers committing crime is tiny...I won't put the figure that's in my head as can't remember the exact figure but it was tiny. The doctors are paid a hell of a lot more when they are in detention..docs get paid high wages on manus etc. so it would be cheaper more Economical to use community doctors. Houses...they rent like everybody else..they are not entitled to public housing and some aren't entitled to Medicare. People waiting for operations will be in a que like an asylum seeker waiting for medical treatment, that's if they have Medicare, if they don't (depending on the day of issue if rules have changed as to whether they give Medicare) if they don't they won't be likely to get any operation.

[Diane]

Can you prove that? If so you should contact the Electoral Commission. If not.... well it is hearsay is it not?

 

Don't have time to go in search of any media reports, but have to say the electoral system here is a joke - no ID required when you turn up to vote, no linked system to check your name off, just hundreds of big printed books, no specific polling station you have to go to - I was astounded that there isn't a better way here yet. I could have easily (had I been that way inclined) voted as many times as there are different polling stations near me, or voted on behalf of a neighbour or friend! Even in remote and primitive African states, there is an 'inking' to show once someone has voted. Nothing like that here. Really needs to be looked at. Whatever the Electoral Commission brief is, I don't think they're meeting it very well.

 

On a similar vein, did you see the poll in the Brisbane Times I think it was yesterday about whether people agreed with Abbott about there being too many National Parks? The No's way out in front for about 8 hours, until about 3 hours before the end of the poll then suddenly thousands - and that was literally thousands - of yes votes came in which completely reversed the result. Looked very very suspicious and stank of a bit of political trolling!

[Parley]

It is true that the odd instance of someone voting multiple times happens. These people get followed up and fined.

In Australia's history it has never been electorally significant enough to compromise a result in a seat.

If there ever was a seat decided by only a handful of votes and multiple votes occurred the AEC a re-vote in the seat would have to happen.

Thankfully it has never happened.

 

There has been a lot of talk about moving to an electronic system, and it will happen I expect soonish. The issue is it needs to be foolproof.

You can imagine the consequences if it got hacked or failed to work in remote areas.

 

I agree our system is a bit archaic but has always been that way. I agree they should update it but needs to be done very carefully and be absolutely foolproof.

[Guest Ptp113]

Can you prove that? If so you should contact the Electoral Commission. If not.... well it is hearsay is it not?

 

If you ever discover ABC News radio it was the Electoral Commission talking a few days back. Many people in marginal electorates are known to have voted up to 15 times in one particular instance but the votes count. They will be fined but that's it. Pretty common knowledge I would have thought?

[MARYROSE02]

i am claiming that according to statistics 90 % of asylum seekers are 'genuine' therefore are fleeing persecution, harm, death threats etc etc..u get the gist.

nobody said without any checks, some checks are done before asylum seekers are released into the community. The stats of asylum seekers committing crime is tiny...I won't put the figure that's in my head as can't remember the exact figure but it was tiny. The doctors are paid a hell of a lot more when they are in detention..docs get paid high wages on manus etc. so it would be cheaper more Economical to use community doctors. Houses...they rent like everybody else..they are not entitled to public housing and some aren't entitled to Medicare. People waiting for operations will be in a que like an asylum seeker waiting for medical treatment, that's if they have Medicare, if they don't (depending on the day of issue if rules have changed as to whether they give Medicare) if they don't they won't be likely to get any operation.

 

The percentages of people committing any crime are small, but that does not mean they are insignificant. Witness the NSW Government changing the licensing laws as a result of a relatively small number of people committing or suffering crimes, compared to the numbers of people who drink alcohol.

 

90 per cent are genuine? Perhaps, but I am still happier to have them in camps outside Australia whilst their claims are verified, and anybody without papers would be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent!

 

And you have not said where the extra resources will come from? You might be happy to slip further down the queue for treatment, or a home, but I wouldn't. They might not be entitled to public housing, but where will be housed? Either the Government puts them into public housing or it finds them homes in private housing.

 

Governments cannot afford to provide pensions for Australians as it is, so where does the money come from to pay for limitless numbers of refugees, all of whom must be allowed entry because they have suffered persecution?

[Bibbs]

1. actions on the environment,

2. the huge rebate granted to Newscorp,

3. the absence of a Womens Minister,

4. and of course, their stance on 'the boats.'

 

1. We are a resource based nation. Hampering this is stupid. I'd also suggest the important things like recycling, water use, reducing city pollution (Perth has LPG buses, electric trains and good public transport), and green energy (solar panels on every other house) Australia is pretty good at.

2. Don't know about that, and don't really care. One would assume it's a loss-leader.

3. What?! Have a role just for women? What about Indians, Jews and Gays etc.? Why not have a minister for those 'minorities' too?

4. It's a good policy. No queue jumpers. Especially when jumping the queue you put your lives at risk, and are then found to not be an asylum seeker, but an economic migrant.

[Ausborn]

Don't have time to go in search of any media reports, but have to say the electoral system here is a joke - no ID required when you turn up to vote, no linked system to check your name off, just hundreds of big printed books, no specific polling station you have to go to - I was astounded that there isn't a better way here yet. I could have easily (had I been that way inclined) voted as many times as there are different polling stations near me, or voted on behalf of a neighbour or friend! Even in remote and primitive African states, there is an 'inking' to show once someone has voted. Nothing like that here. Really needs to be looked at. Whatever the Electoral Commission brief is, I don't think they're meeting it very well.

 

On a similar vein, did you see the poll in the Brisbane Times I think it was yesterday about whether people agreed with Abbott about there being too many National Parks? The No's way out in front for about 8 hours, until about 3 hours before the end of the poll then suddenly thousands - and that was literally thousands - of yes votes came in which completely reversed the result. Looked very very suspicious and stank of a bit of political trolling!

 

 

What country are you in. When you go and vote, you line up, your name gets crossed off the electoral roll by the staff and you proceed to a booth to vote. You can only vote once, if you do not vote , you get a fine. Shame England didn't proceed the same way and make everybody vote.

[Lambethlad]

Can you prove that? If so you should contact the Electoral Commission. If not.... well it is hearsay is it not?

 

I have voted twice - once for myself and once for my brother-in law who was away on holiday.

[Parley]

What country are you in. When you go and vote, you line up, your name gets crossed off the electoral roll by the staff and you proceed to a booth to vote. You can only vote once, if you do not vote , you get a fine. Shame England didn't proceed the same way and make everybody vote.

 

 

 

True but you don't show id so you could in theory vote in your neighbours name as well as your own or go to multiple polling places in your electorate. It doesn't happen much but there are always a few idiots.

[Skani]

Can you prove that? If so you should contact the Electoral Commission. If not.... well it is hearsay is it not?

 

It is the Electoral Commission which reported it recently:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/some-australians-voted-more-than-once-in-federal-election-aec-20140226-33g7l.html

 

I've experienced one election where names were marked off on computer: it must have been the last state Tasmanian election?

Obviously this is the way to go providing, as already pointed out, electronic security is high and there is a back up system in case of failure of the main network.