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

[Diane]

I get what you are saying about people can write as they please on the electoral forms. I don't get what you are saying about being able to vote more than once. Your name is crossed off on the electoral roll once you turn up to vote at that polling station. AlwAys takes them ages to find my name .If you were to vote at say 3 Polling stations, your name would be marked down as voting at each, and when the conformation of your vote is made they would pick up you have voted more than once.

 

You are correct - but...

 

1. No ID check is made so you could say you were anyone

2. You are checked off in one book of many - go to another polling station and your name won't be checked off in their book as the books are not linked

3. There is no identification of you with your voting paper, so let's say you give a neighbour's name and vote 15 times, when they do their checks afterwards they find neighbour A has voted multiple times. They try to fine Neighbour A who proves they were on holiday at the time, they have no way of finding those fraudulent votes or knowing who you voted for, so they all count!

 

Obviously not suggesting anyone would do this, and I really couldn't be bothered personally - but it's a system with so many flaws...

[wakeboard1980]

damn I forgot my popcorn!

[Parley]

I really hate all these conspiracy theories that Diane and Endless Winter spout.

I suppose now the high court are corrupt and paid out to Rupert cos he is a rich mate. Is that the latest rubbish theory ?

Or did Tony Abbott ring all the judges in the Federal court and tell them to give the judgement to Murdoch ?

 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/news-corp-wins-2-billion-tax-battle/story-fnda1bsz-1226428207554

[Guest]

So Tony had a bit of a brag about his not bad looking daughters, which I think is pretty fair and he gets (so women are just decorative then Tony?). I don't think for one second that's what he meant and you turned an honest comment and a bit of a proud statement from a Dad into something that made it sound as though he was having a go at women.

 

Thought Julia Gillard did that pretty well but she made too much fuss about it in the end and it made her look and sound like a whinger.

 

 

So he wasn't using his daughters for political gain via a photo-shoot?. He wouldn't be the first mind, Blair was a master at playing the ordinary family man card and even "call me Dave" Cameron gets in on the act by leaving his daughter in the pub when the press are around!. I don't think Abbott was having a go at women with that particular comment. I do think it betrays how he sees politics and life in general though, somewhere where men are centre-stage and women are confined to the margins by virtue of their physiology - hence his "unsuitable to lead" comment which was him having a go at women.

[Parley]

Stop deliberately mis-spelling his name. It is really low.

[Skani]

Thank you. Nice to get confirmation but as I only post with empirical data to back me up not really necessary.

 

That wasn't for your benefit...it was for Rossmoyne who obviously hadn't seen or heard the recent report by the AEC.

[Skani]

And the bumbling pollies in Blighty aren't of an even lower standard?

 

That's for them to sort out. They're not affecting our future. But voting is a privilege...so many people in the world don't have the privilege of voting in a free and non violent environment. And if you can't be stuffed to go along voluntarily and value your vote, you shouldn't be allowed to affect the outcome for those who do.

[Skani]

I wasn't at the front of the line when they handed out the brains but surely this would be picked up on wouldn't it. If it's happening I agree it's wrong. I've never experienced it.

I also much prefer everyone from all walks of life having their say by having to vote. Makes more sense to me than just a selected class of society having there say

 

Yes...it is happening. That is what the Australian Electoral Office report quoted in an earlier post has said. After the election, once all the electoral rolls from all the electoral booths are cross checked, they find that some individuals have appeared multiple times.

 

No one is saying that a "selected class of society" only should have a say. But you should be interested enough to be bothered.

[flag of convenience]

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?

 

Claims hardly moving if at all. Lot of frustration all round. I would question the suitability of some employed there and their sensibilities to say the least. Checks could easily have been made in Indonesia without the political setting up of blow out costing camps and degrading its name.

 

You should perhaps look at the highest rates of migration, 457's etc, in modern history, before always pointing the finger at asylum seekers which make a very small part of overall entrants.

[Rossmoyne]

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?

 

No need to be so condescendingly rude Coventry. ABC radio is actually my radio of choice, but I have a life and don't sit there all day listening to it and waiting for stuff I can bombard PIO with.

 

I am just amazed that this country does not have a more secure voting system...I have never been asked to prove myself at a voting booth in Australia, but I remember always having to produce my voting card in the UK.... Probably time that the Australian Electoral Commission did something about that.!

[flag of convenience]

Surely by claiming asylum he's already "pleaded his case". That his case hadn't yet been assessed is another issue.

 

What would be interesting is to compare his initial statements against those of his family. Did he enter and claim to be seeking "economic asylum". (Can you even claim such a thing?) Or did he provide a story relating to more tangible persecution?

 

In my life, I've met 3 relevant cases.

 

The first was an Iraqi student at the same uni. His official stay was nearly up, and he was considering whether to go back, since the Gulf War I was about to kick off. He was worried about what effect his claim might have on the rest of his family in Iraq. If he went back then he was almost certain to be absorbed into Saddam Husseins regime. Not tortured or anything, but he would end up in the same crowd and potentially suffer the same fate. I'm not sure what he did in the end.

 

The next group were a bunch of Ecuadorians in the UK, all men in their twenties. At first they claimed they fled Ecuador because of "the situation". They were very reluctant to elaborate on this. They were great guys, and eager to fit in. But it soon became clear that they faced no real danger back home, and they were in the UK primarily to learn English and get jobs, which several of them managed to do. One even went back to Ecuador to visit.

 

The next pair were a couple of Turkish guys living in Bern, Switzerland. I met them because we all studies German together. They were unabashed "economic refugees", just playing the system until they got PR. The teacher (herself a Turkish national) was ashamed of them. Again, they weren't bad guys, but they had a scripted story to offer the officials if ever questioned. They saw nothing wrong with what they were doing.

 

Os course, someone being murdered in a camp is bad, but I wonder how many refugees are either a)murdered, or b) die through inadequate conditions in other refugee camps in other parts of the world. The kind of people who flee imminent danger with nothing into a neighbouring state. And who languish there for years. I think these people deserve our help. And I get the uncomfortable feeling that cases like the last 2 I mentioned, and the Iranian architect, are undermining the free worlds' support for the asylum system in general.

 

No one will ever know will they in the case of the deceased. The situation on both Manus Island and Nauru is that processing is hardly in operation. It more a stalemate and used as a political plank for both parties, with little thought ever given to the nuts and bolts of how it was to be run.

 

At the end of the day you can sit in a third world UNHCR camp in Africa or Thailand, and unless an organised effort, usually directed by USA kicks off, the chances are, due to the raffle of the nature of being picked for resettlement you could be there for ever.

 

An example of emptying camps in recent years was the Bhutanese refugees resettled in their thousands allowing camps in Nepal to be shut down. Most went to USA but Canada, Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, took thousands.

This is far from normal procedure. It happened after the Vietnam War, when camps in Malaysia etc were emptied. There was a universal effort to make it happen. World is far more complicated now.

[Guest Ptp113]

No need to be so condescendingly rude Coventry. ABC radio is actually my radio of choice, but I have a life and don't sit there all day listening to it and waiting for stuff I can bombard PIO with.

 

I am just amazed that this country does not have a more secure voting system...I have never been asked to prove myself at a voting booth in Australia, but I remember always having to produce my voting card in the UK.... Probably time that the Australian Electoral Commission did something about that.!

 

Ah ha, you like to dish it out but then get narky when somebody throws it back at you. You're definitely a pom!

[MARYROSE02]

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:

 

Yes, just think how perfect it was under Rudd and Gillard. They really knew how to form a Government. Then that dickhead Abbott flukes an election win and destroys everything that the best politicians the world has ever seen set up.

[MARYROSE02]

So he wasn't using his daughters for political gain via a photo-shoot?. He wouldn't be the first mind, Blair was a master at playing the ordinary family man card and even "call me Dave" Cameron gets in on the act by leaving his daughter in the pub when the press are around!. I don't think Abbott was having a go at women with that particular comment. I do think it betrays how he sees politics and life in general though, somewhere where men are centre-stage and women are confined to the margins by virtue of their physiology - hence his "unsuitable to lead" comment which was him having a go at women.

 

I thought Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff is a woman. Perhaps he believes in appointing people by merit, not gender?

[MARYROSE02]

Not really Paul. Women comprise around about half of the electorate, and have historically had to battle hard to secure anything close to the pay and conditions of their male counterparts. If you have a cabinet of say 12 ministers, and only one of them is a woman, then I'd say you have a problem with the representation of a significant minority of the voting public. When you factor in that Tony Abbott has boasted about his "not bad-looking daughters" (so women are just decorative then Tony?), has dismissed abortion as "an easy way out" (for women) and has described women as "physiologically unsuited to lead" then I wouldn't be too confident about women either maintaining or advancing those hard-won gains on his watch.

 

Obviously he is committing electoral suicide, alienating all these female voters. Bill Shorten for PM in 2016!

[MARYROSE02]

I'm sure you know as well as I that the tax rebate payed to Murdoch was as a result of his successful high court challenge to the ATO's tax assessment.

The high court ruled that Murdoch's claim was valid under the tax legislation.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with Abbott and actually relates to tax returns of many years ago.

 

Cunning of Tony Abbott to arrange for this to happen during his term as PM. Would have made more sense for it to have happened during Gillard/Rudds' reign.

[MARYROSE02]

Don't agree with that. Why should people who don't know and don't care influence who is elected? The poor standard of politicians in this country is an unfortunate result of compulsory voting.

 

So, how would you ensure that only 'people who do know and do care about influence' are the only ones allowed to vote? Just members of the ALP and Trade Unions perhaps?

[Parley]

No one will ever know will they in the case of the deceased.

 

 

We do know based on the statements of his Brother In Law.

[Bibbs]

I'm sure you know as well as I that the tax rebate payed to Murdoch was as a result of his successful high court challenge to the ATO's tax assessment.

The high court ruled that Murdoch's claim was valid under the tax legislation.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with Abbott and actually relates to tax returns of many years ago.

 

I wish you'd stop using facts. It gets in the way of the whining lefty argument.

[Bibbs]

I thought Tony Abbott's Chief of Staff is a woman. Perhaps he believes in appointing people by merit, not gender?

 

Who would have thought, the best person for the job REGARDLESS of their gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation, would be a bad thing.

[Diane]

I wish you'd stop using facts. It gets in the way of the whining lefty argument.

 

Argument, whether whiny or not, is better than insults in an intelligent debate.

[Xenon4017]

>>Surely by claiming asylum he's already "pleaded his case". That his case hadn't yet been assessed is another issue.

 

No one will ever know will they in the case of the deceased.

 

He was in a camp for asylum seekers. Therefore he must have claimed asylum. You can only do this be seeking asylum from persecution. Persecution doesn't include "economic lack of opportunity".

 

Now, as my example before highlights, there could be legitimate reasons why his family are playing down his claim of persecution. They may fear reprisals from a brutal regime. Or, it might be that the family are shocked by his death and are giving their account of how he came to be there. He was the victim of a murder, regardless of how bogus or otherwise his asylum claim.

[flag of convenience]

Who would have thought, the best person for the job REGARDLESS of their gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation, would be a bad thing.

 

In spite of I think you mean to say. Certainly not in position on merit.

[flag of convenience]

>>Surely by claiming asylum he's already "pleaded his case". That his case hadn't yet been assessed is another issue.

 

 

 

He was in a camp for asylum seekers. Therefore he must have claimed asylum. You can only do this be seeking asylum from persecution. Persecution doesn't include "economic lack of opportunity".

 

Now, as my example before highlights, there could be legitimate reasons why his family are playing down his claim of persecution. They may fear reprisals from a brutal regime. Or, it might be that the family are shocked by his death and are giving their account of how he came to be there. He was the victim of a murder, regardless of how bogus or otherwise his asylum claim.

 

Yes he was the victim of murder, but I expect little will come out of it once the window dressing has been completed. I have no doubt the deceased had hoped for a better life in Australia including career. I don't see how that doesn't make him in need of asylum.

We'll never know his individual circumstances if he was or wasn't . Obviously seeking economic betterment are not grounds but part of the entire picture which at a guess his family related to a journalist and possibly taken out of context.

[flag of convenience]

Argument, whether whiny or not, is better than insults in an intelligent debate.

 

The Right are poor at argument. Far easier coming out with some dumb lefty slogan. Then slogans is what their fearless leader is best at, is it not?