David Cameron to introduce tough new laws on EU immigration in response to UKIP election wins.

[MARYROSE02]

And yet you conveniently ignore the fact that historically 90% of boat people are found to be genuine refugees.

 

Which makes you ignorant doesn't it?

 

Did you answer my question about how the Nauru social experiment will end?

 

So on that basis, you want UNLIMITED entry into Australia for any genuine asylum seeker who can make it to Australia? One boat a day, ten, a hundred, it does not matter. If they are genuinely asylum seekers, we MUST accept them, no questions asked. How can we sustain that? (And the 10 per cent who are not genuine, well, who cares what their background and / or motives are?)

 

How will the Nauru 'social experiment' end? Maybe Nauru will see the benefits of a multi-cultural society, which is after all the preferred option for any country?

 

Or it will end with any found to be illegal returned whence they came, and any found to be genuine, well they may be resettled here in Australia, or somewhere else.

 

Of course, the fact that 90 per cent were found to be genuine in the past, is no guarantee that 90 per cent will always be genuine, nor does it mean that we drop all immigration controls, which you obviously want.

 

In any case, it's all academic, the boats have stopped, and they will stay stopped until the Liberals lose office.

[PWA200]

Note they haven't been charged or sentenced with any crime, because they haven't committed a crime

 

Seeking asylum is perfectly legal.

 

The fact that the politicians and media have consorted with each other to peddle this lie to such an extent that people like you accept it as fact says a lot IMO.

 

Anyway, using your argument that they are 'illegal', when do they get their day in court? What's their 'sentence'? Is indefinite detention of children acceptable to you?

 

Within my statement I never mentioned asylum or my opinion on its legality.

 

I am aware that seeking asylum is legal - this explains why is can be done.

 

What, however, I did attempt to discuss was the concept of crossing into a state without permission to do so. Your Migration Act of 1958 makes it illegal to enter Australia without a valid visa - and this act therefore enables the state to detain people caught doing so. My use of the word illegal to describe somebody entering Australia without a valid visa is therefore fully justified and has been written into law by your parliament. We can determine therefore, that from a legal perspective, up until the granting of asylum these persons are considered to be illegal immigrants - for if they were legal immigrants before the grant of asylum - they would be released.

 

The general basis of my statement is that there has to be a process for people who arrive without the legal right to enter Australia - and that the Nauru Detention Center, or something like it, is the inevitable result of this process - unless you desire no border controls at all.

 

Harpodom: I would like to ask you to imagine a scenario: You have been elected head of state and an unknown person arrives and crosses your border without a visa: What would you therefore do?

 

(And just from a purely logical perspective: You can't indefinitely detain a child because at some point they will cease to be a child)

Edited November 20, 2014 by PWA200

[flag of convenience]

I am not an Australian but personally believe the Nauru detention center is totally justifiable. Most countries run similar institution to the detention center on Nauru - and they are called prisons - where people who are break the law are held. Persons sent to Nauru are generally illegal immigrants - note the word illegal - non-citizens/residents who have unlawfully attempted to enter Australia.

 

It appears many people are confusing the difference between keeping somebody imprisoned on Nauru and allowing them to become a citizen of Nauru. After these people are processed the majority of them become residents of Australia - not Nauru! Nauru is simply a staging post on their journey run by the Australian government.

 

The people held on Nauru ran the risk of being caught - and were - so they now suffer the consequences of their actions. Most of them know they shouldn't be attempting to enter Australia - hence turning up unannounced by sea. Their imprisonment is the result of breaking Australian laws to which they are rightly subject to upon entering Australian territory.

 

The majority of Australians, I believe, want to see controlled borders and restricted immigration and the inevitable result is that a facility such as this will have to exist somewhere whether you like it or not. There may be a more appropriate place - any suggestions?

 

I also believe the facility should be run on an economical basis - as the Australian taxpayers are working and paying for it. It should not be made to be comfortable, and further, should act as a deterrent to others who wish to illegally enter Australia.

 

A problem appears to exist and this is the only practical solution, unless you desire fully open borders and unrestricted immigration.

 

Oh dear. A foreign outsider displaying vividly their complete lack of understanding on the subject. How ever is the Australian imposition of unwanted asylum seekers imposed on a nation island too poor to refuse justifiable? Clearly it isn't. You are as many in complete confusion and ignorance with regards the matter.

The people detained are not illegal immigrants as have claimed, as is their right under international law the right for asylum. As such they have the right to be heard, and only after that time and after initial health and security tests are done, if found not to be in the need of asylum, may they be detained until removal, as any other illegal migrant or over stayer.

 

They are not in prisons they are in detention centres. In many ways more harsh with less if any rights than a felon who has committed the most outrageous crime may expect.

 

No the confusion is only on your part. Unlike the previous period under the former Howard government, when those judged refugees were indeed in time slowly bought in the back door to Australia behind the public gaze, (I had dealing with several of them) the present detainee,,,note not prisoners, have been clearly informed that they will not be coming to Australia and Nauru is having to deal with the implications of those released into the community with Australia stating the social implications are a law and order matter for the Nauru government.

 

The great hope of Australia was that Cambodia would be the solution to the disaster unfolding on Nauru with their total inability to host refugees, but that to is floundering before it ever got of the ground, probably due to a withdrawal of bribes, but also protests from the opposition and religious groups in that country as well as it being akin to Nauru in being totally unsuitable and incapable of receiving refugees.

The demand by the Cambodian government that those that are sent there must want to settle in Cambodia, was likely the final stumbling block.

Yet another ill thought out, badly executed example at problem solving by an inept Australian government.

 

People have a complete right to enter Australia and have only been caught out by very questioning legal shenanigans by both sides of Australian politics to enable an upper hand at the polls at looking at quick ill thought out fixes to appease a large segment of in cases manipulated voters. That is not to say nothing should have been done but politics got in the way of humane policy making sadly.

 

No I don't like it at least you are right there. Where could they have been housed? Now let me think? A more appropriate place than Nauru. There's a large Southern Land not a million miles from Nauru, that could fit how many million Nauru's in its vast size. How about having a shot at there?

 

So you would be prefer near like concentration camp like conditions would you? Just be thankful that you are likely in a position to flee your land and hope another would at least treat you better than you are advocating for others.

 

Instead of old fashioned 50's talk of invaders landing on the beaches from among Asia's teeming millions and the like something a little more constructive than the ill treatment of human beings is considered. A look at the original 51 UN Agreement could be a start.

[PWA200]

Oh dear. A foreign outsider displaying vividly their complete lack of understanding on the subject. How ever is the Australian imposition of unwanted asylum seekers imposed on a nation island too poor to refuse justifiable? Clearly it isn't. You are as many in complete confusion and ignorance with regards the matter.

The people detained are not illegal immigrants as have claimed, as is their right under international law the right for asylum. As such they have the right to be heard, and only after that time and after initial health and security tests are done, if found not to be in the need of asylum, may they be detained until removal, as any other illegal migrant or over stayer.

 

They are not in prisons they are in detention centres. In many ways more harsh with less if any rights than a felon who has committed the most outrageous crime may expect.

 

No the confusion is only on your part. Unlike the previous period under the former Howard government, when those judged refugees were indeed in time slowly bought in the back door to Australia behind the public gaze, (I had dealing with several of them) the present detainee,,,note not prisoners, have been clearly informed that they will not be coming to Australia and Nauru is having to deal with the implications of those released into the community with Australia stating the social implications are a law and order matter for the Nauru government.

 

The great hope of Australia was that Cambodia would be the solution to the disaster unfolding on Nauru with their total inability to host refugees, but that to is floundering before it ever got of the ground, probably due to a withdrawal of bribes, but also protests from the opposition and religious groups in that country as well as it being akin to Nauru in being totally unsuitable and incapable of receiving refugees.

The demand by the Cambodian government that those that are sent there must want to settle in Cambodia, was likely the final stumbling block.

Yet another ill thought out, badly executed example at problem solving by an inept Australian government.

 

People have a complete right to enter Australia and have only been caught out by very questioning legal shenanigans by both sides of Australian politics to enable an upper hand at the polls at looking at quick ill thought out fixes to appease a large segment of in cases manipulated voters. That is not to say nothing should have been done but politics got in the way of humane policy making sadly.

 

No I don't like it at least you are right there. Where could they have been housed? Now let me think? A more appropriate place than Nauru. There's a large Southern Land not a million miles from Nauru, that could fit how many million Nauru's in its vast size. How about having a shot at there?

 

So you would be prefer near like concentration camp like conditions would you? Just be thankful that you are likely in a position to flee your land and hope another would at least treat you better than you are advocating for others.

 

Instead of old fashioned 50's talk of invaders landing on the beaches from among Asia's teeming millions and the like something a little more constructive than the ill treatment of human beings is considered. A look at the original 51 UN Agreement could be a start.

 

Sorry to repeat myself - but my prior statement did not mention asylum seeking or any opinion on its legality or morality.

Edited November 20, 2014 by PWA200

[flag of convenience]

Within my statement I never mentioned asylum or my opinion on its legality.

 

I am aware that seeking asylum is legal - this explains why is can be done.

 

What, however, I did attempt to discuss was the concept of crossing into a state without permission to do so. Your Migration Act of 1958 makes it illegal to enter Australia without a valid visa - and this act therefore enables the state to detain people caught doing so. My use of the word illegal to describe somebody entering Australia without a valid visa (i.e the right to do so) is therefore fully justified and has been written into law by your parliament. We can determine therefore, that from a legal perspective, up until the granting of asylum these persons are considered to be illegal immigrants - for if they were legal - they would be released.

 

The general basis of my statement is that there has to be a process for people who arrive without the legal right to enter Australia - and that the Nauru Detention Center, or something like it, is the inevitable result of this process - unless you desire no border controls at all.

 

Harpodom: I would like to ask you to imagine a scenario: You have been elected head of state and an unknown person arrives and crosses your border without a visa: What would you therefore do?

 

(And just from a purely logical perspective: You can't indefinitely detain a child because at some point they will cease to be a child)

 

That has been bought up with some regularity. All to no avail as Australia is a signatory the UN Charter on Refugees, the Migration Act is null and void when a claim for political asylum is requested.

 

The Nauru Detention Centre is not a process to enter Australia. It is an Australian measure of passing on dirty washing to a poor and extremely ill equipped nation island by means of bribes.

 

What you would do in the scenario described is very easy. You would follow the legal process your country has prescribed to and seek behind the scenes statesman like solutions.

[flag of convenience]

Sorry to repeat myself - but my prior statement did not mention asylum seeking or any opinion on its legality or morality.

 

Your previous statement was full of inaccuracies as expressed above. Nauru is not a processing centre for Australia. Which appears to be the crux of your argument. And you cannot avoid the legal implications in the matter let alone the moral.

No argument and certainly no solutions I'm afraid. Nothing more than the right wingers here out here bare their teeth and come all fierce over anyway.

[flag of convenience]

Within my statement I never mentioned asylum or my opinion on its legality.

 

I am aware that seeking asylum is legal - this explains why is can be done.

 

What, however, I did attempt to discuss was the concept of crossing into a state without permission to do so. Your Migration Act of 1958 makes it illegal to enter Australia without a valid visa - and this act therefore enables the state to detain people caught doing so. My use of the word illegal to describe somebody entering Australia without a valid visa is therefore fully justified and has been written into law by your parliament. We can determine therefore, that from a legal perspective, up until the granting of asylum these persons are considered to be illegal immigrants - for if they were legal immigrants before the grant of asylum - they would be released.

 

The general basis of my statement is that there has to be a process for people who arrive without the legal right to enter Australia - and that the Nauru Detention Center, or something like it, is the inevitable result of this process - unless you desire no border controls at all.

 

Harpodom: I would like to ask you to imagine a scenario: You have been elected head of state and an unknown person arrives and crosses your border without a visa: What would you therefore do?

 

(And just from a purely logical perspective: You can't indefinitely detain a child because at some point they will cease to be a child)

 

The process has not only been outsourced from Christmas Island and onshore detention facilities but handed over lock, stock and barrel on Australian tax payers expense to two of the poorest ill equipped nations on earth to come to terms with. Some process that.....

[MARYROSE02]

It's a win-win situation - the poor countries gain a valuable source of income, and Australia does not have to process them all in Australia itself.

[flag of convenience]

It's a win-win situation - the poor countries gain a valuable source of income, and Australia does not have to process them all in Australia itself.

 

An immoral 'win' for Australia and a great social and economic strain on the poor countries, once Australian funding dries up. In fact so severe on Nauru as to be unsustainable and urgent assistance required.

[Bibbs]

No I don't like it at least you are right there. Where could they have been housed? Now let me think? A more appropriate place than Nauru. There's a large Southern Land not a million miles from Nauru, that could fit how many million Nauru's in its vast size. How about having a shot at there?

 

So you would be prefer near like concentration camp like conditions would you? Just be thankful that you are likely in a position to flee your land and hope another would at least treat you better than you are advocating for others.

 

 

I don't think Antarctica is the answer.

 

'Concentration camp' .. Big LOL. I've paid and stayed at worse.

[flag of convenience]

I don't think Antarctica is the answer.

 

'Concentration camp' .. Big LOL. I've paid and stayed at worse.

 

A big laugh for you perhaps, but doubt those interned would share the humour. Don't need Antarctica when Australia is ample. So you've paid at stayed at worse? I suppose you had the freedom to vacate at choice and take custom elsewhere or decline the initial invitation if unhappy with product on offer?

[Bibbs]

A big laugh for you perhaps, but doubt those interned would share the humour. Don't need Antarctica when Australia is ample. So you've paid at stayed at worse? I suppose you had the freedom to vacate at choice and take custom elsewhere or decline the initial invitation if unhappy with product on offer?

 

I actually know people working in the centres.

 

The asylum seekers have the choice to leave too. If I was from where they were from (and it was as bad as the claim), I'd be happy to have food and a roof.

 

Sandy beaches, Internet, study opportunities and day trips out would be a bonus.

[PWA200]

The process has not only been outsourced from Christmas Island and onshore detention facilities but handed over lock, stock and barrel on Australian tax payers expense to two of the poorest ill equipped nations on earth to come to terms with. Some process that.....

 

My argument concludes that unless you desire unrestricted immigration a process must exist for persons who do not have, or have not yet obtained, the legal right to enter a country and this process is inevitably going to involve a restriction of the liberty of the concerned persons.

 

You are questioning the morality of the current process: Do you have an alternative, morally superior solution of your own? Or do you desire no border controls?

 

How should the law be changed?

Edited November 20, 2014 by PWA200

[MARYROSE02]

An immoral 'win' for Australia and a great social and economic strain on the poor countries, once Australian funding dries up. In fact so severe on Nauru as to be unsustainable and urgent assistance required.

 

Didn't the previous government end the scheme with Naura in 2007/8? In any case, Australia will still be giving them foreign aid, regardless, because Nauru can't survive without aid, given the end to their phosphorus mining. (Perhaps that wealth could have been invested better? I don't know too much about the history but Nauru seems to have little to offer, no tourism to speak of, no resources, other than fishing rights.) It seems to me that operating a detention centre for Australia is one of their few ways to make money.

 

Immoral? Who cares about that? Do the owners of the boats in Indonesia care about the morality of what they are doing - charging huge sums of money to cram people onto unseaworthy boats. Do they care when those boats sank with hundreds of lives lost?

[MARYROSE02]

From the Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. Seems like we are not the big bad b******s after all?

 

[h=2]Why we give aid to Nauru[/h]

Participants of a walk against diabetes and for general fitness near Nauru airport. Photo: Lorrie Graham / Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

 

Most Nauruans live extremely modest lifestyles based on very low incomes. There are high levels of unemployment, particularly among youth, and very few employment opportunities. The private sector is under-developed and offers few employment prospects, there are no banking or insurance services available on the island, and poor education standards exclude many from employment in the public sector. There is no formal welfare system and the reliance on imported goods means the cost of living is high.

The economy is constrained by high debt levels (around $70 million) and limited revenue options (mainly phosphate mining and fisheries licensing). It is easily affected by external influences such as global economic trends or fluctuating market demands. Energy and clean water production are reliant on the costly importation of diesel fuel. Public sector management is hampered by a lack of skilled and qualified personnel, and critical national infrastructure is seriously dilapidated.

Nauru is making mixed progress toward the Millennium Development Goals. Education outcomes are improving but are still poor by international standards, levels of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cancer are among the highest in the world, and progress towards improving environmental sustainability is slow.

There are long-standing historical ties between Australia and Nauru, including strong trade relations and significant levels of cultural exchange. In that context, and as one of the largest donor economies in the region, Australia is well positioned to provide the assistance Nauru needs to improve its people’s welfare and prospects, and ensure its stability and economic security. As Nauru’s largest donor partner, Australian aid is helping to stabilise the economy, improve public services such as health, education and utilities, strengthen public sector management, and improve the environment for private sector expansion.

With Australia’s assistance, the Government of Nauru has been making progress in recent years pursuing the priorities of its National Sustainable Development Strategy and building stronger prospects for stability. However, Nauru is likely to remain dependant on donor assistance for the foreseeable future.

[flag of convenience]

From the Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. Seems like we are not the big bad b******s after all?

 

Why we give aid to Nauru

 

Participants of a walk against diabetes and for general fitness near Nauru airport. Photo: Lorrie Graham / Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

 

Most Nauruans live extremely modest lifestyles based on very low incomes. There are high levels of unemployment, particularly among youth, and very few employment opportunities. The private sector is under-developed and offers few employment prospects, there are no banking or insurance services available on the island, and poor education standards exclude many from employment in the public sector. There is no formal welfare system and the reliance on imported goods means the cost of living is high.

The economy is constrained by high debt levels (around $70 million) and limited revenue options (mainly phosphate mining and fisheries licensing). It is easily affected by external influences such as global economic trends or fluctuating market demands. Energy and clean water production are reliant on the costly importation of diesel fuel. Public sector management is hampered by a lack of skilled and qualified personnel, and critical national infrastructure is seriously dilapidated.

Nauru is making mixed progress toward the Millennium Development Goals. Education outcomes are improving but are still poor by international standards, levels of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cancer are among the highest in the world, and progress towards improving environmental sustainability is slow.

There are long-standing historical ties between Australia and Nauru, including strong trade relations and significant levels of cultural exchange. In that context, and as one of the largest donor economies in the region, Australia is well positioned to provide the assistance Nauru needs to improve its people’s welfare and prospects, and ensure its stability and economic security. As Nauru’s largest donor partner, Australian aid is helping to stabilise the economy, improve public services such as health, education and utilities, strengthen public sector management, and improve the environment for private sector expansion.

With Australia’s assistance, the Government of Nauru has been making progress in recent years pursuing the priorities of its National Sustainable Development Strategy and building stronger prospects for stability. However, Nauru is likely to remain dependant on donor assistance for the foreseeable future.

 

And Nauru remains a basket case dependant on OZ Aid and taking in their dirty washing. Shameful antics. As for above article a piece of government propaganda if ever. You really believe every government written statement as fact? A small nation as such and they appear devoid of the task of solving or come anywhere near to solving the severe economic and social and medical issues abundant on the island.

[flag of convenience]

Didn't the previous government end the scheme with Naura in 2007/8? In any case, Australia will still be giving them foreign aid, regardless, because Nauru can't survive without aid, given the end to their phosphorus mining. (Perhaps that wealth could have been invested better? I don't know too much about the history but Nauru seems to have little to offer, no tourism to speak of, no resources, other than fishing rights.) It seems to me that operating a detention centre for Australia is one of their few ways to make money.

 

Immoral? Who cares about that? Do the owners of the boats in Indonesia care about the morality of what they are doing - charging huge sums of money to cram people onto unseaworthy boats. Do they care when those boats sank with hundreds of lives lost?

 

I know very well the history and recall when Nauru was the richest republic per capita in the world. The phosphate mining was both a blessing and a curse. It has left large parts of the island useless for agriculture or any other use.

During its hay day, Nauru invested in Sydney office blocks and had their own shipping company of three vessels from memory.

A number of bad investments and no doubt corruption along with a wild spending/consumption boom by the locals (sound familiar) saw its luck fail.

 

Probably cheaper and better to relocate the entire population over time to a more sustainable location.

 

Australia should care. What have the owners of boats got to do with anything? Profit would usually come before safety if unregulated. What in common to boat owners have with a government ?

[flag of convenience]

My argument concludes that unless you desire unrestricted immigration a process must exist for persons who do not have, or have not yet obtained, the legal right to enter a country and this process is inevitably going to involve a restriction of the liberty of the concerned persons.

 

You are questioning the morality of the current process: Do you have an alternative, morally superior solution of your own? Or do you desire no border controls?

 

How should the law be changed?

 

No I am telling you that you are wrong. Plain and simple. Nauru is not a holding centre and yes Australia has a legal and moral obligation like it or not. I have already said the change comes through international efforts on the world stage and looking into the process laid out under law in the UN, if that process requires twigging, changing or a more radical overhaul of the entire Charter.

 

A process was in place checking asylum seekers on entry at Christmas island and a host of onshore facilities. Must would agree to checks in health and suitability to mean applicants being detained for a period of several weeks and those not judged to be in need of refuge to be removed promptly. Not imprisoned for years.

[flag of convenience]

I actually know people working in the centres.

 

The asylum seekers have the choice to leave too. If I was from where they were from (and it was as bad as the claim), I'd be happy to have food and a roof.

 

Sandy beaches, Internet, study opportunities and day trips out would be a bonus.

 

Funny you know people working in the centres as I know heaps. Even warmer than that but no matter. No I don't believe you would be happy day after day of listless, little to do, often in scorching heat, personality issues often breaking out into violence, no indication on future prospects, I could go on.

 

I would like to know the role the alleged people you know work in. It wouldn't be security would it? Prime people to give assessment on such a delicate issue I'm sure.

[flag of convenience]

It's a win-win situation - the poor countries gain a valuable source of income, and Australia does not have to process them all in Australia itself.

 

In danger of repeating yourself .....No it is not a win/win situation. Nauru cannot cope with incomers and Manus Island does not want to. Regardless of Australian propaganda it is only in Australia's favour, or government hardly the tax payer who is forking out big bucks in support of corrupt practices. Nauru is being used and abused and is a disaster for that island.

[PWA200]

No I am telling you that you are wrong. Plain and simple. Nauru is not a holding centre and yes Australia has a legal and moral obligation like it or not. I have already said the change comes through international efforts on the world stage and looking into the process laid out under law in the UN, if that process requires twigging, changing or a more radical overhaul of the entire Charter.

 

A process was in place checking asylum seekers on entry at Christmas island and a host of onshore facilities. Must would agree to checks in health and suitability to mean applicants being detained for a period of several weeks and those not judged to be in need of refuge to be removed promptly. Not imprisoned for years.

 

Nauru Detention Center is a regional processing facility for illegal immigrants - are you arguing otherwise?

 

You have stated Australia has a legal obligation - but then demanded the law is changed to fulfill it. That is not a legal obligation. It is your opinion on what the law should be.

 

I think the fact is - wherever it was decided to place the detention center - you would automatically disagree with it due to your general Marxist / socialist / equality agenda and guilt driven hatred of the Caucasian race.

 

It has very little to do with Nauru.

Edited November 20, 2014 by PWA200

[flag of convenience]

Nauru Detention Center is a regional processing facility for illegal immigrants - are you arguing otherwise?

 

You have stated Australia has a legal obligation - but then demanded the law is changed to fulfill it. That is not a legal obligation. It is your opinion on what the law should be.

 

I think the fact is - wherever it was decided to place the detention center - you would automatically disagree with it due to your general Marxist / socialist / equality agenda and guilt driven hatred of the Caucasian race.

 

It has very little to do with Nauru.

You are obviously some EDL or associated similar far right groups,with your utterances about hatred of the Caucasian race. Your right some I severely despise. Especially those of such extreme arrogance that live in another land ,attempting to part with ill informed views in guise of intellectual content when in fact another agenda is at play.

 

Nauru is not a processing centre to which you in ignorance referred in an earlier post, to see I note you now refrain from stating, where asylum seekers are processed prior to entry into Australia. Forget about the Marxist/socialist claptrap and admit you were wrong.

 

I demanded nothing and stated Australia has a legal obligation under entered agreements. The UNHCR tribunal in Geneva on November 28 will hopefully throw more light on the matter and hopefully backroom deals are not done and Australia is made to face the full consequences of actions to date.

 

Naturally prolonged detention I would disagree with as would most clear thinking people. Doesn't prevent solutions being sought. And yes it very much has to do with Nauru.

[MARYROSE02]

And Nauru remains a basket case dependant on OZ Aid and taking in their dirty washing. Shameful antics. As for above article a piece of government propaganda if ever. You really believe every government written statement as fact? A small nation as such and they appear devoid of the task of solving or come anywhere near to solving the severe economic and social and medical issues abundant on the island.

 

So you are saying that every page of the DFAT website, and by implication, every page of every Government Department, is just propaganda. My God, you must really believe in 'The Illlumati!'

 

And of course, if every page of the DFAT site, and every other page of every other Government Department, regardless of which party is in power, is just propaganda for that particular party!

 

The Australian Government gives aid to countless countries around the world, and Nauru is just one of them. Is it all just propaganda?

[MARYROSE02]

I'm surprised that PIO has not had to dismantle large portions of its site, because all the information from DIAC is quite obviously just propaganda, so how can any prospective migrant hope to get balanced information.

 

And of course, it does not stop with DIAC. What about the Department of Human Services, which I think runs Centrelink, and then there is the ATO, and whichever department is responsible for Medicare - all just propaganda.

 

And what about the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the Census. Can we ever believe anything again? It's all just propaganda.

[MARYROSE02]

You really believe every government written statement as fact?

 

All that time I spend working for the ATO and it was all a lie, a fraud, a fairy tale, just propaganda!

 

Hang on, we need people like you to cut through the propaganda and explain to the rest of us which Government information is fact, and which is lies and propaganda. Are you up to the job?