Rudd's PNG solution has given the boat people a new address: Saibai Island QLD 4875!!

[AHLUNGOR]

The Qld minister for local government was on Alan Jones this morning stating the facts why the Rudd government 's press release on the run policy for illegal boat people/ asylum seekers at PNG will be a complete failure because he is bringing them within a dangerously close distance to Australian soil:

The closet point between PNG and Australia is only 4 km! The place is called Saibai island Queensland 4875 and between the island and mainland Australia - well , you can walk across in low tide !!!

Don't listen to me, listen to David Crisafulli:

http://www.2gb.com/article/alan-jones-david-crisafulli

So what will be stopping the boat people for making that final 4 km - they can swim, or canoeing both Olympic sports...................lol but this is dead serious and no laughing matter, once they are on Australian soil, they can just walk into any regional airport in far north Queensland and board a plane to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne within hours, no checking of passport !!

Just my 4 cents !!

May be they are better off to be left in Naru or where ever and from. A distance !!

We need to say No to these garbage on September 7 !!

[Sextus]

you can walk across in low tide !!!

Not a good idea up there! The waters are full of tiger and bull sharks, as well as irukandji jellyfish and box jellyfish (though I have heard that the latter will, in fact, attack any part of the human anatomy.) Not to mention saltwater crocodiles. I'll bet those two incredibly biased commentators forgot to mention that!

So if they can't wade to Australia, and they come by boat or canoe, under the rules it means they have to be settled in PNG!

[Sextus]

That is true, but as the prospect of living in such a **** of a country as PNG is so woeful, the idea is that the boat numbers will limit themselves voluntarily.

But they could add an extra clause:
"...including all those who wade to Australia.' :shout:

[World citizen]

im pretty sure these asylum seekers will be kept under guard in a PNG detention centre, which will probably be operated under the supervision of the australian government. id be suprised if anyone broke free and managed to make it to australia

if they were successful though I think they would be entitled to remain here. under australian law asylum seekers arriving in australia are entitled to have their claims processed here. however most unlawful arrivals are intercepted before they reach the mainland are are taken to xmas island, which is an excised migration zone. these guys can have their claims assessed in png or nauru.


Not a good idea up there! The waters are full of tiger and bull sharks, as well as irukandji jellyfish and box jellyfish (though I have heard that the latter will, in fact, attack any part of the human anatomy.) Not to mention saltwater crocodiles. I'll bet those two incredibly biased commentators forgot to mention that!

So if they can't wade to Australia, and they come by boat or canoe, under the rules it means they have to be settled in PNG!

[Irene638]

I don't understand why people make it hard for themselves. Under Howard's government, the boats have been turn around and fixed the problem.

Why can't they do the same now. Is that because Mr. F....head Ruud abolished that policy, so now he cannot admit to his mistake.

These politicians are such low life selfish bastards only care about themselves and their party and they should put the National interest before anything else. No wonder our country are in the condition it is in now.

Before, anyone jump in and attack my opinion, I am talking about politician in general regardless of their party.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers.

[AHLUNGOR]

Now that I know more about this PNG solution, it is as stupid if not more silly than the previous "Malaysian Solutions" in which Malaysia will accept 800 illegal boat people and in exchange Australia will take an additional 4,000 "processed" refugees from Malaysian refugee camps! But how stupid is that, 800 for 4,000 - the Malaysian Government must be laughing all the way to the bank !!

Just my 800 cents

Cheers

:fire:

[AHLUNGOR]

im pretty sure these asylum seekers will be kept under guard in a PNG detention centre, which will probably be operated under the supervision of the australian government. id be suprised if anyone broke free and managed to make it to australia




Apparently, what the Qld Minister meant was, after the illegal boat people were transferred to PNG, they will be processed there and be given refugee status but they will not be entitled to enter Australia from there - this is the point Kevin Rudd was claiming: over time "will solve the problem".

But the Qld government is pointing out that all these illegal boat people being "settled" in PNG will eventually be a Qld problem: they will not be happy to just stay there, they will continue to make their way into Australian soil using whatever ways and means of transportation they could get.

Only this time, they are Not risking their life travelling across the Indian and Pacific Ocean in doggie boats, they are only 4 KM away, how do you stop them and defend our vast coastlines in far north Queensland ??

Not happy Rudd !!

ps. I had no idea PNG is so close to Australia until this morning, and I am worry about this, so should you ?


:anger2::anger2:


:fire::fire:

[World citizen]

theres a lot of misinformation in this thread

rudd's asylum seeker policy isnt very different from howards. in fact the howard government was the first to send asylum seekers to png (the so called 'pacific solution). he also sent asylum seekers to nauru, a policy which the labor government has continued.

ahlungor - you say the png approach is worse than the proposed malaysian arrangement. i dont suppose youd care to share your thinking on this or tell us why the png approach is any worse than the policy howard followed?


I don't understand why people make it hard for themselves. Under Howard's government, the boats have been turn around and fixed the problem.

Why can't they do the same now. Is that because Mr. F....head Ruud abolished that policy, so now he cannot admit to his mistake.

These politicians are such low life selfish bastards only care about themselves and their party and they should put the National interest before anything else. No wonder our country are in the condition it is in now.

Before, anyone jump in and attack my opinion, I am talking about politician in general regardless of their party.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers.

[AHLUNGOR]

theres a lot of misinformation in this thread

rudd's asylum seeker policy isnt very different from howards. in fact the howard government was the first to send asylum seekers to png (the so called 'pacific solution). he also sent asylum seekers to nauru, a policy which the labor government has continued.

ahlungor - you say the png approach is worse than the proposed malaysian arrangement. i dont suppose youd care to share your thinking on this or tell us why the png approach is any worse than the policy howard followed?

Hi Brother WC.

You can read for yourself from below, I am no expert in these things, but the Qld Minister sounds very convincing this morning and he seems to know what he is talking about, may be you should listen to what he has to say. I don't have all the details, so if I was wrong, I was wrong, I guess you will be voting for Kevin 13 then, so be it, it is a free country after all !!

Cheers

***************

Pacific SolutionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search The Pacific Solution is the name given to the Australian government policy of transporting asylum seekers to detention centres on small island nations in the Pacific Ocean, rather than allowing them to land on the Australian mainland. Implemented during 2001–2007, it had bipartisan support from the Liberal-National government and Labor opposition at the time.

The Pacific Solution consisted of three central strategies. First, thousands of islands were excised from Australia’s migration zone or Australian territory. Second, the Australian Defence Force commenced Operation Relex to interdict vessels carrying asylum seekers. Third, the asylum seekers were removed to developing countries in order to determine their refugee status. A number of pieces of legislation enabled this policy. The policy was developed by the Howard government in response to the 2001 Tampa affair and was implemented by then Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock.

The policy was abandoned by the Australian government following the election of Australian Labor Party in 2007.

In August 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard introduced a similar policy, reopening Nauru detention centre and Manus Island detention centre for offshore processing.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Implementation (2001–2007)
2 Suspension of the policy
3 Implementation (post-2007)
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Implementation (2001–2007)[edit source | edit]The Australian Government passed legislation on 27 September 2001, with amendments to the Commonwealth Migration Act (1958).[2] The implementation of this legislation became known as the Pacific Solution.[3]

On 28 October 2001, at his 2001 election campaign policy launch, Prime Minister John Howard said "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."[4][5]

By redefining the area of Australian territory that could be landed upon and then legitimately used for claims of asylum (the migration zone), and by removing any intercepted people to third countries for processing, the aim was to deter future asylum seekers from making the dangerous journey by boat, once they knew that their trip would probably not end with a legitimate claim for asylum in Australia.[6]

Asylum seekers were intercepted at sea while sailing from Indonesia and moved using Australian naval vessels. Detention centres were set up on Christmas Island, Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, and on the island nation of Nauru. Some were also accepted for processing by New Zealand. Most of the asylum seekers came from Afghanistan (largely of the Hazara ethnic group), Iraq, Iran, China, and Vietnam. The last asylum seekers to be detained on Nauru before the end of the policy had come from Sri Lanka and Myanmar.[7]

Arrivals dropped from a total of 5516 people in 2001 to 1 arrival in 2002 after implementation of the policy.[8] The removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan may have been a factor in this decrease.[citation needed] The lower level of boat arrivals continued throughout the Pacific Solution period.

During the Pacific Solution period, mainland detention centres were closed at Baxter, Woomera and Curtin .[9]

The number of asylum seekers assessed as genuine refugees via the Pacific Solution process was lower than onshore processing.[citation needed] 68 per cent of the asylum seekers were deemed genuine refugees and less than 40 per cent of asylum seekers sent to Nauru received resettlement in Australia.[citation needed] A 2006 Report by the Australian Human Rights Commission showed that of the 1509 Asylum Seekers sent to Nauru by that time, 586 were granted Australian resettlement (39%), 360 resettled in New Zealand (24%), 19 resettled in Sweden (1.2%), 10 in Canada (<1%) and 4 in Norway (<1%). A total of 482 Asylum Seekers (32%) were deemed not genuine refugees and sent home.[10]

The cost of the Pacific Solution between 2001 and 2007 was at least $1 billion equating to over $500,000 per detainee.[11][12]


Persons arriving by unauthorised boat to Australia by calendar yearAmnesty International, refugee rights groups and other non-governmental organisations said that Australia was failing to meet its international obligations. The ad hoc nature in which the policy evolved was also criticised, as it resulted in people being moved to Manus Island and Nauru before facilities were ready. Poor facilities and services including intermittent electricity and fresh water, poor medical facilities and the serious mental impact of detention on people in these conditions without the certainty of being granted refugee status were also strongly criticised.[13]

Suspension of the policy[edit source | edit]During the campaign for the 2007 parliamentary election, Australian Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd promised to continue John Howard's Pacific solution policy of turning boats back to Indonesia and temporary protection visas. [14]

The last detainees left Manus Island in 2004 and Nauru in February 2008.[15]

Nauru was concerned about losing much-needed aid from Australia.[16] Opposition immigration spokesman Chris Ellison said the closure could suggest to people-smugglers that Australia was weakening on border protection.[17]

Since the abandonment of the policy there has been an increase in arrivals by sea of asylum seekers, with over 43,000 arriving since 2008.[18]

Implementation (post-2007)[edit source | edit]The government opened Christmas Island detention centre in late 2008, and has since expanded facilities and accommodation there.[19]

In the 2012-2013 financial year the government budgeted $1.1 billion to cover the processing costs for 450 arrivals per month.[20]

In May 2011, the Gillard government announced plans to address the issue of asylum seekers arriving by boat with an asylum seeker 'swap' deal for long-standing genuine refugees in Malaysia. Refugee lawyers asked the High Court to strike down the deal, arguing that the Immigration Minister did not have the power to send asylum seekers to a country that has no legal obligations to protect them.[21]

There were calls on the government to reinstate the Pacific Solution by reopening the detention centres on Nauru. Several of these came from former outspoken critics of the policy. Refugee lawyer Marion Le, who had demanded the facility be shut down in 2005, said that it was "time for Labor to bite the bullet and reopen Nauru", while human rights lawyer Julian Burnside agreed, saying "asylum-seekers would receive better treatment in Nauru than Malaysia." [22] This echoed the sentiment of Independent MP Andrew Wilkie who several days previously, while stopping short of calling for a return to the previous arrangement, noted that "John Howard's Pacific Solution was better." [23] The Malaysian people swap deal was deemed unlawful by the High Court.[24]

During the 2010 Australian Federal election campaign Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott said he would meet with the President of Nauru, Marcus Stephen, to demonstrate the Coalition's resolve to reinstate the Pacific Solution policy, should he become Prime Minister. [25]

Prime Minister Gillard announced 6 July 2010 that talks were under way to set up a regional processing centre for asylum seekers in East Timor.[26][27]

In August 2012, a government-appointed expert panel recommended a number of changes to the current policy including the reintroduction of the Pacific Solution after an increase in boat people and deaths at sea. This is expected to cost $2 billion over four years for Nauru and $900 million for Papua New Guinea.[28] The bill to do so was passed on 16 August 2012. Asylum seekers who arrive by boat to Australia are now to be transferred to remote Pacific islands indefinitely while their claims to refugee status are being processed.[29]

The Government announced on 21 November 2012 that it was recommencing onshore processing with bridging visas.[30]

On 21 November 2012 Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced the reopening the Pontville Detention Centre in Tasmania.[31]


Protesters outside ALP caucus meeting in July 2013On 19 July 2013 in a joint press conference with PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd detailed the Regional Resettlement Arrangement between Australia and Papua New Guinea:[32]

From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees. Asylum seekers taken to Christmas Island will be sent to Manus and elsewhere in Papua New Guinea for assessment of their refugee status. If they are found to be genuine refugees they will be resettled in Papua New Guinea... If they are found not to be genuine refugees they may be repatriated to their country of origin or be sent to a safe third country other than Australia. These arrangements are contained within the Regional Resettlement Arrangement signed by myself and the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea just now.[33]

[World citizen]

I asked for your opinion ahlungor and you copy and paste a wiki article lol ok fine

yeh boof good point I support tough asylum seeker policy and offshore asylum seeker processing. i think the abolition of temporary visas was a terrible idea

[asiafever]

If we're being honest with ourselves, it's just a vote grab leading in to an election. Advertising the new laws on 2DayFM and full page ads in the Tele, does anyone believe people smugglers and asylum seekers read/hear those ads? Of course not, he was get a head start on campaigning, knowing full well the PNG govt can overturn it when next they sit, and most likely will.
Not forgetting it was Rudd in 2007-2010 who shut down the pacific solution in the first place..
To be honest we are stuck in the awful situation of having to choose between these two 'leaders' to run our country.. as the alternatives (Greens etc) are even worse! is there no-one else? Please?

[asiafever]

That is true boof, but the reality is that you are voting for a member to represent your local area, that person is the member of a party, whose leader could well be the leader of our country. With legislation changes you are voting for that person to see out their term as PM free from challenge within their party. I've watched Abbott a long time, and while if he wins he deserves his chance to prove himself, I have grave doubts about his ability to oversee the governing of our country. I prefer that option to the alternative, which is going back to a man who just 3 years ago was not exactly one of the best PM's we've had. If I had a third option, replacing Abbott wit Turnbull as a popular example, I would feel more secure.
Anyway, I am a-political. I distrust both sides equally.

[Sextus]

Wikipedia:
From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.

Canoe, rowboat, outrigger, dugout, raft - if it is a boat and it floats, they'll have to go back to PNG, four km away or not. The Qld minister must be a dill, or he's chasing anti-government votes. I say he qualifies on both scores.

[CBD Posh]

Correct and then us poor Aussies will pay for their schooling, internet, cigarettes, health, dole, housing etc etc. Think before you vote for Capt Chaos. I'm with you Ahlungor...

Labor will never have my vote, a bunch of imbociles running our country!

[CBD Posh]

Couldn't have said it better myself Posh
Strong sensible leadership like the liberal is not popular and get voted out office in this country, that's why we are called blond dumbo country by the rest of world.

[hoshimoony]

To be honest we are stuck in the awful situation of having to choose between these two 'leaders' to run our country.. as the alternatives (Greens etc) are even worse! is there no-one else? Please?

Totally agree. How about we form the AUS99 party and send some well-spoken members as representatives to replace them?:miao:

[World citizen]

tony abbot and barnaby joyce sensible? lol no

[AHLUNGOR]

Totally agree. How about we form the AUS99 party and send some well- spoken members as representatives to replace them?:miao:

I nominate Duncan/MOC, Yamada/TMC, Sam/5 Star, Wilson/Ginza, Stanley/Bluemoon, Roger/the West, Q?/Surry Hills as our campaign fund raisers for the AUS99 Working Girls and Punters Party!

Cum September 7, vote 1 for A.W.G.P.P. !!!

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, 9, 9, 9!

Cheers

[asiafever]

The campaign slogan could be
"Vote Aus 99, because we give a fuck"?

[AHLUNGOR]

The slogan: It's time !

Will actually mean that your prepaid time is up when the bell rings, when her mobile rings or when there's a knock on the door! Your time is up ! You no cum yet, want to extend ??

[CBD Posh]

tony abbot and barnaby joyce sensible? lol no

They are sensible enough, IMHO at least they don't atempt to use hand-out to stimulate the economy.
Sorry, I forgot you are world citizen you must have a world vision on sesibilities.

[World citizen]

have you head about the coalitions paid parental leave scheme? New mothers would be entitled to take 26 weeks of leave and still receive their normal working wage, up to a maximum of $150,000! .. middle class welfare. pure and simple. its irresponsible economic policy.

[Sextus]

the levys on companies feed through to all of us in prices. And the drop in company tax they are proposing means that taxpayers are subsidising the bill one way or another even if they don't raise prices.

Obscene middle class welfare - too many examples of it on both sides - when so many are in real need. I agree, boof, it is sending us broke.

[World citizen]

taxes on business will be passed onto consumers - the parental scheme is ultimately just a wealth transfer from society at large to child bearing mothers! I didnt agree with rudd's cash splash either but at least that was means tested .. criticise the alp for being profligate keynsians if you like but dont pretend abbotts any better hes just a demagogue

[CBD Posh]

have you head about the coalitions paid parental leave scheme? New mothers would be entitled to take 26 weeks of leave and still receive their normal working wage, up to a maximum of $150,000! .. middle class welfare. pure and simple. its irresponsible economic policy.

But I heard Kevin Rudd once handed out over $5000 to each jobless person for shopping during Christmas in the wake of global economic downturn, he could have used that money to create jobs for the unemployed, to help them become self reliant and productive members of society, in stead of being parasites that feed on social welfare and handsout from others.

[World citizen]

im pretty sure that never happened

perhaps you are thinking about the $5000 baby bonus. middle-class welfare introduced by howard which was recently scrapped by the gillard government.

im guessing youre a tele reader posh? im no fan of the gillard/rudd givernment either but i think its sad that people like you are casting their vote on the basis of such misinformation and willfull ignorance

[asiafever]

Or maybe referring to the Rudd gfc stimulus? Not $5000, but yes that was a disaster.

[Irene638]

Or maybe referring to the Rudd gfc stimulus? Not $5000, but yes that was a disaster.

Depend on how many people on the Family.

Just say a couple with 3 kids. That is $5000.

I work in Bankstown and I have seen it, some Family jackpot was $7000. And they don't work a day in their life and not paying a dollar of tax.

Is that fair to us the one who works 5 to 6 days a week to pay bills and mortgage? Don't answer to anyone, just answer to yourself.

Cheers.

[asiafever]

I got none of it, my previous tax return was a nil return so I saw not a cent...

[World citizen]

yes I agree its unfair, my point though is that the coalition is just as bad or maybe worse - do you think its fair that a factory worker from penrith breaks his back at work so a female public relations agent from rushcutters bay can continue to earn a $150000 salary while she takes time of work to spit out a baby??? this is coalition policy.


Depend on how many people on the Family.

Just say a couple with 3 kids. That is $5000.

I work in Bankstown and I have seen it, some Family jackpot was $7000. And they don't work a day in their life and not paying a dollar of tax.

Is that fair to us the one who works 5 to 6 days a week to pay bills and mortgage? Don't answer to anyone, just answer to yourself.

Cheers.

[CBD Posh]

im pretty sure that never happened

perhaps you are thinking about the $5000 baby bonus. middle-class welfare introduced by howard which was recently scrapped by the gillard government.

im guessing youre a tele reader posh? im no fan of the gillard/rudd givernment either but i think its sad that people like you are casting their vote on the basis of such misinformation and willfull ignorance

I was talking about Kevin Rudd's idiotic gfc stimulus, it's in thousands at least, World citizen, you say you are guessing I'm a tele reader? so most of your choices , decisions and opinions are largely based on groundless,frivolous wild guesses? I find your intent to manipulate people into voting for labor vile and wilful, get real, world citizen, people here in this forum are a lot smarter than you think of them.

[Irene638]

yes I agree its unfair, my point though is that the coalition is just as bad or maybe worse - do you think its fair that a factory worker from penrith breaks his back at work so a female public relations agent from rushcutters bay can continue to earn a $150000 salary while she takes time of work to spit out a baby??? this is coalition policy.

I am not quite understand what are you talking about Bro. Please explain.

cheers

[asiafever]

What he is saying is that a guy in Penrith works hard in a manual labouring type job, pays tax, and that tax goes to the paid parental leave scheme and a woman earning that money can then be paid to have a baby.
There are always two sides to this.
So the labourer earns let's say $40,000/year. So before deductions etc he's paying a tad over $4500/year tax. On her $150,000 she's paying $45000. Yep. Ten of him need to work to meet the tax obligations of one of her. So who on that basis is doing more to 'fund' who? And who is to say that the professional woman doesn't work 16 hours a day? I know of one woman who as a professional is working crazy hours, answering emails from overseas at 3am, etc, is that any less difficult than manual work?
Manual labourer in Penrith may have three kids, receiving FTB A and/or B for all three, tax from her $150,000/year salary is funding that too. Tax from her salary is also paying for the public schools, hospitals, infrastructure and such. It is give and take. As more women seek professional careers they have been put off having children, birth rates decrease, we have an ageing population and having seen what that meant in Japan, it's not an avenue we want to head down. Plus men will be entitled to it also. We need to encourage professionals to also have families, don't we?

[Irene638]

Well, in MHP, I would never complain if the tax payer received the some benefit of their money, but I have problem with the one that never work, never pay any tax and all they want is take & take & take but no give. They are the one I would want to get rid off.

[AHLUNGOR]

I was talking about Kevin Rudd's idiotic gfc stimulus, it's in thousands at least, World citizen, you say you are guessing I'm a tele reader? so most of your choices , decisions and opinions are largely based on groundless,frivolous wild guesses? I find your intent to manipulate people into voting for labor vile and wilful, get real, world citizen, people here in this forum are a lot smarter than you think of them.

Hi Brother Posh,

I guess we both know who we will be voting for................lol

But I must say, not all of Rudd/Swann's economic stimulus packages were bad, the 30% tax rebate on capital expenditures were effective and I must say my own company had taken full advantages of that back in 09/10 and spent nearly 2 millions on purchasing and upgrading plants and equipments - inclusing a brand new Mercedes as company car.

Why not and I think in general terms, that particular initiative had worked well for business investments !! But then again, when you think about all those wastage and money down the drain that are just too much, too many and too stupid to keep repeating !!

Just my two cents

Cheers

[CBD Posh]

I am not quite understand what are you talking about Bro. Please explain.

cheers

I totally agree with bro asiafever, we are facing an aging population now, has the Coalition done something wrong to encourage and support children rearing by giving women some incentives? according to bro world citizen, they are insanely wrong trying to give new lives a good head start, that our tax money is better spent on people who don't want to work a day in their lives, never bother working just stay at home playing games all day in track pants and we end up paying their antidepressant as well.
As world citizen bro pointed out, women just spitting out babies, who cares? what happen if women stop spitting out babies, Or they don't have adequate resources to care for the babies they spitted out ?
Could it pose some far reaching social problems?

[World citizen]

I just told you I didnt support the gillard/rudd stimulus spending. I just dont think the coalitions middle class welfare programs are any better.

if a couple wants to have children they should pay for it thmselves. they want me to give them my money so they can have a 'head start' in life? fuck them, no way. and dont give me that aging population bullshit, we need a smaller population in australia not a larger one.

posh - you are a supporter of government handouts and welfare expenditure. you sound like a socialist. people like you are enabling our financially reckless politicians. wake up to yourself mate

[asiafever]

dont give me that aging population bullshit, we need a smaller population in australia not a larger one.



So who will look after you when you are old? No kids = no doctors, nurses, cleaners etc etc, all have to be brought in from overseas, cost for such services increases on supply vs demand rule etc etc. If you're more than happy to take your money out of the system to support bringing through the next generation, I am more than happy for my kids to do the same when it comes time for you to claim pension, health care, etc.. If birth rates drop too far, the Penrith factory worker you spoke of earlier will have very little super to support him as his life expectancy will creep up to some 25-35 beyond his retirement, so who will? Where will the revenue come from for his care? Or yours? This is the world we have built for ourselves. This is the reality for most.

Can I ask you a question, do you own a home and did you take advantage of the first home owners grant?

[World citizen]

this is the same logic that underpinned the stimulus spending - government taking charge of the economy and refusing to let the market run its due course. taxing and redistributing wealth to prime pump consumer spending and address long term demographic trends. sure, you can be like posh and argue about which particular group is more deserving of other peoples money but at the end of the day if you support the coalitions parental leave / baby bonus schemes you cant criticise the philosophy behind the stimulus programs

[asiafever]

Completely different argument. Stimulus was a very short term solution. Like the home owners grant the parental leave scheme is designed to redress a long term trend that could have disastrous consequences further down the track. Have a good read on what has happened in Japan. Stating we need a smaller population is economic madness.

[asiafever]

But anything anyone we've spoken has said or done is not in the same league as this a-grade fucking moron..
http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/article/18429781/australian-sarah-palin/
Seriously, What an idiot.
But I bet she gets votes...

[Chucky]

Rudd-Gillard-Rudd ..... same party/people/policies, just a different Face on the front. No idea on how to run a balanced budget (ANYONE can do what they've done ... i.e. SPEND, BORROW, SPEND, BORROW, SPEND) but tell me the last time a Labor Federal Government ran a budget surplus and didn't borrow money???

[Chucky]

stating we need a smaller population is economic madness.

100% spot on

[Sextus]

We need to encourage professionals to also have families, don't we?

They'll refuse to have kids unless they also get tax breaks and huge handouts to do it? he he.. I very much doubt it! Anything spent on an inequitable vote seeking redundancy is something that can't go to the health system or means vital medications are left off the subsidised list.

[asiafever]

http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/html/adc-04.asp

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-01/ageing-population-dragging-australia-into-the-red/316800

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-warns-of-ageing-population-time-bomb-20100118-mgst.html

I can only talk from experience, having been married to a career woman whose primary focus was wealth attainment, she had paid a shitload in uni fees as an overseas student studying law and then getting an mba also, she needed to focus on her career to justify the expense. to get her to join the baby boat, at age 35, a 'bonus' was the push she seemed to need. Her team was made up predominantly of women who had done the same, similarly qualified, and they too needed a push 'in the right direction' so to speak. Of them, in a span of four years, 6 out of 10 females had kids, most of the male team members already had kids long before. And it didn't stop there. Ex-colleagues at other companies were doing the same. Soon they were back in the workforce, paying the $40,000/year in tax I mentioned earlier, plus paying for child care at a rate of $100/day (yes of which they would have received some FTB payments back), plus contributing GST off all their baby/child related purchases, which are exorbitant, which keeps businesses going, which in turn lowers unemployment, and also provides MORE tax revenue and so on and so on. That $5000 baby bonus, most of which went on private OB/GYN, hospital gap fees etc was paid back in the form of their tax within a couple of months.

[World citizen]

individual rights need to come before economic growth

sure - stimulus spending may have increased employment in the retail sector and kept australia out of a technical recession. sure - the baby bonus and parental leave schemes may have increased fertility rates and mitigated longer term demographic trends.

but none of this changes the fact that tax and spend economic stimulus policies are unethical. government should stick to health, education and security, they have no mandate to embark on these grande societal engineering programs

[Sextus]

government should stick to health, education and security, they have no mandate to embark on these grande societal engineering programs

Very true. Stepping back from a micro picture dominated by voter self-interest and political vote buying, to the macro view.

I'm thinking of the 75K baby bonus now...

[CBD Posh]

Rudd-Gillard-Rudd ..... same party/people/policies, just a different Face on the front. No idea on how to run a balanced budget (ANYONE can do what they've done ... i.e. SPEND, BORROW, SPEND, BORROW, SPEND) but tell me the last time a Labor Federal Government ran a budget surplus and didn't borrow money???

Can anyone elaborate? How come labor is unable to sustain a budget surplus and needs borrow money? How come the benefits of their most policies never materialised?

[Tomosavic]

Can anyone elaborate? How come labor is unable to sustain a budget surplus and needs borrow money? How come the benefits of their most policies never materialised?
because they don't tax massage parlours in full :)

[CBD Posh]

because they don't tax massage parlours in full :)
Haha bro, you want to know why they don't?

[Tomosavic]

Haha bro, you want to know why they don't?

What for? I don't care, but everything adds up, to answer your question!

[Sextus]

On her $150,000 she's paying $45000. Yep. Ten of him need to work to meet the tax obligations of one of her. So who on that basis is doing more to 'fund' who?

Fortunately our progressive tax scales don't work like a mortgage re-draw facility - ie, the more you put in the more you are entitled to draw out of it again in middle class welfare. It kinda defeats the idea of social equity that is at the heart of the tax scales in the first place.

Me? I desire to pay as much tax as I am due and "re-draw" nothing at all. (Except in the social capital it buys for all of us.) Because the more tax I pay merely means the more overall that is going into my pocket. If I was in the position of paying fuck all tax, I'd be miserable! Everyone who does, is!

[wilisno]

Fortunately our progressive tax scales don't work like a mortgage re-draw facility - ie, the more you put in the more you are entitled to draw out of it again in middle class welfare. It kinda defeats the idea of social equity that is at the heart of the tax scales in the first place.

Me? I desire to pay as much tax as I can and "re-draw" nothing at all. Because the more tax I pay merely means the more overall that is going into my pocket. If I paid fuck all tax, I'd be miserable! Everyone who does, is!
That's the deal ! The tax system and the welfare system are designed to work for everyone, but nothing is perfect. So some may pay more than the others and some may received more than the others, it depends on the individual's circumstances. You might missed out on some benefits but at the same time you might be able to get away with some tax, so balance it out before one complains !

[Licker]

Canoe, rowboat, outrigger, dugout, raft - if it is a boat and it floats, they'll have to go back to PNG, four km away or not. The Qld minister must be a dill, or he's chasing anti-government votes. I say he qualifies on both scores.

Does that apply also if they arrive on the Queen Mary II?

[Licker]

have you head about the coalitions paid parental leave scheme? New mothers would be entitled to take 26 weeks of leave and still receive their normal working wage, up to a maximum of $150,000! .. middle class welfare. pure and simple. its irresponsible economic policy.

Well, similar paid parental leave schemes seem to work in few countries - though they are usually at about 80% pay and often capped to a salary much lower than 150k (thus decreasing the percentage).
There are a few countries were the parental leave is also considerably longer than 26 weeks.
Most of those countries though, seem to be better off than Australia though, at least their citizens in general are.

[CBD Posh]

yes I agree its unfair, my point though is that the coalition is just as bad or maybe worse - do you think its fair that a factory worker from penrith breaks his back at work so a female public relations agent from rushcutters bay can continue to earn a $150000 salary while she takes time of work to spit out a baby??? this is coalition policy.

[QUOTE=World citizen;402612]


Let's not forget the PR woman is paying at least 45000 income tax, its more likely her tax will help out the factory worker if he loses his job, this woman merely receives some benefits from her own income tax when she is on maternal leave. If she doesnt have a job, there will be no such thing as maternal leave for her. It simply doesn't apply to her. world citizen, Dont try to mislead and pin in on Coalition by saying that factory workers paying for PR agent to have babies, it's the other way around.
Just put Julia Gelliard in the wagon of this hypothetical PR agent woman, how much Julia get paid for maternal leave, we'll have a pretty good picture.

We all know that social goods and values are measured Not by efforts we put in, but by CONTRIBUTIONS we make, do we not? It may seem unfair sometimes, like politicians earning 6 figures by wagging their fat fingers, posing smily faces in front of cameras while some Penrith factory hands working their asses off earning a meager $30000 income. Not to mention Bill Gates earns $400 per second without breaking a sweat! Redistribution of wealth and opportunies is in the hands of government and we don't want the process of redistribution getting abused by some imcopment representatives of us who knows nothing but spend and borrow and spend again. Fool me once, shame on you,fool me twice? You cant fool me again! As George W Bush put it.
No need bashing a particular policy, a particular politician, beyond faces we need to look hard at the parties' track records of running the office, their political partsian philosophies and narratives, are we better or worse off under their administrations,then decide. Only hypocrites would say economy is not important in election, if it's not impotant issue, why bitching about whose money goes to who?

[lockhart]

Look, just vote Liberal and we can all get on with our life and keep punting....

What a intelligent guy... :(((

[AHLUNGOR]

I just want to raise one point out of tonight's debate :

Kevin Rudd was attacking the Howard government's pacific solutions saying that most of the boat people getting processed in Narru ended up settling into Australia - fair enough - But he had conveniently omitted one very important point - the boats had stopped coming !

[CBD Posh]

Yes I am, thank you lockhart. I see KRudd had to use notes in tonight's debate which was against the rules. New labour, same old labour.
Chill out, bro Boof I don't think the rules are applicable to polical retards.

[AHLUNGOR]

You would think the bookie knows the market better than us when they frame up a price !

At the moment , Abbott is $1.15 while Rudd has eased to $5.50

When Russ first got rid of Gillard, he was $4.10 and the Coalition $1.35!

The Coalition is getting to the Black Carviar price very soon !

Cheer

[World citizen]

play the ball not the man posh


Chill out, bro Boof I don't think the rules are applicable to polical retards.

[CBD Posh]

play the ball not the man posh
Read again with your magnifying glasses, WC, play the man? can't you see I used plural?

[AHLUNGOR]

May be Kevin Rudd should start preparing his career after politics:

Like a guest starring role in South Park - no make up artists will be required and he can play multiple characters too :


http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/shared/characters/kids/kyles-cousin-kyle.jpghttp://www.smrlabs.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/sp_tom.png


http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/171596036-kevin-rudd-speaks-to-the-media-after-winning-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QatWUjZajqQmbUKOr138dgoCgKeh qNxECxj9637Cq295paApIZcLa09FspXCGDQL6%2F%2FR6nUIge jwEM3xoTabWeI%3D

[stuart1]

Looks like there is a proposal in the media today to move the Navy from Garden Island to Queensland..

Strategically it looks a good plan but where would you find an easy access deep water port there without having to navigate the GB reef?

Maybe another Labor plan on the run with the casualty being a less than satisfactory outcome.

[Sextus]

Politicians have been announcing grand plans to "develop the north!" for 150 years.

(You guys should read Xavier Herbet's Capricornia for context. Not only is it a brilliant novel but the insight it gives about that part of Australia will stay with you for life.)

Most of the plans have got no further than the politician's speechwriter. Those that have got up, like the Ord River Scheme and the Alice to Darwin railway have hardly been raging successes - just the opposite.

Agriculture needs too many poisons to cope with the legions of tropical insects, and it is too far from markets.

Overwhelmingly, digging holes in the ground and cattle it has always been, and digging holes in the ground and cattle it will always be.

Now we have got a naval move to (nowhere suitable) and both sides proposing to make the region a business tax haven - both ideas likely to not work or fall in a heap.

The climate is just too savage up there mates. Apart from a thin strip up the east side of Cape York, and a few resorts and national parks hugging riverbanks and billabongs in the NT, tropical Australia is like f**king Hades. Normanton in mid-fucking winter is 100 degrees fahrenheit! There is no escape from it mates, no relief, except for a plunge in the croc infested rivers. (Citizens even have to check their swimming pools carefully first!)

I don't know how they even manage to breed up there. The physcal act of love would quickly turn into a slippery, sweaty, heat stroked, red-faced, cock shrinking farce.

No ****, with all their faculties in place (and certainly not this ****) would voluntarily want to live there.

Mind you, it is a fascinating and extremely powerful region to visit, and I have spent a lot of time traveling there.

[CunningLinguist]

Politicians have been announcing grand plans to "develop the north!" for 150 years.

(You guys should read Xavier Herbet's Capricornia for context. Not only is it a brilliant novel but the insight it gives about that part of Australia will stay with you for life.)

Most of the plans have got no further than the politician's speechwriter. Those that have got up, like the Ord River Scheme and the Alice to Darwin railway have hardly been raging successes - just the opposite.

Agriculture needs too many poisons to cope with the legions of tropical insects, and it is too far from markets.

Overwhelmingly, digging holes in the ground and cattle it has always been, and digging holes in the ground and cattle it will always be.

Now we have got a naval move to (nowhere suitable) and both sides proposing to make the region a business tax haven - both ideas likely to not work or fall in a heap.

The climate is just too savage up there mates. Apart from a thin strip up the east side of Cape York, and a few resorts and national parks hugging riverbanks and billabongs in the NT, tropical Australia is like f**king Hades. Normanton in mid-fucking winter is 100 degrees fahrenheit! There is no escape from it mates, no relief, except for a plunge in the croc infested rivers. (Citizens even have to check their swimming pools carefully first!)

I don't know how they even manage to breed up there. The physcal act of love would quickly turn into a slippery, sweaty, heat stroked, red-faced, cock shrinking farce.

No ****, with all their faculties in place (and certainly not this ****) would voluntarily want to live there.

Mind you, it is a fascinating and extremely powerful region to visit, and I have spent a lot of time traveling there.

So what about all the people living in tropical countries around the world: Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc ...

[AHLUNGOR]

Looks like there is a proposal in the media today to move the Navy from Garden Island to Queensland..

Strategically it looks a good plan but where would you find an easy access deep water port there without having to navigate the GB reef?

Maybe another Labor plan on the run with the casualty being a less than satisfactory outcome.

Yeap, no more than policy on the run to try to buy some more Qld votes from Rudds home state!

Barry O'Farrell has already shown Rudd his middle finger !!

[Sextus]

So what about all the people living in tropical countries around the world: Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc ...

They must be acclimatised. The almost daily rain must help too. Northern Australia isn't like that, it is a very harsh cilimate with hundreds and thousands of killer kilometres between settlements.

[CunningLinguist]

They must be acclimatised. The almost daily rain must help too. Northern Australia isn't like that, it is a very harsh cilimate with hundreds and thousands of killer kilometres between settlements.

I have been to Cairns, it wasn't too bad...

[AHLUNGOR]

I have been to Cairns, it wasn't too bad...

Hi brother CL,

Cairns is along the Coast, very different once you are inland beyond 100 km!!

[CunningLinguist]

Yeap, no more than policy on the run to try to buy some more Qld votes from Rudds home state!

Barry O'Farrell has already shown Rudd his middle finger !!

Didn't he show it to John Robertson, and wasn't it to indicate he asked two questions instead of the allowed one ...

[HengDai]

Regardless of the asylum seeker issues, the race is over. some betting rings have already paid out on the coalition win.

Rudd/Labour win is about 11:1 still as opposed to coalition/Abbott victory which is 1.03:1