The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[FR Drew]

Smeck,

I've never criticised you or MOR for having a level of knowledge of the Labor party, I just find it rich that you're crying foul of how Kevin was treated. Firstly because there's a long and proud history of shafting leaders on both sides, and secondly because I don't for a second believe that you give a rats about any of the Labor party, their families, their feelings or how the rest of the party treats them. They could all die in a plane crash tomorrow and I doubt you'd be upset. It was yet another topic about Labor for you to bitch about and nothing more. It's crocodile tears for a man that you despise simply for the colour of his party ticket and will condemn no matter what he does, not a concern for unjust rolling of a leader by people who felt he had lost his way and needed to go. You and I both know it, let's not pretend otherwise.

Regarding my being derogatory of Lib polllies, I think you'll find that the only one I refer to in that way at all is Abbot and I only took to referring to Abbot as "budgie smuggler" after approx a year of continually seeing people refer to our previous Prime Minister as Krudd. I don't recall everyone referring to Howard as "Coward" continually, or "moonface" or any of a range of other derogatory terms for his entire term in power. You may wish to argue that it's just an accidental loss of a space when typing, but as it happens all the time, I'd argue otherwise. It's juvenile name calling. Sorry for lowering myself to the standards of the conservatives here.

Re Abbots return to offshore processing, silly me basing my comments off of something so unfounded as the ABC news reports on the radio today. Tsk for shame, in future I'll always refer to the Liberal party policy documents, as they're sure to be an accurate reflection of where they intend to go, that is, of course, until such time as they become non core promises once elected to power. I was wrong. Sorry.

Astoundingly, you will find that often my comments are objective, sorry if I call a spade a spade sometimes. You may also note that in areas of state policy where I'm not affected or have no knowledge I STFU.

The only reason I bother contributing to the discussion at all is because it galls me to see vehement one sided blather with no dissenting response, "evil prospers when good men do/say nothing" and all that jazz. There's enough spin and mis information out there already for the bullshit meter to be off the scale. Rotorburn has a wad of folks who will soon be making an important voting decision and it'd be nice if there was something more to base it on than thinly veiled suggestions about a disturbing "gang of four", a fear campaign about unions or the belief that the entire mining industry was suddenly about to close up shop and leave when blind freddy can see that they're raking it in. (and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future)

Harradine and Fred Nile are about the only folks further to the right than Abbot when it comes to conservative attitudes and god bothering, he's about as conservative as the Libs get, even more so than Howard was, and Howard was sure as hell happy to drag Australia through the mud as far as our international reputation was concerned in order to be do some wedge politiking and harness the Hanson voters by playing the race card.

If it bothers you that I care about my fellow man, then be bothered. I'm not about to suddenly say "screw you, I'm alright jack". Not on a range of issues, including but not limited to social justice. Yes, I also believe in free healthcare and free education and better infrastructure and I'd be happy to pay more tax to get it. You may believe otherwise, good for you.

Frankly it saddens me to see Gillard in a race to the bottom to outplay the Libs on asylum seekers (minor note here, just in case you didn't notice me just criticise the Labor party). I think the pissant 5% emissions target was crap too and that the emissions trading scheme was a crap idea and that the resource tax has been badly explained and most people don't understand it and that it could be better structured and that despite being in power, nowhere near enough has been done to fix the cluster that is water policy in Australia.

The greens won't get in, our two major party system, our media and our means of voting all but guarantee that. Labor and what they stand for accord closer to my views than the Libs and I can't see that changing, but I don't for a minute pretend that they're not flawed.

 

[murrum]

Owned by all - thats what royalties are for.
Doesnt this tax replace royalties - they are effectively rebated back to the miners (not sure on this).

The ALP introduced the concept of a super profit - it was purely designed to tap into people's entitlement feelings about getting their 'fairer share'.
The Henry review recommended it - along with other important tax recommendations that will disappointingly be ignored. The prevalent view among most economists, and many mining Co.s is that a resource rent tax makes much more sense than a royalties based system (again do the royalties, in effect, go?). The fairer share was just the spin - you can see that MOR? The tax makes sense as it is about collecting money to buffer against a 2 speed economy, and distribute the benefits throughout the nation over the long term - something share owning will not achieve. It is a shame that political debates nowadays are not able to be reasoned discussions as the media needs to dumb it down for all and it becomes a shitfight. Labor (and the Libs and mining Co's) would do well to give the general public's intelligence more credit...(not holding my breath)

A fairer share can be had by buying shares or gaining employment in the mining industry. The finite resource bit is a non argument - banks make super profits from my money, and my money is not infinite? Whats the difference?
big difference, and that is my point, and the point of the tax. Non renewable resources are a special case. The share argument misses the entire point of the tax.

It sets a dangerous precedent - if the ALP were true blue about this, they would levy a super profits tax on all industries, not just one based on the erroneous belief that the resources are owned by all, and somehow its tied in with superannuation increases. Its simply a smokescreen in order for them to fill their budget hole.
The whole ownership argument (owned by the states etc etc is just a distraction from the fundamental fact that the mining companies DON'T own them). I will agree that there is likely some level of creative accounting in it for Labor's budget, however the idea is still good policy, new taxes are very difficult things to implement (as seen by Rudd's departure) and i am glad that Labor has pursued some level of reform. I am confident we will look back in 10 years time and see this policy as a beneficial one for Australia (both for miners and the general public.)

Yes, our nation is full of dirt that others want, but what many don't realise is we don't have a monopoly on the minerals we mine either. Copious amounts of gold, iron ore, other base metals and coal are found in other countries with some reserves equalling or exceeding ours.

You're starting to sound a bit shrill like big Clive MOR, we all now that mining companies love the stability and benefits Australia provides and they ain't going anywhere

Whether business likes it or not (I run a small one - and should stop typing here and do some...), Government plays a role in how wealth is distributed. In Australia, we are erring away from the European model and towards a US style model. At the moment I believe the mix is good.
I have just come back from New York, and was well impressed by what a light hand of Goverment is able to achieve. But I also saw he darker side. In the end i am glad i live in a society where i forfeit some individual freedom (as little as I can) for a more equitable society.

On the refugee front. My first impression is one of disappointment on Gillards new policy. I need to check out detail to see what I really think. However I believe her when she says she is trying to shift the debate to a more reasoned discussion, and this is clever politically as it helps remove the extremists from the debate, including Abbot with his comments about turning boats back.

 

[MasterOfReality]

The original design of the mining tax was way off what Rudd presented to the miners. Miners do prefer an alternative to a royalties based system, but not certainly what was handed to them by Rudd, after he cherry picked the best bits and discarded the rest. Rudd fucked up with his rediculous mining tax, no two ways about it.

How can you even refer to this as reform? Its nothing of the sort. See comment about cherry picking.

A bit shrill like big Clive? I guess that my work in mining design and pre-feasibility studies (which this mining tax directly implicates) doesn't have any influence on my opinion then? They way it stood before, the potential for new project would have been severely affected. Existing big mines won't move, too much is invested. The new re-branded version of the tax just reduces the distaste a little bit.

 

[Hobzai]

I"That is why the Coalition has announced it will restore the strong regime of border protection policies that were so effective under the last Coalition Government, in particular off shore processing in another country, temporary protection visas and being prepared to turn back the boats where the circumstances allow."

Note the get out of jail phrase in the turning the boats back - "...where circumstances allow." Those circumstances will never arise. I spend enough time on boats & ships to know their responsibilities when it comes to fellow seafarers. A person overboard is a person needing to be rescued and an obviously unseaworthy vessel cannot simply be just sent on its way in the opposite direction. Even if they were turned around short of Australian waters, they'll simply scuttle the boat and be rescued. "Turn the boats back" is nothing more than a sound bite and Abbott would be best advised to drop it from his mediaspeak before he gets called on it. Rudd fell down that hole already.

 

[Arete]

Boat people eh? the ol' chestnut wheeled out when a political party want to detract from you know, an actual issue.

Offshore processing of asylum seekers makes very little logical sense.
- Australia voluntarily signed the 1954 Refugee act, and ratified amendments in 63 and 75. We have an obligation, we volunteered to have to process claims of asylum. Any suggestion to "turn the boats around" in Australian waters would be a breach of international law that we have a long history of supporting and entirely unrealistic.
- Australia's inbound asylum seekers, this year have made up 0.6% of the world's inbound Asylum seekers. As a comparison to our 6000, Sweden has processed 180 000. There are over 1 million Bangladeshi asylum seekers currently in Malaysia. The perception that Australia is a "soft target" playing more than our expected role in this problem is false. We are a long way away from most places and inherently hard to get to - allowing us to play a small role in a global problem.
- It costs 3.5% the cost of offshore processing to process within Australia.
- 6000 people have arrived by boat this year as of July 1. In the same time period in excess of 50 000 visa overstayers are currently in Australia. Why spend literally billions of dollars on a tiny fraction of the illegal immigants, especially when - if genuinely intending to apply for asylum, they aren't actually doing anything illegal?
- We are the only western nation who mandatorily detains asylum seekers.

At least to me, the best decision is academic. We have an obligation to process these people and assess their claims regardless of the validity of the claims, the fact they may have destroyed paperwork or have a criminal history. We should do it in the most effective and efficent way possible - which has been shown conclusively to be to handle cliams for asylum in Australia in a timely manner. This way invalid claimants won't get a 3+ year "free ride" in our system, valid claimants will get a new start on life sooner and vast amounts of taxpayer money will be saved.

I don't see either major party coming up wit a solution that actually makes sense in light of the facts.

 

[FR Drew]

All true Arete, but would Hanson fans vote for a policy such as you've outlined?

No

 

[Arete]

All true Arete, but would Hanson fans vote for a policy such as you've outlined?

No

I'm not interested in a policy that One Nation voters would go for, I'm interested in one that makes sense.


On a personal note I'm all for the marginalisation and removal of radically conservative social policies and those that support them from mainstream politics.

 

[thecat]

I'm not interested in a policy that One Nation voters would go for, I'm interested in one that makes sense.
.

I can't believe this is still an issue. The debate was had 11 years ago the fact that the Libs keep draging it up as a political football (And Labor reacts to it) sadden me almost as much as the fact the Australian public keep getting sucked in to it.

 

[scblack]

Whether we agree with offshore processing or not, what makes Gillard's announcement particularly pathetic is this:

Labor has not even agreed with East Timor that they will take the boat people yet. The East Timorese politicians - President Ramos-Horta and their Prime Minister have not yet agreed to take the boat people.

Talk about being desperate to get a little headline in on this topic - just to put her hand up and say "Me Too" along with Abbott.

 

[Ivan]

Whether we agree with offshore processing or not, what makes Gillard's announcement particularly pathetic is this:

Labor has not even agreed with East Timor that they will take the boat people yet. The East Timorese politicians - President Ramos-Horta and their Prime Minister have not yet agreed to take the boat people.

Talk about being desperate to get a little headline in on this topic - just to put her hand up and say "Me Too" along with Abbott.

I thought Ramos-Horta had agreed "in-principle" to have a processing centre depending on details.

East Timorese president Jose Ramos-Horta has warned that his country should not become a prison for Australia's asylum seekers under Prime Minister Julia Gillard's new regional processing plan.

Yesterday Ms Gillard announced that she was in talks with East Timor, the UN and New Zealand to send asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat to East Timor for processing.

Speaking to ABC TV's Lateline program, Dr Ramos-Horta said he was open to the idea, but would want the asylum seekers to be treated humanely.

"I wouldn't want Timor-Leste to become an island prison for displaced persons ... fleeing violence," he said.

"If they were here, they will have to have certain freedoms."

He said the people of East Timor were generous and had a long tradition of hospitality.

"If we're to do it, we do it out of our personal humanitarian, our collective convictions in helping other poor people who flee persecution," he said.

"I would never turn my back on people who flee violence in Afghanistan or wherever, but on a temporary basis."

The president said East Timor would not engage in a bargaining process, but would need funding.

"All we would need ... if we agree with the proposal, of course we would need financial assistance to manage the centre, to feed the people, to provide them while they're here with medical care, with clothing, with proper shelter - maybe temporary jobs while they're waiting, so that they don't sit idle," he said.

He said he would be discussing the plan with prime minister Xanana Gusmao in the next few days.

"We will discuss, but we need to hear some more specific details about this processing centre for asylum seekers," he said

 

[Arete]

Whether we agree with offshore processing or not, what makes Gillard's announcement particularly pathetic is this:

Labor has not even agreed with East Timor that they will take the boat people yet. The East Timorese politicians - President Ramos-Horta and their Prime Minister have not yet agreed to take the boat people.

Talk about being desperate to get a little headline in on this topic - just to put her hand up and say "Me Too" along with Abbott.

Is it any less realistic and palateable than Abbott's "turn the boats around" suggestion? As I said, both major parties are grandstanding on a relative non issue but I suggest Mr Abbott is trying to fit more shit on his shovel.

 

[scblack]

Is it any less realistic and palateable than Abbott's "turn the boats around" suggestion? As I said, both major parties are grandstanding on a relative non issue but I suggest Mr Abbott is trying to fit more shit on his shovel.

I guess that does have to be said, turning the boats around is not going to happen, so it is a stupid comment. Fair enough.

So Abbott is making a stretched comment.

Gillard is saying "Me Too", and completely changing the policy.

The comment to turn boats around is less of an issue than copying the Coalition policy to process boat people on another island, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Arete]

So Abbott is making a stretched comment.

Stretched as in completely false?

I made it clear that I thought the Timor Solution was a bad decision, but Abbott's comments have shown he clearly has no idea of the issues at hand at all - either it was a serious comment and shows an exceptional lack of understanding, or it was a lie aimed at point scoring with One Nation/Family First/KKK voters.

Conversely to your opinion, I think that shows a much more seriously detrimental tendency than Labour's apparent "me too"ism.

 

[johnny]

They stand up for very very little, other than getting re-elected.

Come on dude, open the other eye...


Far be it from me to give these fools any support, though. Until they stop with this net filtering shit I'm not even thinking of looking at any other shit ball policy they roll out.

 

[Drizz]

Conversely to your opinion, I think that shows a much more seriously detrimental tendency than Labour's apparent "me too"ism.

Guys: Don't you find it ironic that talking about which party is "worst" on asylum seekers mirrors the hoo-ha about whos being "tough" on Asylum Seekers? It still a race to the bottom either way.

As far as I can see we have "no problems" with current asylum seekers policy. We hold them in detention once they arrived by whatever means. We detain and assess them to see if they are a threat to Australian society, once satisfy we release them on temporary visa while their immigration status is being assess. I failed to see whats wrong with this system and challenge someone to come up with a more practical solution.

In the next election they should have a tick box for "Bring back Paul Keating...."

 

[scblack]

I thought Ramos-Horta had agreed "in-principle" to have a processing centre depending on details.

No, looks like no agreement was ever close to being even put on the table. Gillard just announced it, Deputy Prime Minister, Jose Luis Guterres has confirmed there is no agreement in place, they cannot possibly afford it and faltly rejected the idea initially.

Timor says it's too poor to do Australia's dirty work

TOM ALLARD AND PHILLIP COOREY- SMH

June 8, 2010

Gillard policy on shaky ground
Julia Gillard's asylum-seeker proposal is on shaky ground with East Timor unlikely to accept a refugee processing centre.

JULIA GILLARD'S asylum-seeker proposal is sinking, with East Timor's Deputy Prime Minister, Jose Luis Guterres, saying his impoverished country is ''very unlikely'' to accept a refugee processing centre.
He revealed East Timor had flatly rejected the idea initially and was only considering it because it had been put formally by Ms Gillard.
As Australian diplomats spoke to officials from East Timor and Indonesia about the plan, Ms Gillard briefed the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, when he phoned to congratulate her on becoming Prime Minister.

Prime Minister at the helm ... Julia Gillard joins officers and crew aboard HMAS Broome in Darwin harbour yesterday for the mock boarding of a refugee vessel. Photo: Glenn Campbell

Under political pressure to stop asylum seekers arriving by boat, Ms Gillard has promised to set up a regional processing centre on East Timor. All unauthorised arrivals would be taken there, processed under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and farmed out to signatory nations, including New Zealand.
While Mr Guterres noted Ms Gillard's humanitarian instincts, his calmly uttered salvo suggested a deeper resentment in senior government ranks over the pitch for East Timor to warehouse for years potentially thousands of asylum seekers when the country is struggling with social and economic challenges.
''East Timor is one of the poorest countries in the world. We have huge problems. It is difficult for any government to invite, for any politician, to invite any problem to another country that he is not prepared to face, to solve,'' he told the Herald.
''As a citizen and a member of cabinet, I can advance to you that it's very unlikely that East Timor will accept the proposal.''
Ms Gillard also discussed her plan with the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, during a five-minute phone call on Monday night. Mr Key was cautious about embracing the proposal and yesterday the NZ Labour opposition said the nation should keep out of what is an intense domestic political debate in Australia.
As the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, branded the policy a quick fix that would unravel, Ms Gillard acknowledged it was a long way from fruition.
''I will relentlessly be pursuing discussions in the region,'' she said from Darwin, where she was inspecting patrol boats.
She said her policy was more durable than the opposition's unilateral ''Pacific solution'' and, consequently, would take time: ''This is not a quick fix. It is going to require a lot of discussion.''
Ms Gillard told the ABC last night the centre could be built in another country provided it was a signatory to the UN refugee convention.
With the main opposition party, Fretilin, rejecting the idea yesterday, there is little support in the tiny country of 1 million people. Mr Guterres said domestic political considerations appeared to be a factor in Ms Gillard's approach to East Timor and the early announcement of talks.
''Elections are coming soon to Australia and you know politicians,'' he said. ''They identify the problems before they become problems and they attack them with different propositions.''
The first approach came from the Australian ambassador in Dili, Peter Heyward, to the Minister of State Security, Francisco Guterres, just days ago and ''our first reaction … was that it is not possible''.
A follow-up phone call from Ms Gillard to the President, Jose Ramos-Horta, prompted an agreement to look at the proposal again. Mr Ramos-Horta has been more positive about the idea, saying it reflected his country's strong humanitarian concerns.
But it is the government led by the Prime Minister, Xanana Gusmao, not its head of state, Mr Ramos Horta, that will decide.
East Timor rejected a similar proposal from John Howard when he was prime minister.
It was announced last night that another boat carrying 43 passengers and three crew had been intercepted off Ashmore reef on Tuesday.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/timo...as-dirty-work-20100707-100pv.html?autostart=1


Look at the picture - Gillard is even out there captaining the gun boats for us! What a hoot!

 

[scblack]

Come on dude, open the other eye...

I'm really just highlighting the "Me Too" approach of Labor. Whenever Liberals come up with policy that is beating them, they just dump whatever they had and say "Me Too".

The sad thing is that it seems people actually swallow things like this hook line and sinker. We have people like Murrum who seems to genuinely believe that Labor is on a Tax Reform process in introducing the Resources Super Profits Tax "RSPT" - oh shit! Its now called a MRRT or something similar. It is not tax reform it is filling a hole in the budget.

 

[MasterOfReality]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/07/2947609.htm

Enough said.

I think she jumped the gun on this, trying to out play Abbott, and possibly withheld details of a boat arrival so as to not take the gloss off her announcements.

If you think about it in a twisted way, Abbott is ruling from the opposition bench . No ETS, offshore processing, backdown/modification of mining tax....

On another note, Gillard has publicly supported the internet filter. I thought her cabinet reshuffle would have been the perfect time to dump that Conroy fuckwit. I wonder how many internet savvy <30 year olds will feel this time around at the election?

 

[brisneyland]

No, looks like no agreement was ever close to being even put on the table.

Doesn't really matter. They need us - we're going to bully and bribe them into doing whatever the hell we want them to.

 

[Ivan]

Doesn't really matter. They need us - we're going to bully and bribe them into doing whatever the hell we want them to.

Exactly. I see this agreement happening, because Gillard will offer them whatever they want to sign it.

The policy isn't even worth arguing about. It's all smoke and mirrors to appease rednecks who are worried about the Australian "culture" dissapearing. All it will do is cost a shitload more money, to achieve what we are already doing.

Conroy needs to go. I wonder what their polling shows about him.