Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (V)

[skully]

When LJH appointed Metcalfe as head of immigration who was to say that Metcalfe's idea of Nauru would work.

it was just his opinion then and he has a different opinion now.

I am not saying that Malaysia would work. But why not give it a go?

So you are sticking by your "Naura won't work, but Malaysia might" line? Reread my post and see if you can follow the logic.

[Paul Keating]

Huh?

I think we should try the Nauru solution. Not only to appease your side but because it appeared to work a decade ago.

And why not try to the Malaysian option too?

[skully]

Well that's the first time you've said it.

Mate, I'm all for a solution, but this has been about bagging Tony Abbott for standing his ground. I've given you numerous logical reasons why I think he's standing his ground. The final reason is always gonna be "what is the best way to get up the Vulture's nose". That's Politics, rightly or wrongly.

[JGK]

When LJH appointed Metcalfe as head of immigration who was to say that Metcalfe's idea of Nauru would work.

it was just his opinion then and he has a different opinion now.

I am not saying that Malaysia would work. But why not give it a go?

So you are sticking by your "Naura won't work, but Malaysia might" line? Reread my post and see if you can follow the logic.

skully - you misunderstand the Malaysian solution. It is saying that the next 800 people to come by boat will have NO chance of getting into Australia ie they will be sent to the end of the queue in Malaysia (while we take a couple of thousand asylum seekers currently waiting in Malaysia). This is a far different outcome to Nauru which is just another Christmas Island ie you will have a very good chance of getting to Australia so it is worth taking the chance to come here.

So you are basically asking 800 asylum seekers who have come all the way from Sri Lanka or Iraq or whereever and are literally on Australia's doorstep, to give up everything they had hoped to achieve and effectively sacrifice themselves for the good of other asylum seekers. You can see why that isn't exactly the most attactive outcome.

I personally don't think 800 enough. I reckon enough the smugglers will effectively coerce a whole stack of people into sacrificing themselves. And of course, it will need to be well known amongst the asylum seekers and people smugglers who pretend to be asylum seekers waiting in Indonesia that this will be their fate if they come. And Malaysia will have to give some pretty strong guarantees that the 800 they get will be well treated (which in theory they should because Malaysia will want to extend the deal beyond 800).

But as I said yesterday, it is a pretty elegant solution and well worth a shot.


As for Nauru - it itself isn't a deterrent because it is no different to Christmas Island. I think the government is willing to open it to prove this. Luckily we have the carbon tax and MRRT so there is enough money to pay for it.

[JGK]

Meanwhile, Mal Brough's political career is looking increasingly tenuous...

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/we-will-get-him-journalists-texts-to-slipper-accuser-20120626-20zl9.html

[skully]

So you are saying that an unlimited number of people can be sent to Malaysia at any time i.e they simply stick 'em on the back of some queue? My understanding was that they would take 800 max. to process at any one time (and we get a few thousand in return ). Malaysia doesn't want asylum seekers clogging up detention centres any more than we do.

At the current rate this year, we will clock up 8,000 asylum seekers coming to Australia in 2012. Now if it takes Malaysia say 3 months to process the 800 that they will take, isn't that effectively saying Malaysia can take 800 every 3 months, leaving a shortfall of 8,000 - 4 x 800 = 4,800, or is my much criticised logic failing me?

Or is it simply 800 people, full stop. What then? You don't think the people smugglers won't happily swamp this, knowing that the 800 limit is nowhere near enough to deter them? What is the frequency of this magical number 800? Or are you suggesting that the first 800 sent to Malaysia will magically solve the whole problem?

Happy to be steered right on this one.

And your line about Nauru is bull. The difference is that the people-smugglers are telling these poor saps "you'll get to Christmas Island, where there is no room, and you'll be fast-tracked to Australia". If the fast-tracking takes them to Nauru for anything up to 6 months of processing, then that is a whole lot less palatable, and a proven deterrent.

[embee]

Process them in Adelaide ...that's a deterrent

[skully]

Hehehe.

[JGK]

We give Malaysia 800 who go to the back of their queue. ie they will NEVER EVER get to Australia. They give us 4000 in return.

Malaysia are happy because they have a net 3200 less refugees so would generally be happy to do the deal all over again.

I think the 5 for 1 ratio was too generous. Something like 2000 for 6000 would have been better because that is a far more emphatic statement to people smugglers that they will almost certainly not get the outcome they want for the foreseeable future. It is also a pretty emphatic warning to asylum seekers not to bother getting on the boat. Frankly if we said 10000 for 30000 that would have been better because it is more unlikely that anyone would actually come.

[JGK]

And your line about Nauru is bull. The difference is that the people-smugglers are telling these poor saps "you'll get to Christmas Island, where there is no room, and you'll be fast-tracked to Australia". If the fast-tracking takes them to Nauru for anything up to 6 months of processing, then that is a whole lot less palatable, and a proven deterrent.

Christmas Island wasn't always full.

[skully]

Sorry man, too much blue sky mining and hit and hope for my liking. Typical half-baked pinko plan that is poorly thought out and, no doubt, poorly implemented.

[JGK]

Meanwhile, the SMH's first online page once Gina gets control...

[skully]

[JGK]

Sorry man, too much blue sky mining and hit and hope for my liking. Typical half-baked pinko plan that is poorly thought out and, no doubt, poorly implemented.

If you were offered free tickets for an all expenses paid trip to the Ashes next year but were told that you would only get them if you weren't in the first 100 people to apply and that in fact if you were in the first 100 people to apply you would be forced to move to Kalgoorlie for a decade, would you apply before you knew that 100 others had done so?

[skully]

Hit and hope, mate.

Now let me ask you a question. Is there any chance of you voting blue at the next Fed election when you know that Tony Abbott will win your Fed seat comfortably? NO? Funny, that's the answer I would give you if you'd ask me about my electorate but used the words red and Phillip Ruddock.

So I don't quite understand your desperate efforts to try to get me to say "Yeah, the Vulture's idea is a good one".

Illogical qunt.

[JGK]

I'll take that as a no then.

[skully]

I don't remember the question. It was lost somewhere between blah, blah, blah and yada, yada, yada.

As I tried to allude, mate, no matter what either of us say to each other in here, neither of our votes will change nor will the either of our sitting members.

I frankly don't really see the point of winding up your or Ponts highly strung strings any further.

[Paul Keating]

get some trivia going to bring back the good times

[skully]

A sage point, Ponts. Trouble is, there's been little Test cricket to give me topical stuff to check out.

I'll see what I can do.

[lardbucket]

very quick triv - last amateur to play for Australia?

[JGK]

very quick triv - last amateur to play for Australia?

the guy who refused to play on Sundays?

[skully]

Jesus?

[lardbucket]

surprised this hasn't gone yet

[lardbucket]

very quick triv - last amateur to play for Australia?

the guy who refused to play on Sundays?

You'll have to be more specific. I do not know if this is accurate. Certainly this player has a couple of other highly unusual 'achievements' on his CV.

[JGK]

I was thinking of Brian Booth.

[Sponsored content]