Talking Politics

[K3]

Wow! Just wow... Glad asylum seekers aren't, you know, people or any such!


Scott Morrison's new rules put asylum seekers on notice to behave


Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has identified asylum seekers congregating in large numbers in apartments as the type of ''antisocial'' behaviour that could see them thrown into detention under a new code of conduct for more than 20,000 irregular immigrants living in the community on bridging visas.

Under previous arrangements, anyone on a bridging visa alleged to have broken the law and facing criminal proceedings was returned to detention while the matter made its way through the courts, but the new code greatly widens the types of behaviour that can lead to the penalty.

These include ''antisocial and disruptive activities that are inconsiderate, disrespectful or threaten the peaceful enjoyment of other members of the community''.

''There have been complaints that have been received about antisocial behaviour in terms of overcrowding in particular accommodation that have caused a nuisance to nearby residents and distressed elderly residents as well,'' Mr Morrison said on Friday.

''Currently there's no provision to really manage that behaviour.''

People on bridging visas have extremely limited work rights and receive less than $250 a week in welfare payments. They can wait up to five years to have their refugee status determined under the ''no advantage test'' introduced by the former Labor government.

As a result, many can be crammed into accommodation to help save money, although Mr Morrison said this was not necessarily the type of overcrowding that would be deemed antisocial.

He pointed to ''large numbers of people turning up to particular places and places that are being rented, and that is not where they were living''.

The new code, and the example cited by Mr Morrison of antisocial behaviour, was attacked by the opposition, with Labor's immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, saying ''it reeks of being mean for the sake of it''.

''If people are breaking the law, there should be consequences,'' Mr Marles said.

''But one of the key standards in Australia is the standard of fairness.

''A situation where you don't break the law but you have simply upset someone and, without being tested, a person is put in detention or even sent off shore is concerning. That is not fair.''

Disobeying road rules, failing to comply with an instruction to undertake health treatment, or refusing to co-operate with officials as they review their refugee claims are also deemed to be breaches of the code.

Mr Morrison confirmed that asylum seekers on bridging visas could be sent back to detention without breaking the law, but he said it would require serial breaches.

''I think it is quite helpful to be quite specific with people who are given the opportunity to live in the community what is expected of them. To assume they just know is naive,'' he said.

He noted that in serious cases, asylum seekers in the community could be sent to Nauru and Manus Island.

Mr Morrison said the government wasn't contending that asylum seekers on bridging visas were more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the community but he pointed out that since the election, ''two illegal maritime arrivals have been charged with criminal offences each week''.

These include charges and convictions relating to murder, theft, indecent assault of a minor, assault with a weapon, driving under the influence, attempting to procure drugs, and people-smuggling.

Meanwhile, Mr Morrison said he didn't ''backflip'' when reversing his freeze on new protection visas for asylum seekers, arguing the regulation was no longer necessary because he has since introduced stronger rules.

But legal experts and the Greens say Mr Morrison is engaged in legal ''trickery'' and his new regulation would either be struck down by the High Court or reversed when the Senate reconvenes in February.

With ALEXIA ATTWOOD and JONATHAN SWAN



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/scott-morrisons-new-rules-put-asylum-seekers-on-notice-to-behave-20131220-2zqyx.html#ixzz2o5dMFaZS

 

[RemoteTiger]

I had a couple of Christmas Drinks with a my brother who is a staunch Liberal Party member - you know the type that pays $2,000 to attend a fund raising luncheon where the Prime Minister or Treasurer talk.

I said how do you rate Tony Abbott's Government's first 100 days.

His reply "Shocking - absolute mess - he is way out of his depth!" He added "The guy was very good in opposition but in Government he hasn't got a clue - the people around him are making too many mistakes - Pyne and his Gonski Education backflip unforgivable - Hockey giving $8b to the Reserve Bank then is going to tell Industry to tighten its belts - double standard total *smile*. Indonesia, Holden could have been handled so much better by a more proactive government than this reactionary rabble. The only good jobs being done in the Public Eye are the NBN debate which has solid financial reasoning and outcomes - Social Services which is being audited to provide to those who really need it - Finance where the minister simply talks sense - Agriculture where they are trying to get back to the grass roots of the bush, the farmer. Abbott won't last - his is the first government ever to be behind in the polls within the 100 day honeymoon period."

"Who is going to replace him?" I asked

"Those that are on the money and know what they are talking about are - Cormann, Brandis, Joyce and Turnbull - take your pick of any of them - any of them would do a better job that Abbott!"

He went on to confirm that this is the feeling throughout the general ranks with the party.

My personal feeling is the opposition does not have the answer - Shorten does not inspire me with his presentation or knowledge - Bowen seems OK but has a long way to go in the leadership area.....

Why do I feel concerned about 2014 and the Australian lifestyle slipping more and more?

 

[Brodders17]

another day, another Lib backflip.

Anti-whaling group attacks Greg Hunt over breaking election promise

Anti-whaling activists have slammed the federal government for breaking an election promise to send a ship to monitor Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said on Sunday that an A319 aircraft staffed by Customs officials would be sent instead.
Sea Shepherd Australian director Jeff Hansen, whose conservation society last week sent three vessels from Melbourne and Hobart to intercept the Japanese whaling fleet, said a plane was of no use.
Advertisement
''It's a broken promise,'' Mr Hansen said. ''The promise was - to the whales and to the Australian public - to send a vessel. Sending a plane is really a waste of taxpayers' money.''
The organisation's chairman, Dr Bob Brown, said on Monday that it was a ''plane cop out''.
''They’re going to fly over at a height seeing what we all know is happening down there, and that’s the bloody and illegal destruction of Australian whales,'' he said.
Dr Brown said the $150 million Oceanic Protector, which was patrolling at Christmas Island thousands of nautical miles away, should be on the job.
''The government has got it to turn back the (asylum seeker) boats, but not the Japanese whaling boats,'' he said.
He said the minister ''who should stand up for Australia's rights'' had caved under pressure to avoid offend Japan during free-trade negotiations.
''That plane is not going to prevent anything. Who are they going to call, and from where, and how long is it going to take to get there?'' Dr Brown said.
Speaking in Frankston, Victoria, on Sunday, Mr Hunt said the purpose of using a plane was threefold: to observe any whaling, to ensure there was ''a record and a chronicle'' of any conflict between whalers and conservationists and to show both sides that they were being observed by an independent party so ''they have to behave properly''.
''Our promise was for a Customs monitoring mission,'' Mr Hunt said. ''We are delivering a mission which, on the advice of Customs, has greater flexibility, greater range.
''Not only are we fulfilling the promise, we're exceeding it because what it does is it allows us to cover not just one vessel but multiple vessels in a rapid period of time.''
Asked if the ship Ocean Protector, purpose-built to patrol the Southern Ocean, would continue to be used to ferry asylum seekers and patrol Christmas Island, Mr Hunt said: ''I'll leave the use of Customs assets to the Customs bureau.''
But Mr Hansen said: ''The Ocean Protector, that was purpose-built for the Southern Ocean environment and it's up there in a tropical environment basically used as a glorified taxi. Hunt was [previously] very much adamant saying a vessel needs to be down there.''
Sea Shepherd Australia's chairman Bob Brown says the Abbott government has broken a core election promise to send a vessel to the Southern Ocean this whaling season, effectively turning a blind eye on the slaughter of these great creatures.
Dr Brown says Sea Shepherd Australia is now left alone to do the government's role of enforcing Australian and international law in the Antarctic region.
Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson called on Mr Hunt to resign.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/antiwhaling-group-attacks-greg-hunt-over-breaking-election-promise-20131222-2zt4m.html#ixzz2oGEgFmdT

 

[bullus_hit]

I had a couple of Christmas Drinks with a my brother who is a staunch Liberal Party member - you know the type that pays $2,000 to attend a fund raising luncheon where the Prime Minister or Treasurer talk.

I said how do you rate Tony Abbott's Government's first 100 days.

His reply "Shocking - absolute mess - he is way out of his depth!" He added "The guy was very good in opposition but in Government he hasn't got a clue - the people around him are making too many mistakes - Pyne and his Gonski Education backflip unforgivable - Hockey giving $8b to the Reserve Bank then is going to tell Industry to tighten its belts - double standard total *smile*wit. Indonesia, Holden could have been handled so much better by a more proactive government than this reactionary rabble. The only good jobs being done in the Public Eye are the NBN debate which has solid financial reasoning and outcomes - Social Services which is being audited to provide to those who really need it - Finance where the minister simply talks sense - Agriculture where they are trying to get back to the grass roots of the bush, the farmer. Abbott won't last - his is the first government ever to be behind in the polls within the 100 day honeymoon period."

"Who is going to replace him?" I asked

"Those that are on the money and know what they are talking about are - Cormann, Brandis, Joyce and Turnbull - take your pick of any of them - any of them would do a better job that Abbott!"

He went on to confirm that this is the feeling throughout the general ranks with the party.

My personal feeling is the opposition does not have the answer - Shorten does not inspire me with his presentation or knowledge - Bowen seems OK but has a long way to go in the leadership area.....

Why do I feel concerned about 2014 and the Australian lifestyle slipping more and more?

Great summary Remote, I can't wait for Turnbull to cede power from the ideological zealots, the LNP must return to their roots and show some semblence of the small 'l' liberal philosophy.

The other point that didn't get a mention was the complete dismissal science and technology, if we are to progress as a country we need to be focusing on R&D. Instead we are subjected to a slash and burn approach at the behest of the mining oligarchs. Abbott seems to think the only way forward is to expand the coal sector - dumb in the extreme. The reluctance to embrace the new energy paradigm will plunge the country back into the 20th century. And what makes this more breathtaking in it's stupidity is the concerted efforts to wind back even the profitable enterprises in renewable technologies. We were once world leaders in solar & wind technologies, we are fast becoming the laughing stock of the developed world.

As for selling the Great Barrier Reef, I've witnessed privatisation in my time but this surely takes selling the crown jewels to the next level. Seriously, is there any other developed nation willing to sell it's sovereign natural assets in such an opportunistic manner? Give me George Bush over this deranged fundamentalist any day of the week.

 

[Rosy]

Good summary thanks Remote. Any Lib supporter I talk to feels the same way. They can't believe so many negatives in such a short period. Even if it's not expressed on here the lack of comment says a fair bit on their efforts so far imo. Some things just can't be defended.

Tony is a tad delusional when he

I think this is a good article by Mungo.

Tony Abbott's blame game can't last forever
By Mungo MacCallum
Updated Mon 23 Dec 2013, 1:21pm AEDT

The Coalition still has an opportunity for a new start after the holiday break.

The time-honoured political tradition of blaming your predecessors and the media for any early missteps will only get you so far, writes Mungo MacCallum.

There is an old story about a newly elected prime minister arriving at The Lodge to be greeted by his defeated predecessor.

After exchanging pleasantries, the departing PM tells the newcomer that he has left him an invaluable gift - three sealed envelopes in the top drawer of the desk in the study, to be used in times of crisis. When the first crisis hits, open the envelope marked #1; for the second, the envelope marked #2; and for the third, the remaining envelope, #3.

The new prime minister offers his thanks for the advice, and thinks no more about it; but in time he is indeed caught up in a political crisis, and his mind goes back to the envelopes. He opens #1 and reads the instruction: "Blame your predecessors." Relieved, he does so, insisting that they had left him with the problem, and while his government was doing its best to solve it, it was not, after all, of his making. And it works; delighted, he goes on with business as usual - until the second crisis erupts.

Again, he goes to the study desk and opens the envelope #2. This time the instruction is: "Blame the media." So he claims the media are engaged in a savage vendetta against him, inventing stories and ignoring the real progress his government is making. And again, it works, so slightly frazzled he presses on until, inevitably, there is a third crisis.

He strides confidently to the desk and opens the last envelope, only to read the final instruction: "Prepare three envelopes."

An oldie but a goodie, and one Tony Abbott may well be contemplating with some apprehension over the Christmas break; because, in the first hectic 100 days of his government, he has already used up the first two envelopes - and, if the polls are to be believed, not to any great effect.

Blaming one's predecessors is, of course, a tried and true tactic for any incoming government which finds, on assuming office, that its pre-election promises have been just a touch on the generous side; the belated discovery of the fiscal black hole had become almost a cliché. And this is the problem: it is no longer entirely believable. We already know the previous lot have, to a certain extent, stuffed up the economy; that's why we voted them out. And we voted the new lot in not to whinge about it, but to fix things.

The idea that the cupboard is bare is no longer tenable excuse - especially when the new Treasurer settles into office by tossing a casual $8.8 billion to the Reserve Bank, junking $3 billion worth of Labor's taxes and then demanding that the debt ceiling be raised by another $200 billion before settling for having it wiped out altogether. In the circumstances, complaining that the old guard had been a bit loose with the purse strings is unlikely to evoke much sympathy.

Blaming Labor for being stubborn in opposition is almost certainly equally futile while memories of Abbott's own very recent intransigence are still relatively fresh; Mr Negativity can hardly object if his own opposition counterparts sometimes say no. And while it is true that a majority of Australians would probably like to see the carbon tax abolished, there is absolutely no enthusiasm for Abbott's proposed alternative in so-called Direct Action. In spite of the baying from the hounds of the Murdoch press, Labor leader Bill Shorten is unlikely to lose much ground by sticking to his party's pre-election position.

And most recently, we had Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull informing us that Labor had left the NBN in such a shemozzle that he was now forced to downgrade it yet again. Turnbull's original version of NBN Lite had not exactly been a hit with the computer nerds; this new emasculation was seen as making the whole project pointless. Justly or not, the blame for the destruction of fast national broadband will be laid on Abbott and Turnbull, not on Labor.

So envelope #1, if not a complete failure, has so far failed to deliver. There may be some blood still to be extracted from the stone: Abbott and his colleagues will not willingly let Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd lie quietly in their political graves. But all the signs are that the punters, having heard it all before and having taken their own revenge at the ballot box, are now ready to put their baseball bats away until the next time around.

So how about envelope #2: blame the media? Well, that has yielded at best mixed results. Abbott first tried it when he was attempting to defuse the row with Indonesia resulting from the revelation that Australia had tapped the personal phones of the country's president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and his wife: he really regretted, Abbott averred solemnly, that the reports had appeared in the public media. Unsurprisingly the Indonesians were not impressed, but Abbott gained some local support when he turned his attack more specifically towards the ABC; once again the Murdoch press weighed in with all guns blazing.

But it did not solve the problem, and in fact there has been a counter reaction from many quarters against Abbott and his ministers for being too secretive, too unwilling to talk to the media; in particular the decision of the Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, to invest his portfolio with the kind of military security more normally associated with the Manhattan Project has evoked both resentment and derision.

But the real clincher came with the Government's double backflip with pike and tuck (degree of difficulty 4.2) on the Gonski reforms. Once again Abbott and his Education Minister Christopher Pyne chose to shoot the messenger: the government was actually keeping its promises, the problem was that the media and the public had misunderstood them. They didn't actually mean what everyone had thought they meant. In any event, that particular porky did not fly, and the Government was forced into another expensive bail out.

And so the pattern continued. Obviously it is not time for envelope #3 just yet. There is the opportunity for a new start after the holiday break and a very long time until the next election. But there is no doubt that Abbott and his colleagues have used up a lot of their political cred for little reward, and they wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

That's what happens when you run what was perhaps the most successful opposition in recent history: you think all you have to do is repeat the formula in government. But it doesn't work that way: the doors that used to push open so easily are now clearly marked pull. If Abbott does not read that warning sign quickly, he may become a political joke of his own.

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator.

 

[Browndog]

If this decision has a negative impact on the Reef the Libs and Nationals will be front of the blame queue in my mind. I'd be ashamed if I'd voted for them and gave them the power to destroy such an important area. The odds concern me considering they're a walking disaster zone since they got into power. Did the other parties have any say in the decision? Even if they didn't I'm disappointed at the apparent silent acceptance.

Do you think the majority of people who voted for them thought of their policies regarding the reef? I certainly didnt vote for them but to think that the reef came in to mind for most of their voters would be naive so say the least.

 

[Brodders17]

Do you think the majority of people who voted for them thought of their policies regarding the reef? I certainly didnt vote for them but to think that the reef came in to mind for most of their voters would be naive so say the least.

no, but anyone considering voting for the Libs should have known they would pay little regard for the environment.

 

[bullus_hit]

It's pretty clear to me that Abbott will take the country back to the 1950's, science clearly has no place in his future vision, women have little more than a token role, workers rights will be watered down, the pathetic 'culture wars' will be reignited, the church will gain more prominence in policy making, international relations with Indonesia and other SE Asian nations will become increasingly more strained (the boat buyback would have to be one of the more wacky policies I've ever witnessed), our role as critical aid donor in the region will be abolished and extreme right wing media will be given a free reign to slander and defame at their leisure.

Welcome to Tony Abbott's Australia, and let's not mention how much destruction awaits the Great Barrier Reef and the World Heritage listed Tarkine forest.

Labor had their faults but you aint seen nothing yet.

The Libs policy was out there for all to see, and it was interesting to note I copped a serve for being too harsh on the newly elected prime minister.

 

[Rosy]

Great predictions Nostrabullus. You might have been given a serve for your forecast but you aced it.

Do you think the majority of people who voted for them thought of their policies regarding the reef? I certainly didnt vote for them but to think that the reef came in to mind for most of their voters would be naive so say the least.

I wouldn't have a clue why people voted the way they did. I'm sure some are so rusted on to a particular party they'd vote for them regardless of their policies. I don't see the relevance of your question, and your suggestion of naivety, in regard to my post you quoted when I mentioned how I'd feel if I'd voted for them if this decision has a negative impact on the reef.

The Libs went into the election with a Barrier Reef policy that interestingly neglected to mention dredging and dumping the sludge and building a giant coal port but highlighted more voter-friendly things like saving the dugong and turtles and eradicating the crown of thorns.

 

[AngryAnt]

What is more naive is assuming the Libs will look after the environment. Do they even have an environment policy?

 

[Sintiger]

Bob Hawke talking sense. If we really want to cut public sector sending in this country and really want some semblance of national policies on health, police, education and transport amongst others then we have to seriously look at this.

2 levels of government is all we need, there are many models but we are wasting billions on double bureaucracies and funding shifting. It's a debate this country really needs to have.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/bob-hawke-calls-for-abolition-of-states-in-speech-at-woodford-folk-festival/story-fnihsrk2-1226791259691


FORMER prime minister Bob Hawke has revised a call for the abolition of the states and the redrafting of the Australian Constitution.

Mr Hawke said a new model of federalism that dumped the states in favour of a system of centralised government would "immensely" strengthen the democratic process.

"I made this proposition once that the states were quite artificial creations that were just represented lines on a map, there was no intrinsic merit in that at all," he said.

"I argued then and I will argue now and I will argue into the future that if we were to going to create the ideal situation within this country in which it would optimise a caucus democracy it would abolish the states."

Mr Hawke said in his ideal Australia, whichever party won the election would be able to select members of the public to sit in Parliament as members of the ministry.

"Because it seems to me, there are so many people of talent in our nation who would love to make a contribution in government but are not prepared to go through the parliamentary process," he said.

"It would immeasurably strengthen the democratic process."

Speaking at the Woodford Folk Festival yesterday before a crowd of more than 1500, Mr Hawke was openly supportive of gay marriage after a member of the audience asked him if he had predictions on when it would be allowed.

"I don't know when, but the sooner the better," he said before the crowd erupted in cheers.

Mr Hawke did, however, take aim at not only Australian political figures but world leaders as well.


"There is not one outstanding political leader in the world," he said.

"We need outstanding leaders, but it's not going to happen with mediocrity in leadership."

Mr Hawke was also critical of Parliament itself, and said he never enjoyed its combative nature and its failure to operate as an effective legislature.

"It is increasingly regarded (by society) with cynicism and indeed contempt, because of the way it operates," he said.

"Proceedings in Parliament are a charade and a farce - at some stage we're going to come to our bloody senses and have a vote on a republic."

 

[KnightersRevenge]

As a PJ fan I rarely agree with Bob but he's right on all fronts here. The problem I see with abolishing the states is that it would necessitate a complete overhaul of local government as well. Much of the corruption in our system is local government and planning etc. That is where al lot of NSW Labors issues arose. Ditto on the nonsense that is the parliament. Our politics more closely resembles "Survivor" than our society. Partisan game playing and power struggles.

 

[Giardiasis]

Don't agree with Bob that we should abolish the states, we should abolish the federal government. Less centralisation is the better outcome, not more.

 

[AngryAnt]

3 layers of government is too much - but I've heard that the local council level is the most corrupt. The idea of the PM appointing ministers is interesting, similar to the US President appointing his executive, Secretary of State, Defense, etc.

 

[AngryAnt]

Don't agree with Bob that we should abolish the states, we should abolish the federal government. Less centralisation is the better outcome, not more.

Interesting, but then we don't have Australia - just the countries of Victoria, New South Wales etc

 

[Brodders17]

Interesting, but then we don't have Australia - just the countries of Victoria, New South Wales etc

Not so much interesting as an example of ideology replacing reality.

Tho I guess it would be interesting to hear how G proposes no Fed gov would work.

 

[Giardiasis]

Interesting, but then we don't have Australia - just the countries of Victoria, New South Wales etc

Yeah, so what?

 

[Giardiasis]

Not so much interesting as an example of ideology replacing reality.

Tho I guess it would be interesting to hear how G proposes no Fed gov would work.

What, and abolishing the states isn't ideological? Stating something is ideological isn't an argument anyway.

As ant man suggests, separate governments. We cling to nationalism like a leech.

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah, so what?

I look forward to carrying my passport to go to Sydney. :lol
Victoria would have embassies in all the capital cities.
The Victorian Department of Foreign Affairs (has a nice ring to it) would have to negotiate to extradite criminals who flee to Tasmania

But in summation, I like it. We could have a mini-United Nations of Australia in Canberra to deal with these issues as they come up.

 

[Sintiger]

What, and abolishing the states isn't ideological? Stating something is ideological isn't an argument anyway.

As ant man suggests, separate governments. We cling to nationalism like a leech.

Don't see the point of abolishing one federal government to replace it with 7 others.

Misses the point anyway. We have major efforts going on to reduce spending and we have one solution staring us in the face. Having dealt closely with both state and federal bureaucracies in recent years it is appalling to me that there is so much effort and cost devoted to states dealing with the feds, duplicated processes and cost shifting between states and the feds. The proposal to look at a bulk billing fee is just another example of that, because the real aim is to push patients away from federal funded Medicare bulk billing to state funded hospital emergency departments.

It's all nonsense. One health system, one education system etc.

We can argue about the model but to me the states are only useful for state of origin football and the Sheffield shield.