Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Misleading I believe that called it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, that's right.  That's what they call it when they don't want to admit that it might be a reasonable claim because it offends their ideology. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Said George Brandis. Would you hazard a guess at what Fact Check said about that statement?

Which fact check? ABC's or Fairfax's?

(Not that it really matters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stikman said:

Ah, that's right.  That's what they call it when they don't want to admit that it might be a reasonable claim because it offends their ideology. 

Correct

Just like the live fact checker at the state of the union

Trump claimed a third of women in the migrant caravan are sexually assaulted.  The fact checker said this was misleading because the actual figure is 31%...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FatPom said:

:(

 

 

I do own a Giant, you may have a point. :lol:

Assuming that I am referring only to negative effects would be a mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Prince said:

don't be too hard on Labor, but they will put all that extra revenue to good use by increasing the dole payments and other benefits

boost aggregate demand, as the starving will go and buy food, also some unemployed might get shifts at woolies and aldi

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

boost aggregate demand, as the starving will go and buy food, also some unemployed might get shifts at woolies and aldi

Trickle down economics?  That doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The rich getting richer, the poor get the picture"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, goughy said:

"The rich getting richer, the poor get the picture"

I tend to find that musicians are of little use as far as economic analysis is concerned

Almost as useless as 29 year old ex-bartenders

The only accurate line we ever heard from Garrett was "once we get in, we'll just change it all"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a musician and have tended bar........ could you be onto something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STOP THE PLANES!!!!!

From: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts#_Toc413067443

 

Do most asylum seekers arrive by boat?

Over recent years, the proportion of asylum seekers applying for (onshore) protection in Australia who arrived originally by boat has fluctuated significantly in response to shifts in asylum flows and changes in Government policy.[31]

Until 2012, the majority of asylum seekers applying for protection in Australia arrived originally by air with a valid visa and then applied for asylum at a later date while living in the community. Historically, boat arrivals only made up a small proportion of asylum applicants—estimates vary, but it is likely that between 96 and 99 per cent of asylum applicants arrived by air.[32]

In 2012 the proportions of irregular maritime arrival (IMA) and non-IMA (that is air arrival) asylum seekers shifted due to a significant increase in boat arrivals. However, applications from boat arrivals still only accounted for about half of Australia’s onshore asylum claims until 2012–13 when the figure reached 68.4 per cent.

However, in 2013–14 the proportions shifted back and the majority of applications (51.5 per cent) were again lodged by air arrivals:

Onshore asylum applications

Program year

Non-IMA (air arrival) Protection visa (PV) applications lodged

IMA (boat arrival) refugee status determination requests received

Total
 
No.
Per cent of total applications
No.
Per cent of total applications
 
2001-02
7026
76.0
2222
24.0
9248
2002-03
4959
98.8
60
1.2
5019
2003-04
3485
97.6
87
2.4
3572
2004-05
3062
95.4
146
4.6
3208
2005-06
3191
96.9
101
3.1
3292
2006-07
3723
99.4
23
0.6
3746
2007-08
3987
99.5
21
0.5
4008
2008-09
5072
88.0
678
12.0
5750
2009-10
5981
56.6
4597
43.4
10 578
2010-11
6335
55.0
5166
45.0
11 501
2011–12
7063
48.8
7373
51.2
14 436
2012–13
8480
31.6
18 365
68.4
26 845
2013–14
9646
51.5
9072
48.5
18 718

Sources: DIBP, Asylum Trends Australia 2010–11 Annual Publication, Canberra, 2011, p. 2; Asylum Trends Australia 2012–13 Annual Publication, Canberra, 2013, p. 4; and Asylum statistics Australia: quarterly tables—June quarter 2014, Canberra, 2014, p. 5. Note: September and December quarter 2014 statistics not available.

Although the proportion of asylum seekers arriving by boat has increased significantly in the last  few years, and boat arrivals continue to be the focus of much public and political attention, they are in fact more likely to be recognised as refugees than those who have arrived by air. For example, the final protection visa grant rate for asylum seekers from the top country of citizenship for boat arrivals (Afghanistan) has varied between about 96 and 100 per cent since 2009; while the final protection visa grant rate for those applying for asylum from one of the top country of citizenship for air arrivals (China) is usually only around 20 to 30 per cent.[33] Dr Khalid Koser (Lowy Institute for International Policy) argues that it is important to note this distinction:

The reason this ... point is important is that it means that arguably Australia is worrying about the wrong asylum seekers. Whereas the majority of those arriving by boat are refugees, the majority of those arriving by air are not.[34]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the significant factor there though Roxii is that it'd be bloody hard to arrive by plane undocumented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Stikman said:

Trickle down economics?  That doesn't work.

its trickle up. Rather than give a few rich people lot, give a lot of people a little. That little will create demand rewarding people who take risk. This is better than rewarding rent seekers who take little to no risk with huge returns for doing nothing other than being born rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

its trickle up. Rather than give a few rich people lot, give a lot of people a little. That little will create demand rewarding people who take risk. This is better than rewarding rent seekers who take little to no risk with huge returns for doing nothing other than being born rich.

Surely if you go back enough, the parents/grandparents of those that took a risk had kids. The risk takers of today will have kids tomorrow, so what would change?

Edited by FatPom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, goughy said:

I've been a musician and have tended bar........ could you be onto something?

Quite possibly 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, FatPom said:

Surely the significant factor there though Roxii is that it'd be bloody hard to arrive by plane undocumented. 

Exactly 

Throwing your passport away to conceal your identity isn't really an option when you arrive by plane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, FatPom said:

Surely the significant factor there though Roxii is that it'd be bloody hard to arrive by plane undocumented. 

Surely that is more scary that people smugglers are getting them in through the front door and playing the work visa system to get them in land here then seeking asylum. 

As has been said many times before if someon has the means and backing to attempt a terror plot, they aren’t going to risk a leaky boat trip and then months of scrutiny from AFP. They will pay there way here and “fly under the radar” 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, roxii said:

Surely that is more scary that people smugglers are getting them in through the front door and playing the work visa system to get them in land here then seeking asylum. 

As has been said many times before if someon has the means and backing to attempt a terror plot, they aren’t going to risk a leaky boat trip and then months of scrutiny from AFP. They will pay there way here and “fly under the radar” 

 

All true. I was thinking more along the lines of ID.  It's much easier to verify a genuine asylum case when the ID of the applicant is not in doubt.  They either qualify for asylum or they don't, whether arriving by plane or boat.   All I'm saying is, just because an applicant applies, doesn't mean they will get it, and making that judgement is easier for authorities if they know whom they're dealing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think the people coming in by plane aren't coming via smugglers.  They have visa's to visit here.  They either overstay or apply once here.  But less than half are found to be genuine. 

I always thought it was the smugglers that destroyed or removed id, papers etc, not so much the individuals.  I'm not exactly sure why?  Doing so obviously makes the process of determining status longer and harder.  And since nearly 90% that come by boat are found to be genuine, wouldn't it be better for them to have their papers etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have just asked the Mrs.  She saw a show about it.  The smugglers make them get rid of their ID as it makes it harder to track the smugglers themselves.  If they can identify the asylum seekers, they can then track down family etc and interview them and maybe get closer to the smugglers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, goughy said:

I always thought it was the smugglers that destroyed or removed id, papers etc, not so much the individuals.  I'm not exactly sure why?  Doing so obviously makes the process of determining status longer and harder.  And since nearly 90% that come by boat are found to be genuine, wouldn't it be better for them to have their papers etc?

The rate was so high under Labor because they would just believe any old bullshit story

It's much easier for a relatively well off Iranian to get asylum if he pretends to be Afghani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, goughy said:

I wouldn't think the people coming in by plane aren't coming via smugglers.  They have visa's to visit here.  They either overstay or apply once here.  But less than half are found to be genuine. 

I was surprised too. I assume it’s the slightly more upmarket smugglers. They find out which jobs get you the best chance of obtaining a visa first, then assist in lodging asylum papers when here and also organise appeals if required. 

FP I agree about ID, I suppose it depends how stringent the checks on outgoing passengers are where they depart from and how legit their ID is, but I suppose having to carry ID is the downside of a comfy journey over here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with the next QLD state election in 2020. Am curious to see what Anastasia comes up with at the end of the year regarding Euthanasia.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Merv said:

So with the next QLD state election in 2020. Am curious to see what Anastasia comes up with at the end of the year regarding Euthanasia.  

I’m all for putting her out of our misery. But is the Freckle any better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 900 people who have been brought here from Manus and Nauru by this government for medical and other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tyno said:

I’m all for putting her out of our misery. But is the Freckle any better?

Ummmmmmmmm, nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Labor's amendments to Kerryn Phelps' activist doctors bill may be unconstitutional

So we have Labor supporting a bill with the Greens and independents which would weaken our border security arrangements, but it won't be forwarded to the GG for royal assent

And the Liberals will be able to go very hard in the campaign using this vote as evidence of Labor's weakness on border security

Quite possibly the second best outcome for the Libs really.  The only way it could go better is if the bill is passed and a bunch of boats turn up

So why would this bill make any difference to the number of boats wanting to turn up?

Unless of course, the Government starts a campaign saying it weakens our borders, and will allow more asylum seekers to come here by boat and be then sent on to the mainland for medical treatment.

I thought this bill only applied to those people already on Manus & Nauru. It makes no difference to new asylum seekers, and therefore if the Government truly wanted to keep the numbers of boats down, they would highlight that fact, instead of what they are doing and sending out a message to the smugglers and their customers to start trying to get here again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

So why would this bill make any difference to the number of boats wanting to turn up?

Unless of course, the Government starts a campaign saying it weakens our borders, and will allow more asylum seekers to come here by boat and be then sent on to the mainland for medical treatment.

I thought this bill only applied to those people already on Manus & Nauru. It makes no difference to new asylum seekers, and therefore if the Government truly wanted to keep the numbers of boats down, they would highlight that fact, instead of what they are doing and sending out a message to the smugglers and their customers to start trying to get here again.

Invent a Tampa 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend living in West Java Indonesia tells me the only coverage any of this is getting in the media over there is that the Australian Government  plans to reopen the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

So why would this bill make any difference to the number of boats wanting to turn up?

Because it makes it easier to get from Manus to Australia, which makes Manus less of a deterrent

Of course, Labor weakening our borders isn't the problem though.  The problem is those evil Liberals pointing it out

Fair dinkum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Paladin Group was a far right organisation in Spain founded in the 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

I thought this bill only applied to those people already on Manus & Nauru. It makes no difference to new asylum seekers, and therefore if the Government truly wanted to keep the numbers of boats down, they would highlight that fact, instead of what they are doing and sending out a message to the smugglers and their customers to start trying to get here again.

because labor would later apply it to any new asylum seekers.  if I can figure that out the smugglers sure can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Prince said:

because labor would later apply it to any new asylum seekers.  if I can figure that out the smugglers sure can. 

So you don't know this. You think it will happen. As they had the numbers why did they not do it now. What do you think of the 900 people who have come from off shore under this government?

Is this the fault of Shorten?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Because it makes it easier to get from Manus to Australia, which makes Manus less of a deterrent

Of course, Labor weakening our borders isn't the problem though.  The problem is those evil Liberals pointing it out

Fair dinkum...

But it doesn't make getting from Manus to Australia any easier for anybody who is not already on Manus this very instant.

Any new person from now that gets to Manus is not included under this bill. This is what the Government should be advertising to potential boat people if it really wanted to keep the numbers down, rather than trying to win votes with the headline grabbing lines they are currently running with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Prince correctly points out, Labor's left faction will bend Bill over again as soon as they possibly can

Right now he is desperate to insist otherwise because he has an election to win

And, of course, his supporters are desperate to believe him

And let's not forget who made this an issue in the first place.  It was not the Libs.  It was Kerryn Phelps, the Greens, and Labor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two doctors must assess – either in person or remotely – the person and make the recommendation for transfer. The criteria used in the initial assessment and in any review is that the person:

needs medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment

is not receiving appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment in Nauru or Manus Island, and

must be transferred for appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment.

The recommendation is given to the Minister for Home Affairs who must either approve or refuse the transfer within 72 hours. The minister can refuse the transfer if the person has an adverse security assessment or if the person has a “substantial criminal record”.

The minister has the right to approve

Medical transfers to Australia are for a temporary period only, so those currently in Australia could still be returned to Nauru or Manus Island following their treatment. This will continue to be the case even now this bill is passed.

These procedures are only applicable to asylum seekers and refugees who are on Nauru and Manus Island currently. The law will not apply to anyone who comes after the passage of this bill. Anyone brought to Australia for medical treatment must be kept in onshore immigration detention.

Medical transfers that have occurred to date are mostly for psychiatric reasons or a combination of psychiatric and other medical reasons. The importance of providing rapid medical assessment and response to critically ill, or at-risk-of-dying, refugees and asylum seekers cannot be overstated.

In August, 2014 a 24-year-old Iranian detainee on Manus Island, Hamid Khazaei, fell ill and presented to clinicians at the detention centre with “flu-like symptoms” and a small lesion on his leg. After a course of antibiotics, his condition deteriorated and he was transferred to a hospital in Papua New Guinea. He died a few days later.

Please read the facts. It does not and cannot weaken our borders. Posting that it does puts you in the same spectrum as the people who jumped on the dead cyclist face book thread. 

You don't care about truth and enjoy people dying. Please see thread about S*Tt people and the internet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wants to advertise that Xmas island is open for business, cause then they can blame Labor when boats start "mysteriously slipping through" and can claim that the boats have started again, when in fact they were probably still trying just as much as under Labor, as even IJ thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronJimbo said:

As Prince correctly points out, Labor's left faction will bend Bill over again as soon as they possibly can

Right now he is desperate to insist otherwise because he has an election to win

And, of course, his supporters are desperate to believe him

And let's not forget who made this an issue in the first place.  It was not the Libs.  It was Kerryn Phelps, the Greens, and Labor

I've never used a block function in my life, are you serious ? just enjoying this or in need of mental help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

You don't care about truth and enjoy people dying. Please see thread about S*Tt people and the internet

Oh ffs.  Leave the virtue signalling bullshit to Parky, he's better at it

If you want to go down that road, why do you complain about 12 people dying on Manus when you advocate policies which led to 1200 people drowning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronJimbo said:

Oh ffs.  Leave the virtue signalling bullshit to Parky, he's better at it

If you want to go down that road, why do you complain about 12 people dying on Manus when you advocate policies which led to 1200 people drowning?

I'll walk away so you can play with your imaginary friends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lively, but show the love guys, show the love.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

So you don't know this. You think it will happen. As they had the numbers why did they not do it now. What do you think of the 900 people who have come from off shore under this government?

Is this the fault of Shorten?

I know this because shortpantz has said 'we need to be humane..blah blah blah'. so why wouldn't they introduce the same bill when there are new arrivals.  of course they will. 

they wouldn't have had the numbers to try this straight up.  

not shortens fault, but labor's soft stance while they were government is why there were large numbers of arrivals in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

 

Posting that it does puts you in the same spectrum as the people who jumped on the dead cyclist face book thread. 

 

ah, no. worlds apart and a piss poor analogy that I find offensive.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Prince said:

ah, no. worlds apart and a piss poor analogy that I find offensive.   

Linking this to more boats coming (with the outcomes that has) it logically cannot as in the bill itself there is no motivation to get on a boat. Suggests that those saying it will are hoping for a boat and a disaster, much like our conservative radio friends.

Edited by BarryBevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon any parties involved in getting a thread shut down after 234 pages should be banned from the forum.  Agree to disagree and move on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Linking this to more boats coming (with the outcomes that has) it logically cannot as in the bill itself there is no motivation to get on a boat. Suggests that those saying it will are hoping for a boat and a disaster, much like our conservative radio friends.

So if there are another new 500 refugees detained at manus or Xmas island are you telling me they Will not eventually provide them with emergency medical treatment in Australia.  

Why would they not when they have just done it already? It is just logic.  

I am all for increasing the intake of legitimate refugees but not by boat.  You want to talk about inhumane treatment then research how they overcrowd the boats, provide no toilet facilities and give them hardly any food or water for weeks and all on boats that are hardly sea worthy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cottoneyes said:

I reckon any parties involved in getting a thread shut down after 234 pages should be banned from the forum.  Agree to disagree and move on

No. It’s all good. It’s a politics forum.  As long as no one gets personal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Prince said:

So if there are another new 500 refugees detained at manus or Xmas island are you telling me they Will not eventually provide them with emergency medical treatment in Australia.  

Why would they not when they have just done it already? It is just logic.  

I am all for increasing the intake of legitimate refugees but not by boat.  You want to talk about inhumane treatment then research how they overcrowd the boats, provide no toilet facilities and give them hardly any food or water for weeks and all on boats that are hardly sea worthy.  

But the majority that come by boat are legitimate, like double the percentage that come in by other means.  

With regards to any new ones on Manus, if the govt can get something sorted in less than 6 years, might be less of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...