ALP brand ruined by a bunch of Mad Men
Piers Akerman – Saturday, September 03, 11 (04:22 pm)
Fans of the Mad Men television show will recall the opening sequence - a series of caricatures falling in endless spirals through space.
Those computer graphics are a metaphor for the Labor brand today.
That the government is dysfunctional is a given, is there any end in sight? No.
Over the past four years Labor Party MPs have reassured themselves after every new disaster by asserting that things can’t get any worse.
They know now that was a false hope. The ALP’s own polling shows its support is in a Mad Men-style free fall, the Labor brand is haemorrhaging unstoppably, possibly terminally.
Gillard is the personification of the left, anyone that does not agree is not only wrong but flawed in character, regardless of whether they are in the press or the High Court
Sat 03 Sep 11 (04:59pm)
Sat 03 Sep 11 (06:05pm)
“She’s as tough as (Craig’s) nails.”
Sat 03 Sep 11 (06:15pm)
Gillard is similar to any of many Labor luvvies over the years. Carmen Lawrence, Joan Kirner, Cheryl Kernot spring to mind. They don’t believe in anything. They feel they are pragmatic in taking actions that are left wing in nature, but they do it badly. So that health or education is ‘reformed’ which becomes code for saying that big pork barrels were rolled through them without touching constituents.
Gillard is also similar to Paul Keating. She is highly lauded and never achieved anything worthwhile. She is like Bob Hawke in being said to be someone who is a keen negotiator and seems to do so with her cards pasted onto her forehead.
I think what she has done has not been because she was made to do it, but because she has wanted to finesses it to make it appear her arm was forced. All of her achievements seem to be what she said she would do when she was a communist. It is seeming, not doing. It is time for this unseemly PM to go.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (12:57am)
Gandalf of Gosford: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn’t constructive. Please don’t equate Ms Gillard to Keating, whose reforms put us in the position of prosperity to when John Howard took over. Also, Hawke was the pragmatic master negotiator that allowed consensus in the caucus. Not frightened rabbits with the cross hairs of a rifle on their forehead courtesy of Rudd.
Fast forward 1997. TV appearances on channel 7 sunrise with Kevin Rudd’s milky bar kid impersonation of all things wonderful for working Australians. Err, sorry about that folks, I’m really a millionare socialist and just wan’t to jet about the globe at your expense solving world problems that have nothing to do with.. err...YOU.
2010, Ms Gillard tells us that Kevin & the ALP had lost their way and she is going to rectify the last 3 years of something she was the chief architect alongside the gang of 4. Lindsay Tanner resign’s with his index finger down throat.
Summary, $40 billion dollar surplus gone, $200 billion accumulative debt, thousands of workers sacked because of grey suits and an unfair free trade agreement that other countries aren’t adhering to.
Look on the bright side. We have Julia & Tim in the lodge for 2 more years, wind turbines running at 30% efficiency with high maintenance cost’s negating their efficiency, power stations being de commissioned courtesy of Julia & Bob, green jobs that haven’t been explained except to school kids...chuckle...chuckle.
Finally, we have Parliament. The Labor front bench spewing out their vitriol & hate to the none believers in their fantasy world that the most imaginative comic writers couldn’t match with all of their collective minds.
No Mr Gandalf, don’t compare Ms Gillard, Roxon, Swan, Plebersick & Albanese to Keating or Hawke. This is just a moment in time that is a mistake............. 
Sun 04 Sep 11 (06:25am)
Well DD Ball, I have to disagree with you on one point about Keating. I hated that man with a passion, just as I hate gillard with a passion, but Keating did have the vision to implement the Superannuation Guarantee to force “savings for the future”, and whilst I was an employer and felt the pinch of the additional costs (I never built it into salary packages as some employers did), I believed then, and still do, that was Keating’s claim to fame. sp to speak.
Otherwise he was a foul mouthed, arrogant individual who, I thought, brought the parliament into disrepute.
A bit like the situationin place now. Labor never change.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (07:14am)
Well said DD Ball. Labor are happy to implement the extreme Greens Socialist/Marxist Progressive agenda because Labor have also moved that far to the Left but they don’t want anyone to know it. When it all goes bad Labor will just point the finger at the Greens and say it is all thier fault. These political freaks are wolves in sheeps clothing and as Garrett said, “Don’t worry about what we say we will change everything once elected”. Lies, deceit, spin its business as usual for the disastrous Labor party.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (07:15am)
Winjan, in a nutshell- thank you.
An experiment gone immensely wrong compounded by an immature group of individuals seeking to stamp their mark in the history books- they will- and for all the wrong reasons.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (04:40pm)
deejay, I get your point, but let me take it further. Keating also gave control of that Superannuation to Union groups so they get management fees and other benefits from the control of that superannuation. But it is true that the 9% was a good thing for the workers generally, and that is something Gillard would never do.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (05:58pm)
Winjan, I never emtnioned Keating, but since you bought it up I suggest you read MacFarlane’s Boyer Lectures. Keating and the left continue to act as if all the reforms were his, this is utter BS.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (09:59pm)
The real Julia is a cartoon character staright out of looney tunes. Don’t go away mad Julia just go away People power
Mon 05 Sep 11 (09:47am)
You’re being too harsh, they’ve just lost their way.
...
Okay just kidding, I’m unable to say that with a straight face.
Mon 05 Sep 11 (11:29am)
Winjan You missed the the recessions, 20+% interest rates and over 10% unemployment. Leaving a debt of over 90 Billion Dollars you call constructive from Keatings. It was the savings that Howard and Costello made fixed our problems from Whitlam , Hawke and Keating era not counting Hawkes floating the dollar and dropping the tariff protectionism that we now find is a Anchor around the necks of our exporters.This it seem mining is being included with China looking else where for cheaper iron ore and coal , that is plentiful in other developing countries. Gillard / Rudd are no different then other Labor Federal and State Governments , ask any Queenslander. 
Plotting class warfare
Miranda Devine – Saturday, September 03, 11 (04:11 pm)
Of all the toxic issues Julia Gillard has to contend with, education has been seen as her strong suit.
The Prime Minister has spoken in warm tones about education as “the foundation stone of opportunity”, being “central to my economic agenda”.
Her commitment to transparency via the My School website resonated with people while infuriating the powerful left-wing teachers’ unions.
But an own goal looms even in this friendly territory, one completely of Gillard’s making: a re-run of the divisive attempt to pit government schools against “wealthy” independent and Catholic schools.
Anything I say will be political because of who I am. If I point out that Boston was the Education Chief who seemed to initiate a smear campaign against me following the death of Hamidur Rahman from apparent school neglect. Boston had spoken at my graduation for a Dip. Ed. from Sydney Uni. His speech was dismal and uninspiring with lots of facts and figures. The fact that Australia needs private schools because they do an outstanding job teaching their students and their parents subsidise the education of the rest shouldn’t be forgotten.
I am also the son of Samuel Ball who championed independent and selective schools as a vital part of the community system. He took the reigns of the Victorian Board of Studies after they demolished their HSC under Kirner. He is dead now, but not forgotten. Bob Carr asked him to take charge of NSW Board of Studies too, but cabinet had other ideas, such are the vagaries of ALP politics.
If you value education you really want to vote for the conservatives. They aren’t opposed to community education, but the ALP are opposed to independent schools.
Sat 03 Sep 11 (06:28pm)
Sun 04 Sep 11 (10:08am)
You have got to be kidding if you think that the current funding system is fair. I have heard nothing from the Labour Party that suggest they hate Independent Schools as a whole, just elements of it.
I had to choose a High School for my kid for next year and learnt a lot in the process.
1. Catholic Schools consistently receive about $9,500 per student from the Government, while Independent Schools of other relgioius denominations sometime receive close to nothing or generally less thab $6,500. WHY? More votes with Catholocs perhaps??
2. Many wealthy Independent Schools have aquatic centres, boat sheds and multiple sporting fields, and often require the parents to enrol their students as soon as they are born, such is the demand. Yet still they receive unrequired Government funding that is used to maintain immaculate lawns.
Mon 05 Sep 11 (03:58pm)
Billyboy, your understanding is limited, if those stats you quote inform you. Independent school kids get less than government kids from the government. The government cannot afford to make private schools all become government run. This means parents paying for private schools are subsidising government school kids. Anything else you hear is divisive rhetoric.
It is like ALP government neighborhoods and conservative run local councils. ALP may be heavily subsidized because their neighborhoods are poorer, but they waste much opposing graffiti and senseless damage. Meanwhile wealthy areas get parks and recreation with less money.
I can’t see one good reason why a portion of my taxes goes to private schools. They are all run by religious organisations and do nothing other than promote sectarianism and divisiveness. Why should I pay for Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, SDA etc schools? It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to establish religion and that is exactly what this funding does.
Bear in mind that there wouldn’t be a private school system in this country if it had not been for an argument over the “Book of Common Prayer” during the Governorship of Bourke in the 1830s! The Catholics wouldn’t agree to use an Anglican prayer book and we’ve had this sectarianism ever since.
Now, of course, the fastest growing “private school system” is the Islamic system and I can’t imagine them teaching the ideas of unity, democracy and the rights of women. Why should I pay for a bunch of 8th century religious zealots to train a cohort of children to hate the “infidel” - that is, all other Australians? Just try to enrol your kids in an Islamic School or a Jewish or SDA schools if you’re not a member of the “faith”. The Catholics aren’t much better as you now have to prove, in many places, that you are a practising Catholic to enrol your kids.
Generally I detest Labor and the Greens, but if they were to enforce the constitution and stop handing out my (and your) money to all religious organisations, then they’d get my vote.
It really is time for this country to become completely secular. Menzies made a terrible mistake and it’s high time it was ended. It is also time that all this BS chaplain rot and “ethics” classes were abolished as well. It is high time schools started teaching English, Maths and Science again and got out of the social engineering business.
About the most absurd thing I have ever seen was an old Nun and a Christian Brother teaching “sex education” classes and railing against contraception - and this by two people who had chosen the most effective contraception method there is i.e. celibacy! Given all the perverted thinking and taboos about sex in all religions, it just defies belief that such insane clowns are let loose on impressionable young minds. People should remember that on 11 September 2001 it was a gang of devout Islamic virgins who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon - in the mad expectation of going straight to paradise where they’d get to lose their virginity with 72 virgin houris! And I’m expected to pay for this sort of sick rubbish to be propagated!
Sun 04 Sep 11 (09:13am)
Sun 04 Sep 11 (11:17am)
And I begrudge paying tax for lazy layabout state schools with a far greater proportion of parents who don’t care. They envy what parents of private schools are willing to do. We live in a free country and the left want to stop that. Equality of outcomes; not opportunity.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (12:05pm)
So you were twisted out of shape by the Christian Brothers?
Both my children attended public primary schools. My daughter attended a public high school; my son a private school.
Consequently, I can’t see one good reason why all of my taxes should go to public schools.
In my experience, at least on the NSW Central Coast, there is great ecumenity among the private schools.
I know of a Muslim family who sent their son to an Anglican school; I know an Anglican family who sent their children to an Adventist high school; I know an ordained Anglican priest sending her children to a Catholic high school.
The choices have all been made because of the quality of the education and the available programs. The children have all been accepted by the school communities and have have all received an excellent education.
As for the Islamic schools, Muslims erpresent about 1.7% of the population. So long as they do not receive any more than 1.7% of the education funding, I don’t see how we can object.
Private schools have been about choice.
The socialist system is all about the government insisting that they know better than their constituency.
So I agree, Jack, ‘It is high time schools...got out of the social engineering business.’
Sadly, that’s not the socialist way and there is no better example than Miranda’s previous column.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (02:27pm)
Jack with respect - I wouldn’t equate Islamic with Catholic or Christian schools. You’ll lose that argument, since the oldest schools in Australia are Catholic and Christian, and the values they have taught have made us into one of the best countries in the world.
You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. We are in the top ten in the world by measures which include freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, health (longevity), prosperity, and freedom from conflict and disease. We are also one of the happier, kinder, and more relaxed nations. Pretty good going, all up!
Our public education system, which Australian taxpayers agreed to introduce and pay for, permits children to have religious instruction (especially because a decent percentage are from those backgrounds). Public schools have also adopted many of the Catholic and Christian educational practices, as they were so successful. (Where these have been abandoned, there are problems.)
Re nuns: it was a valid occupational choice for women in those days - women who didn’t necessarily want to get married or have children, but had a spiritual outlook and wished to have a career in teaching. These women were mostly intelligent and had backbone. They were also in many cases ahead of their time in their opinions, knowledge-levels and thought-processes. Mary McKillop set up 117 schools, which offered education for the poor, working-class of Australia and gave them the headstart they needed. In some countries, the poor never got this chance, back then.
Maybe a more compelling argument you could advance is to say that the curricular material of the any Islamic schools in Australia could be required to reflect Australian long-standing values, (including high standards of education, and also the treatment of men, women and children according to Australian contemporary standards).
It is important to not muddle brainwashing by extremists with beneficial teachings about: being outreaching, loving fellow human beings, forgiveness, equal human dignity and the desirability of treating each other with respect, within a framework of discipline and high-quality standards.
(You rightly condemn brainwashing by extremists - which has been shown in many countries to be horrifically dangerous, not to mention detrimental to people’s standards of living and desire for freedom. And it also should be remembered that some of the most oppressive regimes in history have been secular-humanist, totalitarian ones. In short: extremism, of whatever nature, is the real enemy.)
Sun 04 Sep 11 (04:51pm)
So Jack, you must be happy that independent schools get less from the government than government run schools. This means that parents who pay them are subsidising those government run schools .. that would be a good thing, right? Maybe there should be more independent schools. That way even less is spent by the government on education, allowing them to spend on important things like Thomson’s renovations.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (06:35pm)
Well if your post is an example of public education you’ve just lost the argument.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (07:32pm)
My taxpaying parents worked and saved hard to send us to private schools - partly because of religion/family tradition, but mainly due to a belief that they offered a better standard of education.
They were Catholic schools, and quite different from what you describe, Jack. I remember also learning about Hinduism and Buddhism - being encouraged to see different religions as just “different paths to the one God”. It made an impression on me as being quite ‘modern’ and ‘inclusive’, given Catholicism’s generally ‘bad rap’ in modern pop culture. Certainly far more ‘inclusive’ and ‘open-minded’ than my experience of the overwhelmingly intolerant Leftist dogma at university and some workplaces.
I remember nuns (who were sort of ‘on the way out’ at my school by then) patiently enduring mocking questions from the more outspoken girls, on issues such as abortion and contraception - there were no real ‘taboos’ that I was aware of. Of course it was much stricter in my mother and grandmother’s time: they were scared of the nuns and remembered them for their meanness.
What we all got out of Catholic education was a pretty solid grounding in the basics of reading and writing - the nuns were sticklers for correct grammar etc. And of course some semblance of the dreaded “V-word” - values.
I’m grateful to my parents for making the sacrifice. Especially given that, as taxpayers, they were already contributing towards government schools.
Sun 04 Sep 11 (08:24pm)
“They.............do nothing other than promote sectarianism and divisiveness”.
This is not a true statement re Christian schools.
Many parents sacrifice to send their children to private schools, for a superior education, discipline, the teaching of values and, whether you like to hear it or not, in the expectation their children will not be mixing with the children of the growing underclass in our society. Parents cannot be blamed for wanting the above. If they sacrifice to pay for it, and are taxed for the education of public school students at the same time, they shouldn’t be criticised by the resentful and the prejudiced.
… is from page 126 of David Freeman Hawke’s 1988 book Everyday Life in Early America; here Hawke is writing about the 17th century:
Peter H. Wood found little discrimination in early South Carolina. “Common hardships and the continuing shortage of hands,” he writes [in 1974], “put the different races, as well as separate sexes, upon a more equal footing than they would see in subsequent generations.” Many scholars now conclude that discrimination set in only during the last quarter of the century when a “series of court decisions and statutes began closing the gates of freedom along racial lines,” changes that finally became codified in Virginia’s slave code of 1705.
Other scholars who’ve contributed important research along these lines include Robert Higgs – especially his 1976 book Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865-1914 – and my former GMU Econ colleage Jennifer Roback-Morse.
Sovereign-state power and legislation can be very dangerous institutions.
Place your bets
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (06:10 pm)
My tip for tomorrow’s Newspoll: Labor 43, Coalition 57.
Yours?
Business giving up on Labor
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (06:06 pm)
Business is getting bolshie, and less worried about Labor’s ability to punish them:
FORMER BHP Billiton chairman Don Argus has lashed the Gillard government over its “lazy” reform agenda on tax and industrial relations, warning that a failure to address Australia’s “woeful” productivity growth could ruin the economy.
Mr Argus, who chaired Labor’s mining tax panel, today described the government’s tax reform agenda as politically expedient, and accused it of a lack of consultation with industry in the lead-up to both the ill-fated resource super profits tax and the carbon tax.
Mr Argus referred to the labour and financial market reform undertaken by the Hawke-Keating government in the 1980s, and John Howard’s support for the GST, as examples of policy changes that took political courage.
But he said the Gillard government was wasting the benefits of the resources boom and risking the living standards of future generations by failing to address genuine reform....
“… I am concerned future generations of Australians will look back and lament that we did not make the most of what lies ahead of us.
“I fear they will look back with regret that our leaders opted for the most politically expedient outcomes, not those that were in the best long-term interests of the country.
“I worry that future generations of Australians will have to contend with the results of `lazy reform’.”
Even Heather Ridout is bailing out:
A LEADING employer group will today urge Labor to allow companies and workers to strike more flexible workplace deals, while releasing research showing strong business support for the return of individual contracts.
Heather Ridout, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said that the Gillard government’s system of individual flexibility arrangements should be overhauled as it had “promised so much but delivered so little”.
How can I make the Left trust me, too?
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (05:59 pm)
Of course, I’d love the Left to trust me, too, so I’ll just have to work a lot harder. But I suspect that the more effectively an opinionista works, the more entrenched the opposition.
That’s my excuse, anyway.
(Thanks to reader harvett.)
Now 43 to 57
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (02:40 pm)
Essential Research has Labor slipping a point to 43 to 57 per cent, 2pp. It’s survey is divided in half, with half the polling done a week ago.
Tomorrow’s Newspoll will tell the full tale.
The teaching of tribalism
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (07:11 am)
I’d have thought that the challenge is to put more emphasis on what unites us, not divides:
Students will be trained in “cultural competency” in the classroom as part of the federal government’s plan to boost support for multiculturalism and combat negative attitudes.
Thousands of teachers have been surveyed about how the policy is working and to uncover racism, under special research entitled “Rethinking Multiculturalism/Reassessing Multicultural Education”.
The government’s plan also involves 40 “People of Australia Ambassadors” to spruik the benefits of multiculturalism and a new offensive against racism.
(Thanks to reader the Great Waisuli.)
The case for Crean
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (06:52 am)
Amanda Vanstone says Bill Shorten lacks experience and would seem like a plotter rewarded. And so:
There are two obvious choices. One is Stephen Smith. He is capable, calm and despite extensive parliamentary experience he is still seen as a fresh face. He seems mentally strong and is softly spoken. The electorate could warm to all that as a very pleasant change.
He would need to loosen up a bit. Calmness is a good thing but we do like to see a different demeanour when you win the lottery from that which overtakes you when your dog dies.
The other choice is Simon Crean. Age and experience are invaluable when you are in a mess. Crean has gained his over a long haul with some hard knocks on the way. He has earned a fair deal of respect. He has got a bit of Bob Hawke about him. I know some former National Party people who thought he was a straight talker when he had responsibility for rural and regional affairs.
Because he is older and thus not planning to be there for another decade he has three other advantages. First, he would be less beholden to the wheeler-dealers. Second, it would allow the younger talent to be saved the scarring that will come with the job from now until the election. Third, the electorate would see him as a genuine team player rising to help the party (and the nation) in time of need. A good part of Gillard’s problem was that she was seen as a backstabbing opportunist…Crean’s pitch should be that the electorate will not tolerate people who occupy the position of government but do not govern. They want age, experience and a much safer pair of hands.
From The Bolt Report yesterday
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (06:40 am)
Our country
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (06:17 am)
How beautiful is this?
If Uluru symbolises the nation’s heart, the Finke must be its ancient artery. It is believed to have meandered from the confluence of the Davenport and Ormiston Creeks, just north of Glen Helen, for more than 300 million years. According to the Northern Territory Government, this makes the Finke the world’s oldest river following its original course. It says the Finke has followed its present course for about 100 million years but parts are believed to date back 340 million years, well before the time of dinosaurs.
Others disagree, but whatever: it’s old and as welcome as, well, water in a desert.
Abbott throws Gillard a lifeline … or is it a noose?
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (06:01 am)
TONY Abbott has intensified pressure on the government to enter bipartisan negotiations to salvage its offshore refugee processing regime, dismissing Labor’s claims that legal advice has killed off the option of sending asylum-seekers to Nauru....
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen (yesterday released) legal advice from the commonwealth Solicitor-General suggesting the High Court decision had effectively killed offshore processing as a policy option for Australian governments....
Mr Abbott counterpunched, saying the advice did not rule out offshore processing at Nauru, but also offering to help Labor amend the Migration Act to overcome the High Court ruling.
Exploiting Labor’s need for support given the Greens trenchant opposition to offshore processing, Mr Abbott said he was prepared to dump his previous insistence that the government reintroduce the Howard government’s temporary protection visas. “TPVs are necessary to stop the boats, but we don’t want to restrict the government in any way in making absolutely crystal clear that third-country offshore processing can continue . . . we’re not saying they’ve got to reintroduce TPVs,” Mr Abbott said....
Earlier, Mr Bowen played down the prospect of dealing with Mr Abbott, telling the ABC’s Insiders: “So far the Liberal Party has said, ‘Look, we’re prepared to talk providing the result is Nauru, TPVs and turning the boats back’. Well, that’s not talking. That’s lecturing. If Mr Abbott says he wants to talk about legislative change, well, let him say that.”
Speaking after Mr Abbott’s offer, a spokesman for Mr Bowen said the government was still considering its options.
Labor got into this mess by scrapping the Pacific Solution out of sheer pride. Will pride stop it from accepting a way out?
UPDATE
If Professor Don Rothwell is right about last week’s High Court ruling, Abbott needs Labor to accept his offer now, because he’ll otherwise have trouble bringing in his own Nauru option in Government later:
The Solicitor-General’s legal advice sends some clear messages to the government. First, it makes clear that at this point offshore processing in Malaysia, as per the High Court’s decision, and in Nauru or Papua New Guinea, would not be legally permissible. ..
Second, for any form of offshore processing to take place in the future consistent with the Migration Act, a number of developments would need to take place. These would include acceptance by that other country of the Refugee Convention, implementation of domestic laws dealing with asylum claims and respect for human rights, and the development of effective practices and procedures for the assessment of such claims. The adoption of a legally binding treaty between Australia and the other country dealing with these offshore processing arrangements would also be desirable.
In addition, the minister would also need to give attention to his obligations towards unaccompanied minors under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act. Declarations would need to be issued with respect to each child sent to another country for offshore processing.
If the government sees these processes as unworkable then it could seek to amend both the Migration Act and Guardianship Act, thereby circumventing the High Court’s ruling and creating softer, less strict, criteria on which a ministerial declaration could be issued… However, such amendments could be achieved only with the support of the Opposition.
UPDATE
THE legal advice from Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler is an intensely political document. Its logic sets the government up to abandon offshore processing of asylum-seekers while blaming it on the High Court.
Gageler’s message is that offshore processing, while legally possible, is now all too hard. It is fraught with uncertainty and, worst of all, could result in another legal challenge.
It is a logic that is perfectly suited for a government - and a Solicitor-General - who are gun-shy. They have just suffered their second thrashing at the hands of David Manne’s Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre and they do not want to make it three in a row. Gageler’s message needs to be seen in context. It is the work of a man whose earlier advice gave the government confidence in the viability of its Malaysia Solution.
The government has declined to make public his original advice, but it must be very different to the document released yesterday, which is clearly designed to turn a chaotic rout into an orderly retreat…
Just one page of the 22-page advice is devoted to future processing in Nauru. And despite the spin that is already emerging from the government, Gageler’s brief assessment does not go anywhere near ruling out Nauru as a centre for offshore processing.
UPDATE
Paul Sheehan counts the cost so far of this government’s bungling of boat people policy.
UPDATE
Chris Bowen, May 2011:
Bowen: What we’ve said about people who arrive in Australia from last Saturday – and this is the situation again consistently from now on – is that anybody who arrives in Australia will not be processed in Australia and has no guarantee of resettlement in Australia. We’re in discussions not only with Malaysia; it’s well known we’re in discussions with Papua New Guinea, for example, and other countries across the region. Those discussions are at various stages but are all productive and fruitful.
So it’s very important that people realise if they’re in Indonesia or Malaysia thinking about taking the boat journey to Australia, put simply, they should not because they will not get the outcome they are seeking which is to be processed in Australia and resettled in Australia.
But today:
MORE than 300 asylum-seekers slated to be sent to Malaysia will be processed on Australian soilas the Gillard government tries to come up with a fresh plan to deal with unauthorised boat arrivals....
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen ended the uncertainty for the 335 asylum-seekers in limbo on Christmas Island after last week’s High Court ruling declaring the Malaysian Solution invalid.
“It’s necessary to assist these people and that’s what we’re going to be doing. Their processing will commence,” Mr Bowen told ABC Radio.
What scares them so much about this story?
Andrew Bolt – Monday, September 05, 11 (12:09 am)
Andrew McIntyre on the pack attack on Michael Stutchbury:
No comments:
Post a Comment