Australia will grow to like Tony Abbott as PM

[Paradigm]

Not trying to be a smart arse, but what would you do in the same situation?

How much money do I have in this hypothetical?
And do I have a passport?

 

[Mofra]

How much money do I have in this hypothetical?

Enough to get to Australia by boat.
I'd guess $2-3k based on the estimates of an ex grilfriend works with in the NFPS so those figures are purely anecdotal.

 

[King Elvis]

Which one was she Mof?

 

[Freddy Bassett]

What I would NOT do is put them on a dodgy boat

Really. I am sure I could throw some situations at you where you would.

 

[Mofra]

Genuine/Not Genuine Refugee =/= No danger to the community

As with having ID (assuming passports aren't faked) is not a judgement on someone presenting a danger to the community, despite efforts to infer the opposite.

If our sole consideration was to accept the most refugees relative to not-refugees you'd be right. There are other considerations though. Namely knowing who is coming to the country and their background.

I understand your point here, but if someone has arrived in Australia and are assessed to be a genuine refugee, we must offer them their full suite of rights as per the UNCHR.
This is an independant process to determinig "risk to the community".

It's prima facie evidence of identification. With that other references can be checked. Without ID it becomes a very drawn out process.

The drawn out nature of the process is determined by policy, not ID requirements. Many other countries (with exponentially greater numbers of refugee arrivals) have a far shorter processes that offer cheaper solutions to the issue.

 

[Mofra]

Which one was she Mof?

The most recent live-in GF - by some weird quirk of nature we're still friends.

 

[jo172]

I understand your point here, but if someone has arrived in Australia and are assessed to be a genuine refugee, we must offer them their full suite of rights as per the UNCHR.
This is an independant process to determinig "risk to the community".


The drawn out nature of the process is determined by policy, not ID requirements. Many other countries (with exponentially greater numbers of refugee arrivals) have a far shorter processes that offer cheaper solutions to the issue.

Mofra, I fundamentally agree with you.

Just your initial argument objecting to the different treatment of people depending on method of arrival being wrong/flawed I disagree with.

There are reasons more than pure rhetoric for their differing treatment.

 

[Mofra]

^ There are going to be disagreements on practicalities even when people agree on the fundamentals.

I do like Julian Burnside's take on the issue, when pressed for a solution - build the processing centres in Indonesia.

It would be far cheaper, removes the need for sea crossing, actually creates a queue (there isn't one now ) and allows the flow of genuine refugees into Australia to be regulated and steady.

There is no single-country solution to this issue.

 

[dockshark]

And those people lob with a passport and correct id. I would imagine verification of their identity and status would be relatively simple.

So - my question remains - WHY by boat?

I would have no problem AT ALL with sending over planes to collect people from refugee camps - in fact I would prefer this to spending the millions and millions of dollars on this on/off shore processing fiasco.

Okay, sorry I didn’t respond to your earlier question on this, I didn’t see new posts because tapatalk was playing up on my phone.


First a bit of context; Afghanistan has an extremely high number of people living below the poverty line. This fact is exacerbated by the near continuous conflict (some of which we have contributed to) over a number of years . At this point in time there are likely over 450,000 displaced people (or refugees if you like) in Afghanistan (this doesn’t include those in extremely poor conditions in Syria, Pakistan and Iran). Then consider the very difficult terrain and climate, coupled with the problematic security situation, all of which makes it extremely difficult for international aid organisations to have an adequate presence. Whilst setting up an internal Afghan defence capability seemed like a sensible solution, it has actually proved to be very difficult to implement, mainly due to the Taliban (and Taliban sympathetic activist groups and individuals). From the Taliban’s point of view, because countries like America, Australia, Canada, and Holland have overseen the development of both the Afghan Local Police and the Afghan Defence Force, these local agencies are seen (by the Taliban) to have worked with the enemy, and therefore they deem them to be enemies of the ‘true Afghanistan’. Whilst this is clearly (to us) an extremist view, it is very real to those fighting for the Taliban, who truly believe in what they are doing.

This brings us to people that are targeted by the Taliban (and a number of other extremist groups operating within Afghanistan). There are a variety of reasons that flying is not an option for some refugees, a large number of males that are attempting escape are running from Taliban, or Taliban strike groups (due mainly to religious persecution). In order to go about getting a passport, and then officially leaving the country these people would need to adequately identify themselves to government agencies. Remember that the government in Afghanistan is in it’s infancy and is attempting to work through a myriad of problems, none the least of which is the infiltration of Taliban agents or sympathetic activists. For someone attempting escape from Taliban, to try to go out via official channels has the potential to put both them, and their remaining family members at severe risk. This is complicated by the fear amongst their communities, so that even if it was possibly safe, they would be extremely sceptical, and unlikely to trust the system.

The situation in Afghanistan is extremely dire, and getting worse all the time. There is no reason to conclude that those in Africa are more deserving of help than those in Afghanistan, and as is probably fairly clear, I find the attitude displayed towards boat borne refugees by some sectors of the Australian community to be quite shameful. There is an enormous amount of myths floating around, and it seems to me that some people are much more interested in believing the political rhetoric (that these people actually present a risk to our border security) than actually understanding the problems, and being sympathetic towards peoples plights.

Please understand, I have only touched on the answer to your question here (and only focussed on Afghanistan) but if you do want to learn more about the situation in Afghanistan then I can point you towards some reference material.

PS- In your earlier reply where you looked at a map (kudos by the way) you mentioned some developed nations along the way or closer. You seem to have concluded that those countries don’t take boat borne refugees, but this is not correct. In fact if you look at the number of boats arriving in Europe for example, it far, far exceeds the tiny number that arrive here. It is unreasonable for us as an extremely wealthy developed nation to expect other countries to take the entire burden of boat borne refugees.

PSS- a final point regarding the queue that you and several others keep referring. Let’s just look at one UNHCR facility, Jakarta. Australia has not taken a single refugee from the UNHCR in Jakarta - from this 'queue' - for years. People understandably end up giving up on the 'queue' and resort to coming to countries (like Australia) by boat. There has been several examples of people that have been granted UNHCR refugee status leaving UNHCR camps and resorting to other means out of desperation.


I hope this reply gives you some context to the situation, and I also hope that this dialogue is helping you to understand why terms like ‘economic country shopper’ are inappropriate and offensive.

 

[Northalives]

Abbott is more of a psychopath than Latham. He is a dangerous extremist who, by his own admission, doesn't care much about economics and that is no more evident than his rantings about cutting this and that and spending on this and that and when questioned about the humongous black hole this would create, he basically uses the Bjelke Petersen line; "don't you worry about that".

 

[Paradigm]

Really. I am sure I could throw some situations at you where you would.

And I am sure there are bizarre situations where I would do all sorts of things.

But...
If I had $10000 (not the 2 or 3 Mofra suggests ) I would find somewhere safe, feed and house my kids , apply for refugee status , work at whatever shitty job I had to RATHER than put them on a boat.

If I had a passport I'd fly here and hope for the best.

And Dockshark - you somehow assume I am impervious to the plight of these people. I am not. And this is now way off topic. I have said before
1. My sympathy lie with those that have NO money and NO food and NO options more and
2. It is a source country /UN issue - yes - build processing centres in Indonesia - good idea
3. We cannot help every single person who needs it - therefore our ability to help must be reserved for those most in need.

 

[holy diver]

Abbott is more of a psychopath than Latham. He is a dangerous extremist who, by his own admission, doesn't care much about economics and that is no more evident than his rantings about cutting this and that and spending on this and that and when questioned about the humongous black hole this would create, he basically uses the Bjelke Petersen line; "don't you worry about that".

Abbott is a populist. He appears unconcerned about substance.

 

[noddy]

Besides his rants on repealing the carbon tax/mining tax, stop the boats, paid parental leave that favours the high income earners & denigrate FWA back to works choices mk two although under a different banner what the heck does Mr Abbott really stand for?

& please none of the fairy floss stuff that Dan preaches.

 

[Dry Rot]

Besides his rants on carbon tax, mining tax, stop the boats, paid parental leave that favours the high income earners & denigrate FWA back to works choices mk two although under a different banner what the heck does Mr Abbott really stand for?

& please none of the fairy floss stuff that Dan preaches.

Surf lifesaving.

 

[noddy]

Surf lifesaving.

Not as good as the hooker one.

 

[Paradigm]

Besides his rants on carbon tax, mining tax, stop the boats, paid parental leave that favours the high income earners & denigrate FWA back to works choices mk two although under a different banner what the heck does Mr Abbott really stand for?

& please none of the fairy floss stuff that Dan preaches.

Noddy ...you are being disingeniuous.....
Anything resembling Work Choices is gone and you must recognise the problems with FW....I have no issue with environmental policies , but can we at least have a vote on them. The mining tax - well, it couldn't be more of a stuff up if he tried, I disagree with any parental leave scheme , and the boats ...well.... there's got to be a better way.

Smaller govt, more fiscal responsibility and less govt waste is the basic philosophy .... I guess he'll let us know in good time..... Til then, enjoy ....

http://www.liberal.org.au/Policies.aspx

 

[holy diver]

Besides his rants on repealing the carbon tax/mining tax, stop the boats, paid parental leave that favours the high income earners & denigrate FWA back to works choices mk two although under a different banner what the heck does Mr Abbott really stand for?

& please none of the fairy floss stuff that Dan preaches.

Surf lifesaving.

Red Speedo's, climate change denial and perhaps insulting asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton when he was minister for health?

 

[dockshark]

Besides his rants on repealing the carbon tax/mining tax, stop the boats, paid parental leave that favours the high income earners & denigrate FWA back to works choices mk two although under a different banner what the heck does Mr Abbott really stand for?

& please none of the fairy floss stuff that Dan preaches.

He stands for maintaining the educational divide between high and low income students. The off the cuff rejection of the Gonski findings, and the scare mongering by Chris Pyne show us this. The Gonski review clearly shows that we are falling behind our asian neighbours.....and the coalition's position is that they'll maintain the current system, and then worse, will if elected reverse any changes that the government make.

Why on earth they would take this position is beyond me. If you read the report, it only suggests that government funding should be removed/reduced from the super elite schools that are running profit. We could (and imho should) have the best public education system in the world.

Children don't choose their parents, and this educational divide should not exist imho.

This is just another alarming policy position from the coalition....

 

[Pessimistic]

He stands for maintaining the educational divide between high and low income students. The off the cuff rejection of the Gonski findings, and the scare mongering by Chris Pyne show us this. The Gonski review clearly shows that we are falling behind our asian neighbours.....and the coalition's position is that they'll maintain the current system, and then worse, will if elected reverse any changes that the government make.

Why on earth they would take this position is beyond me. If you read the report, it only suggests that government funding should be removed/reduced from the super elite schools that are running profit. We could (and imho should) have the best public education system in the world.

Children don't choose their parents, and this educational divide should not exist imho.


This is just another alarming policy position from the coalition....

Abbotts type believe you only need a brain at the top of soceity, the rest can just be bogan drones

 

[Freddy Bassett]

He stands for maintaining the educational divide between high and low income students. The off the cuff rejection of the Gonski findings, and the scare mongering by Chris Pyne show us this. The Gonski review clearly shows that we are falling behind our asian neighbours.....and the coalition's position is that they'll maintain the current system, and then worse, will if elected reverse any changes that the government make.

Why on earth they would take this position is beyond me. If you read the report, it only suggests that government funding should be removed/reduced from the super elite schools that are running profit. We could (and imho should) have the best public education system in the world.

Children don't choose their parents, and this educational divide should not exist imho.This is just another alarming policy position from the coalition....

Spot on, but I wont dwell on it otherwise I will be called a 'Commo'...
Ah, bugger it, health aswell. Why should one child receive better care than another? All youth's under 21 should receive the same health care....

 

[Daytripper]

Can any of the Socialists here care to explain how spending more money on poorer students will increase their learning standards.

Also, how does this work in a practical sense. If your taxable income is below a certain level, do your kids get a free laptop?

Or do you use the average taxable income per school?
So a kid from Ascot Vale who lives in a 2 million dollar house could be lumped in with a kid from the Kensington commission flats for example.
Thereby disadvantaging the Kensington kid or advantaging the Ascot Vale kid.

Also, by giving a school extra money how does that help a kid from Moe who lives with his 5 step brothers and sisters in a 2 bedroom house with their 25 year old mother !!!!!

Does the Goneski Report actually specify how the money is to be used or is the usual wishy-washy socialistic well meaning garbage with no details?

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Can any of the Socialists here care to explain how spending more money on poorer students will increase their learning standards.

Also, how does this work in a practical sense. If your taxable income is below a certain level, do your kids get a free laptop?

Or do you use the average taxable income per school?
So a kid from Ascot Vale who lives in a 2 million dollar house could be lumped in with a kid from the Kensington commission flats for example.
Thereby disadvantaging the Kensington kid or advantaging the Ascot Vale kid.

Also, by giving a school extra money how does that help a kid from Moe who lives with his 5 step brothers and sisters in a 2 bedroom house with their 25 year old mother !!!!!

Does the Goneski Report actually specify how the money is to be used or is the usual wishy-washy socialistic well meaning garbage with no details?

It isn't about targetting specific children, it is about improving public schools. My wife is a public school primary teacher. The difference between a school in a poor area compared to middle class are is mind boggling. And it isn't just the students.

 

[PottSie2]

It isn't about targetting specific children, it is about improving public schools. My wife is a public school primary teacher. The difference between a school in a poor area compared to middle class are is mind boggling. And it isn't just the students.

We just spent $17 Billion on an Education Revolution.

My kids Catholic school only receives 80% of funding that a public school does. We are already being punished. We make it up through fees and working bees and fund-raising, but yet, here we have the Govt. portraying public schools as the victims, and private/independent schools as the evil 'rich' ones. The whole class-warfare thing is getting old.

Specifically, what differences are you talking about ? (feel free to start another thread about it).

 

[dockshark]

Can any of the Socialists here care to explain how spending more money on poorer students will increase their learning standards.

Also, how does this work in a practical sense. If your taxable income is below a certain level, do your kids get a free laptop?

Or do you use the average taxable income per school?
So a kid from Ascot Vale who lives in a 2 million dollar house could be lumped in with a kid from the Kensington commission flats for example.
Thereby disadvantaging the Kensington kid or advantaging the Ascot Vale kid.

Also, by giving a school extra money how does that help a kid from Moe who lives with his 5 step brothers and sisters in a 2 bedroom house with their 25 year old mother !!!!!

Does the Goneski Report actually specify how the money is to be used or is the usual wishy-washy socialistic well meaning garbage with no details?

Good questions, firstly the Gonski review recommends setting up of a national body that will work out the real world annual costs of educating a child up to a minimum excellent standard. Once this is set we can start to have a more realistic understanding of how much total funding schools need in order to achieve this minimum standard of excellence. The report does look at specific ways of closing the divide, but in reality this is going to be school and area specific, therefore it would be a mistake to put too strict controls on use of funding (provided it is not simply wasted of course)

As for how does more money help, well that's a big question. Firstly looking at the standard of schools resources, currently there is a disconnect with different schools, in different socioeconomic boundries. This happens for a variety of reasons, including the greater funding from voluntary contributions by families in high socioeconomic public schools.

We know that children from higher educated parents are more likely to achieve above average educational results, therefore low socioeconomic schools are much more likely to need intensive intervention programs (which are expensive to resource and run). We also know that children from lower socioeconomic areas are more likely to have behavioural problems and self-esteem problems. This is another area where funding is desperately required to get most psychologists, councillors, and behavioural experts on the ground in schools. Another avenue for tackling these issues is via programs such as AVID, Tribes etc all of which are expensive to run effectively.

Yet another area where additional funding would help is in providing teachers with professional development training that is specific to the needs of the particular school, rather than generic stuff.

All of this is just scratching the surface, and I understand exactly what you mean, and agree. It is no good just throwing money at schools and expecting problems to disappear. The spending needs to be controlled and targeted, but there also needs to be enough autonomy for schools to target their specific needs.

The coalitions flat rejection of the review is frankly a joke, and conveys a total lack of concern for the importance of public education for our future.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

We just spent $17 Billion on an Education Revolution.

My kids Catholic school only receives 80% of funding that a public school does. We are already being punished. We make it up through fees and working bees and fund-raising, but yet, here we have the Govt. portraying public schools as the victims, and private/independent schools as the evil 'rich' ones. The whole class-warfare thing is getting old.

Specifically, what differences are you talking about ? (feel free to start another thread about it).

Honestly, the major difference was the standard of the teachers.... I know you are going to ask how will money make a difference... And I dont pretend to know... But the gap between the schools was massive