Another boat yesterday with 39

[donnashuggy]

It sank and those on board were rescued, somewhere near Christmas Island.

Just wanted to do my bit as the media won't tell us till Friday I suppose.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

Can we save the other lies for a different thread?

---

for which side?

meh - ok, the thread's not really about asylum seekers, my mistake, apologies

but thanks for letting us know. I don't have TV, so if I don't read about it here on cs, I'd never know half of what goes on LOL

[**meep**]

---

@crosbystills wrote:

Prime Minister Cameron is getting stuck into Sri Lanka over human rights abuses while Tony openly praises their "progress" in this area (where did he get that from?) and gives their armed forces a nice little Chrissy present. This is not a good look internationally.

---

don't you mean David?  lol

ok, i'm off to bed....

[crosbystills]

---

@my*mum wrote:

plus i didnt like how ...... the rise in the tax free threshold.....was sold to us..

---

I'm puzzled how anyone could object to this policy.

Hundreds of thousands of people no longer pay tax only to have most of it returned to them.

Mountains of paper are saved and things are simplified.

Some might prefer a flat rate of tax with no threshold but it's hard to mount a strong argument against giving a break to  those in society who earn the least.

[*crikey*mate*]

it pushed a lot over a threshold where they were receiving other govt assistance now not available to them. as I said, I just didn';t like how it was sold. they made it out like it was a really special thing they were doing without telling what they were able to take back. In most cases, it wasn't extra, it ws just redistribution and different labels.

I have no problem with that, but lets call it what it really is.

many didn't benefit very much at all over all.

anyway

bed time

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Admittedly I stopped watching the news for about 18 months from the beginning of 2011, but I'm wondering if I have been living in a bubble at other times. Was every asylum seeker boat always reported on or is it just political point scoring? It just seems to have come up so much more in the last 6 months.

[donnashuggy]

They were reported, in fact the Libs never shut up about them every time - now they are in power they have changed tact.

[polksaladallie]

A lot of yesterday's questions have been answered in this thread.    

[izabsmiling]

---

@my*mum wrote:

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

I'm not over it crikey, Abbott needs to be held account for his Lies and this is just one of many

Do you really think the indonesians want the boats back? They aren't going to be deterred in a hurry, watch the video, they basically think Abbott is stupid. Well that is my interpretation.

---

donna, he hasn't really lied yet. he's trying to stop the boats, he's putting in place things to try and intercept them and also to deter them, I guess it takes time, even if he does ever become 100% successful (which I doubt) It's not like he came on board and went "meh - I was just kidding, I didn't mean it, I'm not even going to try" maybe in another 2 years we can say he lied if he hasn't given a good effort iykwim

no one can physically stand in front of the boats and stop them

yeah, I know he seems to have some strange ideas of how to stop them, so maybe the answer is to deter them with things like the off shore processing etc, intercepting them.. but it will take time for the message to get through and for people to believe it.

cos then on the other hand you have people advocating for beneficial treatment over and above what is obligated (see today's locked thread) all this continues to make it more appealing for people to try to come. So he's not just trying to contend with the other countries, he's also got to contend with internal force as well. Ya gotta be a bit fair.

I don't know and I am not sure others do either, I started a thread the other day about it, and no one could say what they would do or what they thought should happen - how they thought we could stop the boats..

I don't want to get political, I'm just happy that there are 39 people who have been saved.

wish I knew how to stop them putting themselves in the situation in the first place.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

How do we stop people seeking asylum by boat AND at the same time have save lives?

does the refugee convention say Asylum seekers can't come by boat? Is this Country complying with our obligations as per the UN  refugee convention  by trying to stop Asylum seekers?

what would stop persecuted peoples in the 1940's from getting on a boat if they could and if that was the only way?

How do other view those people now? and those who persecuted them?Those who helped them? Why do people value their own lives to do what it take to save it?

Just like you they themselves may be happy that lives are saved!!

[**meep**]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

How do we stop people seeking asylum by boat AND at the same time have save lives?

does the refugee convention say Asylum seekers can't come by boat? Is this Country complying with our obligations as per the UN  refugee convention  by trying to stop Asylum seekers?

what would stop persecuted peoples in the 1940's from getting on a boat if they could and if that was the only way?

How do other view those people now? and those who persecuted them?Those who helped them? Why do people value their own lives to do what it take to save it?

Just like you they themselves may be happy that lives are saved!!

---

Leanne Weber (a Senior Research Fellow specialising in migration policy)  says Australia's policies have even influenced Europe's policies, going back to the Howard Government's Pacific Solution.

Then-immigration minister Philip Ruddock promoted that policy in Europe.

But Dr Weber says the influence may now be going the other direction, with Europe's policies setting the precedence.

"They're based on preventing arrival, which Australia's policies are as well, so they're very focused on not allowing people to arrive in the first place. And, secondary to that, for some time, there's been a discussion about limiting or reinterpreting how asylum is granted once people actually arrive, so how the Refugee Convention is interpreted. And I notice that has appeared, in my experience, for the first time in the Australian debate."

Remember, Mr Rudd suggested changes to the Refugee Convention Agreement.

"I can't believe that Australia would ever walk away from our obligations under the convention. But at the same time I think we have to recognise that for decades actually there have been concerns about the applicability of the convention to the circumstances of the 21st century compared with the post-World War II years when it was first created."

Former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans.

Using 1940's is irrelevant when discussing the current situation.

[izabsmiling]

---

@**meep** wrote:

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

How do we stop people seeking asylum by boat AND at the same time have save lives?

does the refugee convention say Asylum seekers can't come by boat? Is this Country complying with our obligations as per the UN  refugee convention  by trying to stop Asylum seekers?

what would stop persecuted peoples in the 1940's from getting on a boat if they could and if that was the only way?

How do other view those people now? and those who persecuted them?Those who helped them? Why do people value their own lives to do what it take to save it?

Just like you they themselves may be happy that lives are saved!!

---

Leanne Weber (a Senior Research Fellow specialising in migration policy)  says Australia's policies have even influenced Europe's policies, going back to the Howard Government's Pacific Solution.

Then-immigration minister Philip Ruddock promoted that policy in Europe.

and? does that mean I must have liked/not liked it? 

But Dr Weber says the influence may now be going the other direction, with Europe's policies setting the precedence.

"They're based on preventing arrival, which Australia's policies are as well, so they're very focused on not allowing people to arrive in the first place. And, secondary to that, for some time, there's been a discussion about limiting or reinterpreting how asylum is granted once people actually arrive, so how the Refugee Convention is interpreted. And I notice that has appeared, in my experience, for the first time in the Australian debate."

Remember, Mr Rudd suggested changes to the Refugee Convention Agreement. same as above and  most relevant  imo

is has it been changed or do we still have the same Convention to which our Country is signed up to?

"I can't believe that Australia would ever walk away from our obligations under the convention. But at the same time I think we have to recognise that for decades actually there have been concerns about the applicability of the convention to the circumstances of the 21st century compared with the post-World War II years when it was first created."

Former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans.

Using 1940's is irrelevant when discussing the current situation.

is there no war,persecution,human rights abuses? or were some people more worthy perhaps?This Country went to WWII because people thought like that.

the changes made in 1967 recognise what people in this Country expect and value as their and their children human rights and  shows that this Country knows they should apply to all people.

If we are stopping people who need asylum..risk becoming like the enemy my Grandfather fought