Coalition to Deny Asylum Seekers Government Help to Navigate Migration Process

[icyfroth]

A Coalition government will harshen its stance against asylum seekers even further, denying those who arrive by boat the right to free government advice and help with lodging appeals.

The Coalition's scrapping of taxpayer-funded assistance for asylum seekers, to be announced on Saturday by opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, will save the budget about $100 million over the next four years.

Even under the harsh border protection policies of former prime minister John Howard, such protections existed for asylum seekers, but Mr Morrison said they had gotten ''out of hand'' with the ''deluge of boats'' under Labor.

An Abbott government would not prevent refugee advocates from giving free legal advice to asylum seekers, but taxpayers would no longer be paying for it, Mr Morrison said.

''This level of support is not provided to those who currently legally arrive in Australia,'' Mr Morrison said. ''They have to pay for it themselves.''

Click Here To Read Whole Article

Oooh Waaah!

That's going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

[lakeland27]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

In case you missed it. 

Australia is not suffering a budget emergency.

Our debt is not huge. The current government is investing for the future in health, education, infrastructure. 

As you love to blame the "poor" for being bad managers, why don't you do some actual research about poverty before sticking the boot in? Your comparison between rich and poor is simplistic and arrogant.

---

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make saying that "Australia is not suffering a budget emergency".

As for "our debt is not huge"  - yikes!~

It has very little to do with the level of debt. What is important is how we are going to pay for it.

The current government may be investing in our future, but someone has to make sure the future is still there to invest in, eh?

Regardless, my comments are not of a biased political nature so I am not sure why you need to direct political hostility towards me. The facts remain the same no matter whose policy it is. My comments pertain to the policy and the economics surrounding it.

As for the rich and poor analogy, you have clearly misinterpreted my intention. My intention was to highlight why Australia needs to ensure a strong and sustainable economy. If our economy falters, then we become weak and susceptible to the whims of other countries. The stronger and more sustainable that we are, the greater our chances are of becoming independent and non reliant on support from other countries. The stronger and more sustainable that we are, the less chance there is of other countries gaining power over us.

Whilstever we are in debt to somebody, they have power over us. Whilstever we are in debt to somebody we are poor and until we get out of debt, we will remain poor which will significantly impact on our global power and sustainability of our nation.

Just to make it a little bit political - whilst I appreciate the need to plan ahead and implement strategies to benefit our future. It is careless to do so in a manner under which we cannot afford to do so and jeopardizes the very future for which they are planning.

Planning for the future is a wonderful thing, if you can afford to do so. The basic principle for all is to live within your means. If that future is to be realized, then it is up to whatever leaders we have in the present to implement strategies in order to ensure that we do have a future to plan for.

---

 the abbott calls of 'Budget Emergency ' are tosh. he silenced himself with his PPL scheme, he proved himself disingenous with one policy.  you really need better source material.

[freakiness]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

As for the rich and poor analogy, you have clearly misinterpreted my intention. My intention was to highlight why Australia needs to ensure a strong and sustainable economy. If our economy falters, then we become weak and susceptible to the whims of other countries. The stronger and more sustainable that we are, the greater our chances are of becoming independent and non reliant on support from other countries. The stronger and more sustainable that we are, the less chance there is of other countries gaining power over us.

---

No, you clearly said the difference between rich and poor is that the rich invest then spend and the poor spend then invest. 

As for Australia, we are in a better position than almost the whole world. The economy is not faltering. We are not becoming weak. Our economy is strong and sustainable. Did you read the article I copied or just ignore The Economist contribution because it doesn't suit your agenda?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

 

The rest of that post is incoherent and unstructured. You need to be clear in enunciating what you are talking about, not mash together vague generalizations in the hope that you will convince someone that your opinion is informed.

---

and no ...no one needs  to do anything you tell them they need to do 

---

Well then, don't ask me questions.

I cannot answer if I cannot make sense of what you write.

---

I didn't actually ask you a question in that post  .My post was a post on these boards not member specific/limited and actually a reply to Martini's post.

---

LOL - Martini didn't ask "how are we going to pay for it" LOLOL, nor do any of her posts contain material to which you referred.

But please keep going, if nothing else, the backpeddling, deflection and subterfuge is entertaining 🙂

[**meep**]

Thanks for those stats Martini.   I will look at them more closely a little later when I have more time but I did have a quick look and in response to your claim:

If we were to assume that 99% are granted refugee status (regardless of how they arrive in the country) then those figures won't change much to those granted refugee status

according to one of the tables in your link - primary grant rate for Non-IMA (air-arrival) for 2010-2011 was 25.3%

I still fail to see the irony because the main concern is deaths at sea and stopping people smugglers.

[izabsmiling]

now this is getting harder .I need to read a discussion and write down who raised certain things during the discussion and from then on any comments I make on any issues they mentioned on that/those matter/s are to be only for them ..not the whole board ?

then maybe all posts should be for/to  Icy ?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

As for the rich and poor analogy, you have clearly misinterpreted my intention. My intention was to highlight why Australia needs to ensure a strong and sustainable economy. If our economy falters, then we become weak and susceptible to the whims of other countries. The stronger and more sustainable that we are, the greater our chances are of becoming independent and non reliant on support from other countries. The stronger and more sustainable that we are, the less chance there is of other countries gaining power over us.

---

No, you clearly said the difference between rich and poor is that the rich invest then spend and the poor spend then invest. 

As for Australia, we are in a better position than almost the whole world. The economy is not faltering. We are not becoming weak. Our economy is strong and sustainable. Did you read the article I copied or just ignore The Economist contribution because it doesn't suit your agenda?

---

Yes, I did. I did say "the difference between rich and poor is that the rich invest then spend and the poor spend then invest" If we are a rich nation, we can invest and thus ensure long term sustainablity so that we have a future to plan for. If we are poor, then we have to spend what we have for short term sustainability and have nothing left over to invest and cannot plan for our future.

I didn't say our economy was faltering, nor that we are becoming weak.

What I did say was that it is the job of our leaders to implement strategies to ensure that our economy doesn't falter, to ensure that we do not become weak and to ensure that we do indeed have a long term sustainable future.

I read the article, but had no need to comment  as it had no relevance to what I did say, particulary because I have no agenda.

No where have I said that I agree with this policy, however I can understand why it has been posited and can appreciate the reasons for why it has been put forth as it has.. I do wish it were different. (I'm pretty sure that I have even said that, but I guess you missed that as it doesn't suit your agenda, eh?) I do wish that we could welcome everyone unequivocally and without prejudice, but the facts are that it doesn't matter what I wish for, it only matters what our leaders can do with what they have and one thing they do not have is an inexhaustible supply of money and/or credit.

[izabsmiling]

---

@**meep** wrote:

Iza, what do you propose as a solution to end people smugging trade? 

---

The solution to end the people smuggling trade would be imo 

For the World to come to an end

[*crikey*mate*]

ROFL

Iza for PM!

Now there's a solution that's gonna fly, eh?

End the World!

LOLOLOLOLOL

[para-sights]

Or maybe just for Australia to end... but then we would be complaining about the countries that won't take us in...

[fourandsixpants]

I am sick to death of TA's MANTRA......"we will stop the 'boawts'....".

The 'boawts' are not the main problem to be addressed.