Diary of our stinking Govt.

[boris1gary]

As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed.  The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.

This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.

and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598

Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says

The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.

Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.

"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.

[boris1gary]

and yet how much was it that Slipper was done for $900 and he had offered to pay it back, pays to have friends in high places

[debra9275]

It's very odd, the libs wanted to expel him today after defending him back in June but the opposition walked out and shaw voted himself in lol

I guess labor didn't want to fall for the same old trick again

[boris1gary]

Editorial Cartoon 2.9.14 Photo: David Pope

[karliandjacko]

---

@nero_wulf wrote:

Kevin Rudd unveils 'hard-line' PNG solution for asylum-seekers 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/kevin-rudd-to-unveil-manus-island-expan...

KEVIN Rudd has vowed to send all new asylum-seekers to Papua New Guinea under a regional resettlement deal, declaring future boatpeople will have "no chance" of staying in Australia as refugees.

---

Rudd is not in government anymore and his policy stank as much as this mobs.

[cherry*135]

Detention centres vs jails

The defence force chief responsible for border protection under the Howard government has slammed the federal government's asylum seeker policy.

Admiral Chris Barrie described detention centres as "jails" and said the policies enacted by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison were a "mess that reflect badly on all of us".

"I'm not sure we should continue to use the term 'mandatory detention' when we actually mean jail," he said.
"At least in Australian jails the incarcerated have rights of access to legal support and representation. In these jails no such rights exist."

He also accused the department of "double handling" by sending asylum seekers back to Iraq and Syria, and said Immigration Minister Scott Morrison had acknowledged the humanitarian crisis in those countries by setting aside 4400 resettlement places from the war-torn region.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/former-defence-force-chief-chris-barrie-slams-...

[tall_bearded01]

And herein lies the problem.

As a country, we, on our own, cannot cure the ills of the world. They are simply bigger than we are. Therefore though we include refugees in our immigration intake as a humanitarian component, we are simply incapable of taking them all. That is, when it comes to accepting refugees for resettlement though we are already punching well above our weight, we simply have to accept that, someone is going to have to miss out, and if you accept that basic premise, then you take on the task or determining who that someone is.

Now the problem of displaced persons is not limited to a specific region. It is worldwide, requiring a world wide solution, with those countries best placed to do a lot more doing the least – Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, name but three.

A few weeks ago we had a boat load of asserted refugees try to get here from India. Do they get preferential treatment? Or is it the 4000 plus still in Middle East and most at risk.  

The point, unless you are of the view that we are in a position to take them all, and by current UN estimates there are over 50,000,000 of them which means a trebling of our current population, you have to accept limitations have to be imposed, and if you accept limitations are required, you must also accept that they have to be enforced.

Hard time require hard decisions.

[***super_nova***]

yes, I agree, we cannot take them all.  But why would you think that country like Russia or China is capable of taking refugees?  They have huge social problems and unemployment.  But there are million of displaced people just from Syria and Iraq alone, and countries of the region are taking care of them as well as they can, Europe is splitting in the seams, and the number we are taking is just drop in the ocean.

There are many educated and English speaking people among those who arrived here on boats.  The first lot of people who went to Manus were middle class educated Iranians, either Christians or moderate Muslims, who were persecuted for their religion or views.  Such people would be immediate benefit to our society, as already trained people are.  And they are rotting in PNG with no future.

[tall_bearded01]

You appear to confuse asylum with resettlement.

Yes Europe is splitting at the seams, but they are not being accepted for resettlement. Instead they are treated as foreign nationals residing in the country without resident status, with few (if any) of the social, economic or legal rights available for to its citizens, with the real risk being, if, when things settle down, and they won’t voluntarily go home, they either form a permanent underclass of non-citizens, or sometime in the future attitudes will harden to the extent that someone will voted in somebody whose policy it is to force them out.

As for Russia, China etc. they may have their own problems but so do we. In any event, if they can’t take a few in for resettlement purposes, they can certainly provide more funds so that the camps can be made more liveable, and they can stop using their veto in the UN, which more often not is the cause of the problem in the first place.

Finally, can we do more by taking more? Yes we can and in my opinion we should. But that’s not the point of my post. No matter how many more we decide to take we will ultimately reach the point where we say no more, and having determined a limit, it follows we must choose who. A boatload of Tamils, who though safe and financially secure in the country in which they took refuge years ago decide to upgrade their living standard by emigrating here, or someone living a hand to mouth existence in some camp, who are there because they had no other option but to get out or get dead.

[boris1gary]

well what a surprise, the abbott says it's not our job to tell India how to conduct its internal affairs, but he has no problem telling Russia or Scotland. Dumb and dangerous move I reckon. The waste will also be a problem.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/tony-abbott-uranium-india

Tony Abbott defends deal to sell uranium to 'model citizen' India

Questions remain about its use, but prime minister says ‘it’s not our job to tell India how to conduct its internal affairs’

The deal would allow Australia to start shipping its abundant reserves of uranium to the subcontinent, which is struggling to meet its vast energy needs.

It’s a controversial move because India has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which ensures uranium is used for civilian energy purposes and not weapons.

[debra9275]

it's a worry selling uranimum to  some countries is my opinion Boris My daughter has a very valid theory on the sales of uranuim to China and where it may be ending up butI'd better not say on here