That's not the right way.

Paying someone to take you to Australian waters and then making a phone call is not the right way.

Setting fire to your boat, sinking it, destroying your paperwork, yep, all indications of not the right way

and wanting to make sure you are picked up by an Australian boat.

Hence why the rules and laws were changed so it didn't work any more.

End result. They stopped coming, which proves they were not Asylum Seekers.

If they were Asylum Seekers, they would keep coming.

Since this thread appears to have run completely off the track, I guess it's Ok for  me to make an off topic comment.

One of the things that has struck me over this entire fiasco is how exraordinarily inept, politically, Abbott's response has been.

The report presented him with a golden opportunity. Even though it was only a 15 month "snapshot" the inescapable inference to be drawn from it was that the abuse had been going on for a long time - mostly on Labor's watch. Abbott could have seized on that - castigated the opposotion for allowing it to happen and promised that he would be the knight in shining armour who would stand up to defend these innocents, hunt down the perpetrtors of the abuse and ensure that it never happened again. Everyone would have cheered and Labor would have been left with egg on it's face.

Instead he has tried to shoot the messenger,  seemingly instructed anothe rperson to  offer inducements on his behalf  to a public officer and quite possibly lied to pariament about it.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

GSE

I have to agree with you to an extent.

And if you look on the Age or SMH web site, you will see an article today on the exact subject,

something about Abbott could have taken the high moral road ...........

He could have done as you said and still shot the messenger !

LOL

GSE

Can I send you a link via PM ?

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

 

GSE

 

Can I send you a link via PM ?

 

 

---

Please do - and thank you for having the courtesy to ask first.

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Since this thread appears to have run completely off the track, I guess it's Ok for  me to make an off topic comment.

 

One of the things that has struck me over this entire fiasco is how exraordinarily inept, politically, Abbott's response has been.

 

The report presented him with a golden opportunity. Even though it was only a 15 month "snapshot" the inescapable inference to be drawn from it was that the abuse had been going on for a long time - mostly on Labor's watch. Abbott could have seized on that - castigated the opposotion for allowing it to happen and promised that he would be the knight in shining armour who would stand up to defend these innocents, hunt down the perpetrtors of the abuse and ensure that it never happened again. Everyone would have cheered and Labor would have been left with egg on it's face.

 

Instead he has tried to shoot the messenger,  seemingly instructed anothe rperson to  offer inducements on his behalf  to a public officer and quite possibly lied to pariament about it.

 

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

---

That is so true.  

He had the perfect opportunity to take the report and use it to demonstrate that his govt had made real prgress in egtting the children out of detention and instead he reverted to form and went on to attack the messenger.

The only answer is that he is following the IPA agenda to shut down the AHRC.

They didnt want to miss out on the welfare

I did have a chuckle at this.

Denied, admitted, retracted !

"In that evidence, Professor Triggs initially denied discussing an inquiry with Labor but then admitted to discussions

with two Labor ministers, including during the election caretaker period. She later retracted that evidence."

Does she know what she did and when ???????

Very unprofessional !

"Having sat mute during the Labor years, Triggs’ HRC launched its inquiry into children in detention when the Abbott government

took office — although she revealed when she was called before a senate inquiry last year that she had been in discussion

with two of Labor’s failed immigration ministers, Chris Bowen and Tony Burke."

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

 

I did have a chuckle at this.

 

 

Denied, admitted, retracted !

 

"In that evidence, Professor Triggs initially denied discussing an inquiry with Labor but then admitted to discussions

with two Labor ministers, including during the election caretaker period. She later retracted that evidence."

 

Does she know what she did and when ???????

 

Very unprofessional !

 

 

---

Yes, very unprofessional of the chairperson.

She agreed to take questions on notice and they should have accepted that instead of hounding for a guessed answer.

She sent the evidence to confirm her answers on December 10 and the chairperson did not bother to read it.