It is a fair assumption ...
A pretty fair bet ...

Guess it's pointless anyone saying an assumption is wrong when it is true.

People cite things, I found some are taken out of context and 'facts' cherry-picked. People claim legal knowledge and I'm supposed to believe them without question.

Nope, I'm not able to pre judge ALL these PEOPLE trying to get here on boats on the basis. Doesn't necessarily mean I want them here.
Unfortunately this thread has become a winner-takes-all 'debate'.

Nope, I'm not able to pre judge ALL these PEOPLE trying to get here on boats on the basis. Doesn't necessarily mean I want them here.

Hmm, all the advocate groups like to classify them, they call them Asylum Seekers, when that is a fact that is yet to be determined.

Hmm, all the advocate groups like to classify them, they call them Asylum Seekers, when that is a fact that is yet to be determined.

They get called different things by different mobs not just "Advocate Groups" but WTF this is just like talk-back-radio.

I'll simply refer to them now as PEOPLE unless there is something wrong with that too.

They get called different things by different mobs not just "Advocate Groups" but WTF this is just like talk-back-radio.

I'll simply refer to them now as PEOPLE unless there is something wrong with that too.

Call them what you like, 'ducks' if that suits you. My point is that the advocate groups have already decided before they get here that they are 'asylum seekers', and until they are assessed by the immigration department, they could be seeking asylum, or they could simply be cashed-up country shoppers.

I don't have a problem with them if they are genuine asylum seekers, nor for that matter if they are country shopping, but if they are the latter, then they should do so through the accepted channels, and not jump the queue.

Thirty seven pages of ..........
They are .......... They aren't;
I'm right ....... Your wrong;
No, your wrong ........ I'm right;
I'm right, my richard is bigger than yours.......
Blah blah blah

It's getting somewhat boring guys

Does anyone have a sense of humour anymore?

Bring back the Useless thread!   at least that made sense!

Call them what you like, 'ducks' if that suits you. My point is that the advocate groups have already decided before they get here that they are 'asylum seekers', and until they are assessed by the immigration department, they could be seeking asylum, or they could simply be cashed-up country shoppers.

I don't have a problem with them if they are genuine asylum seekers, nor for that matter if they are country shopping, but if they are the latter, then they should do so through the accepted channels, and not jump the queue.

"Ducks" - I like eating Duck so it's hardly appropriate.
Advocate Groups are nothing more than lobby groups for these people so they're going to use 'nicer' words. Some people don't like 'nice' words because there's a PR war out there and words press buttons with a proportion of listeners/voters/Railpagers.

They have already jumped the queue so it's too late. I pointed out that doesn't mean they should get preference over anyone else. Indeed when assessed and if approved, I would be inclined (on a case by case basis) to put them on the end of the list - to serve a waiting period outside Australia. I don't think that's anyone's policy though

Advocate groups have to label these PEOPLE 'asylum seekers' because if these PEOPLE were not so labelled it could not be said 'seeking asylum is not illegal, and hence we must let them in'. The reality is these PEOPLE are PEOPLE, without a visa or permission to arrive and yes hence they are here illegally.

I might add that many of the lobby groups have unfortunately been colonized by certain political parties for their own gain. I've seen this happen first-hand and it doesn't impress me at all.

I can also confirm from reliable sources that the Manus Island facility has become a hotbed of inter-ethnic strife due to certain hotheaded people losing their cool. Innocent people are being caught up in it. It needs to be shutdown (Manus Island detention camp that is)

Incidentally, for those still caring about numbers, the current update to the figures from my previously posted to date 05/02 now features FIFTEEN more zero arrival days, the complete span 6 through 20 February. Alas, the federal LNP government does something the Greens never thought to do, that being not holding a daily presso (with associated publications) thus in the process saving half a dozen endangered amazonian trees.

Four turn backs since February 7th, including one yesterday 25/2 (a lifeboat) returned to the Southern Indonesian coast with 25 aboard, I make that as good as three clear weeks of clean sheets on arrivals.

I'm not sure why people are seeing Conroy's comments about the integrity of certain navy personnel as being a bit Overboard

I'm not sure why people are seeing Conroy's comments about the integrity of certain navy personnel as being a bit Overboard

Considering he was talking to an Army Officer, I will help to clear your confusion.

Army = land
Navy = Sea
Air Force = Air

Omigawd CraigW; what the hell does it matter who he was talking to? His comments are the point at issue. We can do without your kindergarten class ( which was not strictly accurate anyway.)

Omigawd CraigW; what the hell does it matter who he was talking to? His comments are the point at issue. We can do without your kindergarten class ( which was not strictly accurate anyway.)

what does it matter who he was talking to?

Of course it does not matter does it?

Conroy was at a senate hearing and was talking to the officer in charge of the operation who just happens to be a Army Officer.

Did you see him question any naval personal, anyone off a ship?

With such a scant concern for accuracy, it sure seems you need a kindergarten class.

He directly accused the Officer he was talking to of a cover up remember.

You might be in a lather about "comments" but frankly I feel better knowing that accuracy is correct. When that happens, the comments are shown for what they are. Smiley face or emoticon and all.

Best way to solve this problem is for Australia to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention & 1967 Protocol.

Back in 1951 with the aftermath of WW2 in their minds, the people who drafted and signed these conventions had never heard of organised people smuggling for commercial profit or country shopping. The convention needs to be replaced with a new treaty taking into account of the modern world.

There would be a few other countries who would follow Australia lead too if given the chance.
Pretty sure Spain, Italy would follow real quick too.

Problem is many off these signatories are scared of taking the first step to withdraw. However as soon as some tier #1 "western country" withdraws, the wall will crumble.

what does it matter who he was talking to?
Of course it does not matter does it?
Conroy was at a senate hearing and was talking to the officer in charge of the operation who just happens to be a Army Officer.
Did you see him question any naval personal, anyone off a ship?
With such a scant concern for accuracy, it sure seems you need a kindergarten class.
He directly accused the Officer he was talking to of a cover up remember.
You might be in a lather about "comments" but frankly I feel better knowing that accuracy is correct. When that happens, the comments are shown for what they are. Smiley face or emoticon and all.

CraigW - you talk tripe. The officer in charge is just that - in charge. This means, just in case you don't understand, that he is the head man presiding over the whole of Operation Sovereign Borders ( or whatever it's being called this week ). The RAN is part of this operation. Do you seriously believe that the big chief has no business knowing what all involved branches of the service are doing?

I didn't see him question any naval personal or any naval personnel either.
"Scant concern for accuracy?" Where was I inaccurate?
"You might be in a lather about "comments" but frankly I feel better knowing that accuracy is correct. When that happens, the comments are shown for what they are. Smiley face or emoticon and all."
A statement which makes no sense whatsoever. The comments are what is important. They're what the Senate wants to hear.

"Knowing that accuracy is correct" is a meaningless comment - if it's accurate, by definition it's correct.

Who used a smiley?

I had a very good English teacher at High School, who taught Clear Thinking. You would have benefited greatly ( if you could actually understand it )

CraigW - you talk tripe. The officer in charge is just that - in charge. This means, just in case you don't understand, that he is the head man presiding over the whole of Operation Sovereign Borders ( or whatever it's being called this week ). The RAN is part of this operation. Do you seriously believe that the big chief has no business knowing what all involved branches of the service are doing?

I didn't see him question any naval personal or any naval personnel either.
"Scant concern for accuracy?" Where was I inaccurate?
"You might be in a lather about "comments" but frankly I feel better knowing that accuracy is correct. When that happens, the comments are shown for what they are. Smiley face or emoticon and all."
A statement which makes no sense whatsoever. The comments are what is important. They're what the Senate wants to hear.

"Knowing that accuracy is correct" is a meaningless comment - if it's accurate, by definition it's correct.

Who used a smiley?

I had a very good English teacher at High School, who taught Clear Thinking. You would have benefited greatly ( if you could actually understand it )

I understand perfectly well what an officer in charge is. It comes from having served in the defence forces for 10 years thanks. Senator Conroy was making accusations directly at the Officer in charge of the operation who is a serving army officer. he accused him - directly - of covering things up.

Remember the clumsy quoting of sections of a few good men?

The smiley face was used by Bingley Hall in his post that I replied to.

Your remarkable education of clear thinking apparently did not include looking at things did it?

Conroy should stick to what he knows best:

Using (abusing?) his 'unfettered legal power' by making prejudicial comments on court cases - in Conroy's defence I actually believe he meant 'unfeta-ed' legal powers, very few legal degrees come with cheese. The court swiftly realised he didn't know what he was talking about and he was later quoted as saying something like 'he wished the case never went to court'. Presumably because that would have prevented him from looking like a right f-wit making laughable prejudicial comments.

Suggesting that a car taking a photo of your house could gain access to your internet banking (sadly this defence was not tried by Thomson) - at least Thomson knew what https meant.

Appointing convicts of electoral fraud to government executive roles, and

Demanding others wear red underpants on their head... Probably about time he tried his own on for size.

(Oh, and I almost forgot, telling us the 'NBN is on time and on budget')

Before attempting to ask dumb questions of military officers, over which Conroy has ZERO jurisdiction, his 'qualifications' served without feta should have told him that.

I understand perfectly well what an officer in charge is. It comes from having served in the defence forces for 10 years thanks. Senator Conroy was making accusations directly at the Officer in charge of the operation who is a serving army officer. he accused him - directly - of covering things up.

And why not? Where does the buck stop? At the O.I.C. Conroy basically made an accusation that affairs were being covered up, and he made it to the appropriate person; he went to the top. Simple really.

Your remarkable education of clear thinking apparently did not include looking at things did it?

I was right; I thought it would be beyond your understanding. Remember K.I.S.S? Keep It Simple, Sonny.

Before attempting to ask dumb questions of military officers, over which Conroy has ZERO jurisdiction, his 'qualifications' served without feta should have told him that.

It may come as a ghastly shock to the Honourable Member for the University of Adelaide, that the armed forces of this country are answerable to the Parliament - note, not the Government; the Parliament. Unless he has been deposed in the last few hours, Senator Conroy is a member of the Parliament, and was exercising a parliamentary function.

It may come as a ghastly shock to the Honourable Member for the University of Adelaide, that the armed forces of this country are answerable to the Parliament - note, not the Government; the Parliament. Unless he has been deposed in the last few hours, Senator Conroy is a member of the Parliament, and was exercising a parliamentary function.

You mean like Senator Conroy is accountable to the public but has never answered my questions as to why he would make such foolish comments prejudicial to court cases ahead of both the Federal and High Court of Australia?

There's a steep cliff between what our constitution says and practical outcomes.

Conroy will be accountable for his actions either never if he retires or when I manage to get enough people to vote away his quota. Likewise our military will only ever be accountable to Conroy if he manages to gain enough votes in BOTH houses of parliament. - He's got more chance (from opposition even) of getting Kerry Stokes to appear in public with red undies on his head...

Conroy's comments were foolish, unsubstantiated, unfair and most scathingly, not apologised for. So outrageous were Conroy's assertion that even Wilke moved to have Conroy admonished and a former Labor defence minister (Fitzgibbon) refused to back Conroy's comments. Conroy is a little grub, and his position on ANY senate committee will continue to be a blight on both process and his party.

Aaron, what you think of Conroy doesn't matter two hoots. I happen to dislike him as well, but that also doesn't matter. On a parliamentary committee, or enquiry, he can ask what he likes.
To put a condition on the military being accountable, or not,  to Conroy himself is a very silly comment, and irrelevant. I repeat, the armed forces are answerable to Parliament, and Conroy was exercising this. Then, the likelihood of Kerry Stokes or Uncle Tom Cobleigh or anyone else appearing is equally irrelevant.
If Conroy's comments were unsubstantiated, does he not have the right to seek either confirmation or denial of his remarks? Of course he does. That, among other things, is what Parliament is there for. It may not suit your ideology, but you should learn to live with it.

Conroy is a little grub, and his position on ANY senate committee will continue to be a blight on both process and his party.

Bill Heffernan like this

Bill Heffernan like this

At least when Bill had something to say about the key public servant he targeted he had (unknown to him to be a forgery at the time) EVIDENCE to table. Conroy manages to comment on court defences without evidence - the trial court, the full bench of the federal court and then all but one member of the high court clearly all agreed the defence was correct and good. Conroy has no evidence of his alleged cover up, he has not tabled a single sniff of a document, do you think the besmirching of the personnel in question with no evidence is okay?

Conroy has no evidence of his alleged cover up, he has not tabled a single sniff of a document, do you think the besmirching of the personnel in question with no evidence is okay?

Point 1 - asking the question is OK. Point 2 - I have seen footage of these boat people with burns allegedly suffered at the hands of RAN personnel. It is evidence - it may be credible; it may not, but the question should be asked. The allegations were dismissed out of hand and with great indignation by both Morrison and Abbott, which would be fine if our defence forces had a 100% squeaky clean record. Sex offences and bastardization in Defence establishments is not a squeaky clean record. Aaron - I'd love to see you look at a picture with an unbiased viewpoint.
Anyone accused of anything, guilty or not, is besmirched to some degree - try Lindy Chamberlain for example.

I had a chat to some Iranian friends on the weekend.  We had a very frank and open discussion on the issue of Asylum Seekers.  One comment made was that Australia's welfare system was part of the problem of mental illness and despair - they want to work, make a contribution to Australian society/economy, and not sit around receiving taxpayers dollars while on Bridging Visas.  These were educated people.

Scott Morrison wanted to convert Permanent Protection Visas to Temporary (3 year) Visas which would enable them to work.  Problem being that the ALP/Greens have said "No" (leaving them in bridging visa limbo-land), and these TP Visas are automatically revoked if one leaves Australia temporarily.

I mentioned about the dangers of boat travel (they admitted this was true), but felt they had no alternative option given they could not return to Iran given the political situation and intimidation there.  It was risk they were willing to take.

Meanwhile, it seems those on Manus Island are pretty much trapped.  Not good.