The latest weekly Roy Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead unchanged at 61-39, although its primary vote is down 1.5 per cent to 51.5 per cent while the Coalition is unchanged on 33.5 per cent. The slack has been taken up by Family First and independent/others.
Elsewhere:
• The Central Midlands & Coastal Advocate reports that Liberal Kalgoorlie MP Barry Haase has been making himself known in the areas of O’Connor which will be in the new seat of Durack under the radically redrawn boundaries. Despite being 75 years old, Wilson Tuckey has reportedly been taking an interest in the city of Kalgoorlie, which along with the southern coast from Albany to Esperance and areas of the South West will constitute the redrawn O’Connor.
• Liberal National Party candidate Andrea Caltabiano is launching a challenge against her 74-vote defeat by Labor’s Steve Kilburn in Chatsworth at the March 21 Queensland election. Claimed irregularities include double voting, particularly by candidates who lodged absent votes, and voters being wrongly removed from the roll.
• The Australasian Study of Parliament Group Queensland Chapter is holding a “behind the scenes review of the Queensland 2009 State Election” at the George Street parliamentary annexe from 6pm on Monday, Apirl 27. Star attractions are Antony Green, Treasurer Andrew Fraser, Keating government Attorney-General Michael Lavarch and Lawrence Springborg’s former chief-of-staff Paul Turner. RSVP by Monday to Erin Pasley, who can be reached at Erin-DOT-Paisley-AT-parliament-DOT-qld-DOT-gov-DOT-AU or on 3406 7931.
• No, I haven’t forgotten the May 2 Tasmanian Legislative Council elections – I will have a post up when I get time. In the meantime, Antony Green outlines the candidates.
NOTE: I am leaving open the previous thread for those who wish to continue the discussion, if that’s the right word, about asylum seekers, indigenous affairs, racism and the rest. This thread is for pretty much anything else.
Diogenes,
Who do you believe?
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25353359-5001021,00.html
The 1967 protocol simply removed the provisions of the 1951 convention that restricted it to refugees at or before 1951, and in Europe only.
It is contrary to Australian law for any person who is not an Australian citizen or resident to enter or be in Australian territory without proper authorisation, such as a visa. I am currently checking exactly which law specifies this.
slight diversion
the CDP has expelled Rev. Dr. G moyes.
fred nile is asking gordon to resign his seat to allow a CDP member to sit.
gordon has announced that he is thinking of joining…..
drum roll
FF
the religious right is about to go feral on itself
😉
[ShowsOn, there’s no necessary contradiction. A sympathetic court will find anyone from a country like Afghanistan with a reasonably convincing tale of woe to be a genuine refugee, particularly when the alternative is more endless litigation.]
Where did I refer to courts? The previous GOVERNMENT came to a judgement that MOST of the people on Naru, from the Tampa, were refugees, and granted them refugee status. Of course most of these people were stuck in detention for three years before the government made its decision.
If you think our system is so completely corrupt that ANYONE can receive refugee status simply by court appeals, how were 11 people rejected, and thus flown back to Afghanistan?
The fact is, during 2001, the previous government made a whole lot of bluster about how NO ONE aboard the Tampa would “ever set foot on Australian soil” and then 3 years later MOST of them not only set foot on Australian soil, but were granted refugee status, and many have now become Australian citizens.
What we need to do is get rid of Governments making ridiculous claims simply to fuel racist sentiment that they can’t enforce due to 1) Australia’s international obligations and 2) THE MIGRATION ACT that says people are ALLOWED to claim to be refugees, which is then tested by a proper a set of procedures to determine whether or not the claim is true.
Saying that most of those aboard Tampa were granted refugee status simply because they managed to tie up the courts is a load of rubbish. That suggests you have no confidence in the courts or the migration act. The migration act narrowly defines on what matters courts can and can’t make determinations on. Effectively Ruddock amended the act so courts can only rule on whether or not the department (on behalf of the minister) followed correct procedure for making determinations of refugee status.
Courts can’t simply listen to the circumstances of the person making the application, and form their own judgement on whether or not the person is a refugee. Ruddock amended the act to REMOVE a heap of court discretion in this regard, so that now they essentially can only make judgement on whether or not the government followed proper PROCESS.
The fact most people aboard Tampa were found to be refugees was made based on Ruddock’s legislation, with the Howard government rules. If they knew a legal way of NOT recognising these people as refugees they would’ve done so, because after all, they were the ones who PROMISED to the Australian people those aboard Tampa would NEVER end up here. The fact they couldn’t figure out a way to do this shows that MOST of the people aboard Tampa ultimately had a compelling case for refugee status, and it was granted. What happened in 2001 was just moronic bluster designed to help win an election that bared no relation to the proper administration of the migration act.
[Behind the scenes, critics of Mr Pyne have named Steven Ciobo, Greg Hunt, Peter Dutton, Jamie Briggs, Michael Keenan and Scott Morrison as being a part of the “big swinging ***s”.]
GG
There’s so much venality in the Liberal Party that it would be foolish to try and pick which one was telling the truth. I suspect that they are all pathological liars.
[the CDP has expelled Rev. Dr. G moyes.
fred nile is asking gordon to resign his seat to allow a CDP member to sit.]
I hope he sits as an independent just to piss Nile off.
What kind of blokes would call themselves BSDs?
Obviously the kind who indulge in this sort of behaviour
[At a Liberal party room meeting last month, Mr Pyne is understood to have walked to the front table and chatted with Malcolm Turnbull while Ms Bishop was giving her address as deputy leader.]
[She (Bishop) would be making a point and he’d start talking over her.]
Rather rude BSDheads
Diogs,
It also assumes that there is only one group trying to undermine Bishop, win the hearts and minds of modern Liberal Party, place the Party in a job ready situation to take back Government. (Choose your own interpretation).
I’ve said before that there are far too many Leadership aspirants floating around the Liberal parliamentary team that any hope of a co ordinated approach to lunch, let alone policy is impossible. Would not surprise me that some would undermine themselves in the short term in order to destroy a competitor.
[It is contrary to Australian law for any person who is not an Australian citizen or resident to enter or be in Australian territory without proper authorisation, such as a visa. I am currently checking exactly which law specifies this.]
It’s the migration act. The migration act also gives people in Australia’s migration who don’t have a visa (unlawful non-citizens) the right to claim refugee status.
Turnbull obviously has absolutely no control over his Party. I’m surprised he’s been such a dud. Just think how well-disciplined Howie had them. Disunity is death. I can see why GP, Glen etc are tearing their hair out.
[It’s the migration act. The migration act also gives people in Australia’s migration who don’t have a visa (unlawful non-citizens) the right to claim refugee status.]
Correct. They are not illegal, they are unlawful.
People such as Adam use the term ‘illegal’ because it sells better, not because it is in any way factual
Howard had the power of patronage. Turnbull can’t really offer anything substantial.
Turnbull has employed a deliberate strategy of criticising the Government’s use of debt to ameliorate the effects of the GFC in Australia. Turnbull said he expected to take a hit in the polls. So the poor showing should not be a surprise.
However, the problems he has with his strategy are that,
(a) Rudd’s strategy might well be the right one,
(b) Even if it isn’t there is no guarantee that the voters would turn on Rudd in the short to medium term.
(c) Even if the voters do turn against the Government there is no guarantee that Turnbull will be there to reap the benefits.
I think Adam and Howard have a lot more in common than maybe Adam himself realises – possibly except for TPV/Pacific Solution.
Also I have it on good authority that people smugglers and unlawful non-citizens religiously watch Parliament Question Time as a way of getting hints and tips on Govt Immigration Policy loopholes.
ShowsOn #1104, fair enough. I stand corrected on that point.
My dictionary defines “unlawful” as “illegal, contrary to law.” I’m not sure I see any real distinction. It is “contrary to law” to enter Australia without a visa or other authority. It is *possible* then to gain lawful status by being granted refugee status. But there is no obligation on Australia to *allow* people to enter Australia unlawfully so that they can do so. We have decided that we will not allow this (a policy supported by both parties), but will instead process asylum claims offshore, under UN rules. I think that is a clearer statement of the situation.
[people smugglers and unlawful non-citizens religiously watch Parliament Question Time as a way of getting hints and tips on Govt Immigration Policy loopholes.]
No I don’t think they do that. Their friends in the refugee advocacy groups do it for them.
[I think Adam and Howard have a lot more in common than maybe Adam himself realises – possibly except for TPV/Pacific Solution.]
What you are trying to say is that there is a wide area of bipartisan agreement between the Labor and Liberal policies on immigration, something Turnbull is trying to obscure for obvious reasons. The mandatory detention regime was set up by Labor. Labor supported much of Howard’s legislation in response to Tampa and other incidents. Labor opposed the Pacific solution and TPVs, and we have abolished them. We still support the interception of unlawful boat arrivals and offshore processing of asylum applications.
[Turnbull obviously has absolutely no control over his Party. I’m surprised he’s been such a dud.]
Remember this?
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/game_on/
[With little effective Opposition at home, Rudd has been able to snub his nose at domestic politics and take 16 overseas jaunts in 10 months. In Turnbull, Rudd has met more than his match and he will need to kick his jet fuel addiction and keep his eye on matters at home. When traveller Rudd lands in New York tomorrow to give a 25 minute address to the UN General Assembly, he can be sure that back home the new Opposition Leader will be focusing voters minds of the global financial crisis. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a fight on our hands. Finally.]
LOL!
Albrechtsen, comedic gold.
bob1234
It doesn’t get any better than that. I bet she wishes she could take that one back.
On the BSD’s name, I should point out that the term “Big Swinging Dicks” was coined by Michael Lewis in his famous book “Liar’s Poker” which was about his two years working for Salomon Bros. The Liberals have stolen the term.
Adam do you think there might be a link between the refugee advocacy groups and people smugglers? They sort of live off the same human misery.
Tampa is a perfect case in point where unlawful non-citizens were dumped in the ocean and with the help of refugee advocacy groups they were all able to con Howard/Vanstone and ALP to get PR.
No, I think the refugee advocacy groups are well-intentioned people who want to help the wretched of the earth. They appear to be in denial about the realities of population movements and people-smuggling.
MalcoPops, if you think you can lure or bait me into talking like Pauline Hanson so that you can say Gotcha, you are mistaken.
shows on, i dont think labor or the media has done well pointing out to the general public how many of the Tampa people got refugee status, and how many moved to Australia. I presume that most people believe that they didnt.
bob, i think most of us realised Albrechtsens piece was comedy gold even before turnbull had failed. the thing I find astonishing about commentators like her is that they’ll never admit their wrong, and then will gone on writing a whole new set of drivel
Adam I am not trying to lure or bait you. I believe you are well-intentioned but you yourself appear to be in in denial about the realities of population movements and people-smuggling. It might be projection. Nothing inherently bad about that but it should be noted to provide proper context.
Their predictions are as reliable as their footy and race tipsters, not to mention their economic gurus.
As they used to say, News today, fish and chip wrappers tomorrow.
I have now spoken to a senior QC of my acquaintance. He advises me:
* There is no distinction at law between the words “unlawful” and “illegal.”
* The Migration Act makes it *illegal* for any person to enter or be in Australia without a visa etc.
* The 1951 refugee convention does not oblige Australia to allow any person to enter Australia for the purpose of claiming refugee status. (He wishes it did, but it doesn’t.)
* The Australian government is acting lawfully in apprehending people who have entered Australian waters illegally, and removing them, either back to international waters (which we don’t do), or to a safe place outside Australia’s migration zone where they can be processed (ie, Xmas Is).
Another thoughtful and measured post by Andrew Elder. This time regarding refugees.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25353359-5001021,00.html
Sorry, wrong link.
http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/
Is it still lawful (or legal) to wrap fish and chips in newspapers?
[Is it still lawful (or legal) to wrap fish and chips in newspapers?]
No, because the bile and vitriol on the pages can soak into the fish and chips and make you very sick.
What if they are wrapped in Peace, Love and Harmony News?
Adam,
That’s always a blank page, so quite acceptable.
Will a “journalist” ask Malcolm how TPVs stop people seeking asylum in Australia?
1111,
[
Correct. They are not illegal, they are unlawful.
]
They are the same things ….
[
il?le?gal? ?/??lig?l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-lee-guhl] Show IPA
–adjective 1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
–noun 3. Informal. illegal alien.
——————————————————————————–
Origin:
1620–30; < ML ill?g?lis. See il- 2 , legal
Related forms:
il?le?gal?ly, adverb
Synonyms:
1. unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed. Illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, criminal can all describe actions not in accord with law. Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes or, in organized athletics, codified rules: an illegal seizure of property; an illegal block (in football). Unlawful means not sanctioned by or according to law: an unlawful claim to the inheritance; to take unlawful advantage of the trading situation.
]
I think there is a distinction between illegal and unlawful. “Illegal” refers to an action which is proscribed by the law, whereas “unlawful” refers to an action for which there is no law to base the action on.
The term “unlawfull non citizen” is a definition under the immigration act. 😛
For example, a search may be deemed to be unlawful because the police etc did not have the relevant warrant but the search is not illegal.
[I think Adam and Howard have a lot more in common than maybe Adam himself realises – possibly except for TPV/Pacific Solution. Also I have it on good authority that people smugglers and unlawful non-citizens religiously watch Parliament Question Time as a way of getting hints and tips on Govt Immigration Policy loopholes.]
#1114, Pacific solution is still a pussy cat. I heard from my contacts in Jakarta DPR that the QJumpers have been watching too many repeats of the old Hawaii Five-0 while in the Jakarta Hilton, just down the road from the DPR. So the Pacific Solution still conjures up the images of Waikiki, Hula girls and the pacific blue.
I say let rip the Antarctic Solution. The frozen continent will teach them a lesson not to mess around with our border security. Let them know the only friends they have are the dancing penguins. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Well I’m sorry, but I asked this specific question of the most senior lawyer I know, and he told me that there is no distinction in legal terminology between these two words. If something is contrary to law, it is unlawful and illegal. The only difference is that “unlawful” is a lawyer’s word and “illegal” is a lay word.
Get back in your tank, Finns. This is a forum for hominds.
h o m i n i d s
It appears there is a slight semantic difference but there is no criminal difference. Adam is right. 😥
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/unlawful-versus-illegal.aspx
rattle, rattle and rattle by a dophin?
[My dictionary defines “unlawful” as “illegal, contrary to law.” I’m not sure I see any real distinction. It is “contrary to law” to enter Australia without a visa or other authority.]
Most unlawful non-citizens in Australia today are people who have 1) overstayed a student visa 2) overstayed a tourist visa 3) overstayed a work visa.
In 2001 Ruddock said that about 13,000 people a year are unlawful non-citizens for these reasons:
[RUDDOCK: But the fact is, that we have something of the order of 58,000 people at any time who are unlawful.
But that is made up of something of the order of 13,000 or 14,000 people who become unlawful during the year. So we get new unlawfuls of around about 13,000.]
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s332435.htm
If we want to be REALLY SERIOUS about the problem of unlawful non-citizens, FIRST we will have to deal with those three categories of ‘overstayer’ ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS well BEFORE we start dealing with people who come here in boats form Indonesia, which last year made up 3.8% of people in Australia who claimed refugee status.
[* There is no distinction at law between the words “unlawful” and “illegal.”]
Which is quite funny, because when Ruddock was immigration minister he talked about there being a distinction!
Essential Research: 60-40.
The term “unlawfull non citizen” is a definition under the immigration act. It does not mean their actions are unlawfull or illegal.
The 10% found to not have legitimate claims to refugee status may have acted illegally or unlawfully. The 90% found to have legitimate claims have acted lawfully. 🙂
[If something is contrary to law, it is unlawful and illegal. The only difference is that “unlawful” is a lawyer’s word and “illegal” is a lay word.]
I’m pretty sure there is a distinction. Unlawful means there is a particular law that prohibits an action, such as being a non-citizen in Australia without a visa.
Illegal is an action that may be interpreted as unlawful, even though there isn’t a specific legislative clause saying it is so.
Here is Ruddock in an interview emphasising that people smuggling is BOTH unlawful and illegal. Why would he say this if he felt the words meant the same thing?
[COMPERE: The Federal Government is welcoming Labor’s decision, as you might expect. Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock told Sally Sara with Labor’s help the new regulations would send out a strong message to would be illegal arrivals.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, obviously I think it’s a sensible decision on their part. The measures are important. If you’re going to give a clear and unambiguous message overseas that people smuggling is something that is not only unlawful and illegal, you need to be able to send an unambiguous message that people are not going to be rewarded if they come here.]
I think the semantic difference is that “unlawful” can be ascribed to people (“an unlawful entrant”) while “illegal” refers to actions (“illegal entry”). Thus a person who enters Australia illegally is an unlawful non-citizen. But as a matter of law there is no difference. You cannot say that an action is unlawful but not illegal – which was what being asserted in relation to immigration. A person who enters Australian waters in a boat without a visa or other authority is breaking an Australian law (the Migration Act) and has thus committed an illegal act. They *could* be arrested and charged in an Australian court, but of course that is just what they want – entry to Australia – so Australia has decided that such persons whill be removed to Xmas Id for processing. Here endeth the lesson.
[The 10% found to not have legitimate claims to refugee status may have acted illegally or unlawfully. The 90% found to have legitimate claims have acted lawfully.]
I think a better way to put it is to say that if someone is to be successfully accepted as a refugee in Australia, they FIRST must be considered an unlawful non-citizen by being in Australia’s migration zone WITHOUT possessing a valid visa! 😀
So you can’t become a refugee in Australia without first breaking the law. 😀 Of course if / when you are accepted as a refugee, how you got here, and whether or not you broke the law becomes completely irrelevant.
Finn 1137
I think you have come up with a perfect solution for the Liberal BSD. Send them to Antartica and we’ll see how big and tough they really are faced with freezing temperatures.
Essential Research: 60-40.
Malcom staging a comeback on the queue jumpers back!