The Australian Electoral Commission has finalised the last of its two-party preferred Labor-versus Coalition counts, and it confirms Labor has won a narrow victory on the national total of 6,216,439 (50.12 per cent) to 6,185,949 (49.88 per cent), a margin of 30,490. If distinctions to the second decimal place are what matters to you, Labor did about 0.05 per cent worse than last time due to the arbitrary fact of the Nationals finishing ahead of Wilson Tuckey in O’Connor, meaning the AEC finalised a two-party result on a Nationals-versus-Labor basis where the 2007 Liberal-versus-Labor result was more favourable to them. So while I think it reasonable to cite the published figure as the definitive national result, a slight discount should be factored in when considering the matter of the swing, which should properly be rounded to 2.5 per cent rather than 2.6 per cent.
Whatever the specifics, the result leaves quite a few people looking foolish:
Barnaby Joyce: “We’d won the two-party preferred vote by the time the independents made their decision.” (Lateline, 7/9).
Andrew Bolt: “Labor won fewer votes, fewer seats of its own and less of the two-party preferred vote.” (Herald Sun, 8/9).
Alan Jones: “Is it a healthy democracy when a party wins the majority of the two party preferred, wins the majority of the primary vote and wins more seats in the Parliament than the other party but the other party forms government?” (2GB, 8/9).
Sarah Martin: “Yesterday, Julia Gillard’s Labor Party won government despite losing the primary vote and the two-party-preferred vote, or securing a majority of seats.” (The Advertiser, 7/9).
Kerry Chikarovski: “The Coalition won the primary vote, they won the two-party preferred …” (The Drum, 7/9).
Lateline: “Labor loses two-party preferred vote” (report headline, 30/8).
Kenneth Wiltshire: “It is probable that the Coalition will win more third-party preferences.” (NB: This of course is absurd – Labor got 65 per cent of third party preferences, much as they always do – but I think we know what he’s trying to say.) (The Australian 6/9).
Lisa Wilkinson (to Wayne Swan): “Now, you won fewer primary votes, fewer two-party preferred votes and fewer seats.”
(Swan explains to her that she’s wrong.)
Wilkinson: “But in the end you got 49.9 per cent of the vote and the Opposition got 50.1.”
Swan: “No, I don’t think that’s … Lisa, that is not a final count.”
Wilkinson: “Well, that’s what the AEC is saying and that’s what Australia said at the polls.” (The Today Show, Nine Network, 9/9).
No doubt there were others.
Our troubles here began on August 30, when the AEC removed three electorates from the national total on the basis that the Labor-versus-Liberal counts there had been discontinued after election night, as it became apparent the Greens (in the case of Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (in the case of Denison) rather than the Liberals would face Labor at the final count. As three of the weakest seats in the land for the Liberals, these were by extension among the strongest seats for Labor in two-party terms. The resulting adjustment in Labor’s two-party vote from 50.4 per cent 50.0 per cent led to a great many uncomprehending reports of a “surge” to the Coalition, which had an added edge due to Julia Gillard’s post-election claim that Labor had, apparently, won the two-party vote. Those who wanted a clear and accurate exposition of the news had to ignore, say, The Australian, and look to an evidently more reliable source of information in Bob Brown, who explained the absence of eight electorates from the published result and correctly concluded: “If you look at the whole of Australia and you treat every seat equally, when you do that Labor’s ahead and is likely to keep that lead right the way through to the finishing pole.”
Antony Green defends journalists on the basis that they were within their rights to take an official AEC figure at face value, but I’m not so kind. Even if awareness of the missing electorates was too much to ask, those quoted above should at least have been aware that the count was incomplete. As it stands, we have a result that leaves those of us who had done the sums with exactly what we were expecting, and a lot of dopey pundits and dishonest politicians with egg on their faces.
UPDATE: Morgan has published results from a phone poll of 541 respondents conducted on Wednesday and Thursday evening which has Labor leading 52-48 on two-party preferred from primary votes of 35.5 per cent for Labor, 42.5 per cent for the Coalition and 15 per cent for the Greens. The margin of error on the poll is about 4.2 per cent.
UPDATE 2: As Peter Brent points out, the 52-48 result comes from the less reliable two-party measure based on respondent-allocated preferences – going on previous elections, which the most recent election has again vindicated as the superior method, Labor’s lead is only 50.5-49.5.
Referring to TTH’s tirade about Mr Rudd and his fly-buys (I thought you only got them at K-Mart and such places) but he might be interested to know that Parliamentarians and members of the public service no longer earn frequent flier points when they fly in line of duty. As membership of a frequent flier club is theirs, not the Commonwealth’s, they can still earn points when they buy their own tickets. Also they can’t use the old “official” points for other than official travel and are expected to keep records of what was private and public points credits.
Another rant by TTH was Mr Rudd jetting off already and, my goodness, he’s only been FM for ten minutes. Well Truthy, the real truth of the matter is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs does actually have to TRAVEL, and quite a lot in fact, so I’m putting your bile down to the fact that you can’t, don’t or won’t travel – in other words pure jealousy. Or do you expect every world leader or foreign affairs equivalent to come to Canberra, or every international forum at which we are represented to be held in Townsville, because if you are, it ain’t gonna happen!
lizzie
You raise another good point about teleconferences. We have facilities for those too, and they do help, but again, they are clunky now because the transmission speed means they don’t come across as a smooth TV type image. Sometimes it is sound with a set of freeze frame images of people’s lips moving. I’m sure they would be much more popular if they felt more natural.
Socrates
Agreed.
Saw something where everyone sent a holo-whatsits-name to a meeting. Not sure that you’d still get the visual interchange across the table that is such a useful feature of “real” meetings.
Boerwar
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/09/17/final-2pp-50-12-49-88-to-labor/comment-page-18/#comment-634929
[Pegasus
Re: SHY and spin.
There are three bits of fundamental SHY spin that SHY somehow does not notice when attacking spin.
The first is that there are 42 million ‘uprooted’ people in the world. Greens policy is open-ended on the 42 million – unless I am mistaken. Come one, come all for the Australian asylum seekers’ test.]
This is scare-mongering on a scale that would do the Coalition proud.
Given that you do not provide a source for your figure of 42 million, I assume that you have disingenuously lumped together internally displaced persons, refugees, and asylum seekers, categories that have different definitions according to the UNHCR.
Furthermore, to suggest that Australia would be swamped by millions of asylum seekers, if the Greens Party policy of onshore processing and the abolition of mandatory detention were to be implemented, ignores the reality of the country of origin and the geographical, or global, movement of asylum seekers and refugees.
According to the aptly titled “UNHCR statistics reveal emptiness of political spin about refugees”, 23/6/2010, just 0.5% (6,206) of the global total of 1.18 million new asylum applications in 2009 were lodged in Australia. Of this total of 6,206 asylum seekers, Australia recognized 3,441 persons as refugees, that is, just 0.5% of the global total recognized.
This document, based on the UNHCR’s “2009 Global Trends”, reveals where the burden falls. Australia was ranked 33rd for total asylum applications – 41st on a per capita basis and 71st relative to national Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
[“UNHCR estimates that 5.5 million refugees are in what it describes as protracted refugee situations, where the period of displacement, often in camps with no freedom of movement, averages close to 20 years.
“The constant political argument about asylum seekers entering Australia, people who haven’t been able to find genuine protection elsewhere, is, in the long run, going to undermine international refugee protection efforts. Why should Thailand, with 3.6 million refugees, asylum seekers and stateless people within its borders, treat displaced people properly when Australia, with all its wealth and resources and its annual immigration program of well over 200,000 people a year, cannot graciously accept its role in providing permanent protection to around 3000 or 4000 asylum seekers per year?]
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/releases/2010/100623_UNHCR_stats.pdf
The Greens Party understand the need for regional cooperation in achieving a regional solution and understand the need for tackling the causes creating asylum seekers in their countries of origin. One measure advocated is to increase the level of Australian overseas aid to a minimum of 0.7% of GNP by 2010, as mandated by the United Nations.
Media release by S H-Y, 9/7/2010
http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-refugee-policy-practical-humane-alternative
[* Push Australia to take a leading role in the region by hosting any regional processing centre.
* Increase Australia’s humanitarian intake to 20,000 refugees – focusing on those already waiting in detention camps in the region.]
Some relevant Greens Party policies:
http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/immigration-and-refugees
http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/overseas-aid
http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/international-relations
*** Warning – 3 more posts to follow 🙂
Boerwar subsequently opines in same post:
[The second bit of Greens spin is to ignore the legal industry’s role once people are in the onshore legal industry processing mire. Endless appeals. Endless delays. Endless cost; along with endless cries of, ‘Uncertainty is cruel!’]
I doubt I would be the only one to believe that this conveys a certain level of cynicism and heartlessness. Apparently psychological trauma, suicide, self-harming and other psychiatric outcomes are of no consequence, even if it is innocent children who suffer. For some people the human costs of indefinite detention are simply collateral damage justifiable as long as the domestic political “reality” of ensuring the xenophobic vote is achieved.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/simplistic-scare-tactics-will-not-stop-the-boats/story-e6frgd0x-1225925223317
[As one of the few signatories to the convention in our region, Australia will keep attracting asylum-seekers and, inconvenient as it is for the domestic political debate, the government will have to continue assessing their claims. That does not mean accepting them automatically, as many assume, but rather forming our own conclusions about whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution.
It is a process that is coming under great political pressure. After former immigration minister Chris Evans said earlier in the year to expect rejection of applications to increase, it did, with the department suddenly increasing the number of Afghan applications refused from the average of about 10 per cent in recent years to 70 per cent, despite no marked improvement in most areas of Afghanistan.
Most of those rejections are now being overturned through the independent appeals process, presumably by people unwilling to send persecuted Hazara, the ethnic group that makes up almost all Afghan asylum-seekers, back to danger.]
Let us hope that you are never in the desperate situation of being an asylum seeker, or are convicted of a serious crime in a country that has no appeal process.
Boerwar continues to opine in same post:
[The third bit of classic SHY spin is that she fails to acknowledge that the revenue base for addressing the needs of asylum seekers is not a magic pudding. Her asylum seeker positions operate in a cost-free world. That is to say: there are no Green costings on their asylum seeker policies of which I am aware.]
Before the election The Greens Party tried to have their policies costed by Treasury but were refused. Perhaps, the major parties did not want to be embarrassed about the Greens Party garnering economic and financial credibility through a Treasury analysis.
The Greens Party is being economically responsible in pushing for the end of mandatory detention and the end of offshore processing.
[“Abbott argues that, “given we’ve already spent the money in Nauru, let’s have the centre there”, rather than East Timor. The Howard government didn’t just spent money on Nauru, it squandered it. In 2007, Oxfam Australia estimated the cost of the Pacific solution at $1 billion, including navy interception and foreign aid packages, as well as the cost of detention centres and running them.
That was more than $500,000 for each of the persons processed in Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island, close to 30 times the cost of detention on the mainland.
And, to repeat, most of them ended up in Australia anyway. For all of Abbott’s talk about ending the waste, it seems money is no object when it comes to banging a political drum.”]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/simplistic-scare-tactics-will-not-stop-the-boats/story-e6frgd0x-1225925223317
Detaining asylum seekers in offshore processing centres and in facilities located in isolated regions on the mainland is far more expensive than the costs associated with housing people in the community.
Media release by S H-Y, 9/7/2010
http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-refugee-policy-practical-humane-alternative
[* Close Christmas Island and use a portion of the money already earmarked for use on the island – $973 million over four years – to set up Community Reception Centres in mainland cities.
* Set up a grants-based Asylum-Seeker Support Fund of $8 million over four years to assist community organisations to provide essential services for refugees and asylum-seekers. Organisations would apply for a grant of up to $100,000 to assist in the delivery of case management, health care, emergency relief, social support and housing support. The fund would be administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.]
just on answering questions, I know all the front benchers get trained in this, but if you do have 4 minutes to answer, they need to prepare
I recall a session I was fortunate to sit in with Bill Gates. after listening to his answers to many and varied topics, I realised he had a 4 part method he was using, and he could apply to almost anything:
1. Restate the question, to clarify what he wanted to answer (and complement the questioner).
2. Provide a brief history of issues relevant, and why things were as is
3. Criticise his competitors shortcomings on the matter
4. Provide his own views on the question, usually couched in visionary terms where the world would be a better if you bought Microsoft products
after being subjected to this for an hour or so, the audience was asking where do they sign up
Boerwar continues his anti S H-Y and anti-Greens rant:
[SHY = snipe, snipe, snipe, duck and weave.
Sniping at others’ spin, and spinning a yarn yourself when you have no power may be OK, but don’t expect to keep getting away with it once you have some power. No more holier than thou. No more posturing. Time to count the consequences, and the pennies, of your persuasions.
Oh, and the handy wedge, must not forget the wedge. The Greens have nothing to lose politically on being open-ended on asylum seekers arriving by boat. As we have just seen the losers are Labor. The gainers are the Liberals; oh, and the Greens. SHY and Abbott – politics makes strange bedfellows. It is enough to make my mind spin.]
Unlike the major parties, the Greens Party does not use the asylum seeker issue as a political wedge but see it as a humanitarian issue. The Greens Party has been consistent in advocating the humane treatment of asylum seekers, regardless of which major party is in power and has vigorously spoken out strongly about what needs to be done, regardless of the perceived “power” of the xenophobic voters.
To blame the policies of the Greens Party and the fact that a proportion of voters support such policies, rather than to blame the deficiencies of Labor asylum seeker policy is just spin.
S H-Y media release,15/8/2010
http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/time-come-clean-kids-detention
[It’s time for Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to tell the public how many children would be left in detention under their plans for offshore processing centres for asylum-seekers, according to Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Senator Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson on Immigration and Human Rights, says it has escaped public attention that hundreds of children are currently in detention on the Australian mainland and on Christmas Island.
“Australians voted three years ago for an end to the detention of children, but now we have close to 700 children held in a variety of centres. This is unacceptable,” Senator Hanson-Young said.
“This is getting closer to the most children ever held in detention at one time – 842 children in 2001 in the darkest days of John Howard’s government.]
The Greens Party stance on asylum seekers is supported by organisations such as: Amnesty International Australia, Refugee Council of Australia, UnitingJustice Australia / Uniting Church in Australia, GetUp!, Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project and the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre. Are they spinning too?
Meanwhile both major parties and Boerwar continue to spin.
Pegasus
as usual your anti Boerwar post twist stats and camoflages Greens polisy into Greens spin talking points , not least of which is Greens view to abolish of mandatory detention , what that involves and not involves , and as for your defense of predatory lawers ethics at tax payers expense you is a joke
[I recall a session I was fortunate to sit in with Bill Gates.]
Was it this one?
http://www.sadanduseless.com/2010/05/steve-jobs-vs-bill-gates/
[I’m happy there is a Labor govt , that Kev is FA , ]
I”m happy that Abbott is opposition leader and Bishop is shadow foreign affairs.
And Pyne has discovered his voice after all that coaching, reminds me of the Donald Duck episode where he suddenly speaks with a deep normal voice and wont stop.
Christopher Pyne says independent Rob Oakeshott never suggested he wanted to be the lower house Speaker
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/oakeshott-didnt-raise-speaker-issue-20100919-15hoq.html
Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/oppn-broadband-plan-could-be-changed-20100919-15hoe.html
The coalition must get over losing the federal election and focus on being a good alternative government, says opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/time-to-move-on-from-poll-loss-pyne-20100919-15ho3.html
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pplater-nabbed-after-cramming-eight-passengers-in-car-20100919-15hmx.html
Abbott must be wondering how to remove the crayon from his brain.
[If Turnbull decides to play dirty, Labor should just throw the Godwin Gretch episode in his face. Remind him of his poor judgment and ambition to bring down a govt.]
Have all the enquires into that finished or is there still a chance of a bombshell to drop?
Don’t know why Toothy is so het up about Kev’s travels. Howie had 8 trips to the USA between 2000 & 2006! Even Kev 747 would have been pushing it to get more than one trip a year in to the US ( even to see his soul mate Barry 🙂 )
[Can someone remind me of a large, imaginative infrastructure project that the Coal has supported in the last 10-15 years, please, which benefitted the whole nation? (The GST doesn’t count because it was a GBNT)]
the establishment of large bases in Iraq in the search for weapons of mass destruction, combined with the building of an AWB silo to store $300mil for the CBA of wheat export to Iraq.
STOP the SESSIONS!!
Free the Walruses
Ron
Abolishing mandatory detention involves saving lots of money and increasing bogan paranoia.
economically good – politically bad (for lab & Libs)
[Abbott must be wondering how to remove the crayon from his brain.]
I thought it was stuck somewhere else
😉
Finns
and the carpenters
actually scrarp that
Free Nelson Mandela
i would think you would have to have a realy good knowledge of standing orders
to be speaker , or i think the pollies could tie you up in knots.
Is there courses run for new speakers.
Finns
Enjoyed your song 🙂
You’ll be able to make a DVD soon
Thank you indeedy for all your responses on the question of Libs infrastructure projects. Very imaginative 😀
my say
as ltep correctly pointed out
the speaker ders to the clerk(s) for a decision
also they have acces to a standing orders in book and webby form
😉
more akin to a magistarte than a judge
Pegasis
abolition of mandatory detention
tell us in detail :
what that polisy results in in practice of an A-S coming from a boat and being in oz as to health , security & refugee checks Furthermores “where” physically will these A-S be whilst these Checks occurs , and when & how long these cheks will take to be completed , and in addition what specific A-S living costs will tax payers be paying for during then
USA at this very time has 12 milion unauthorized entrants using your crazy open borders notion
Free Free Free
If anyone had any doubts about the cynicism of the Coalition and News Ltd then surely the latest claim about asylum seeker compensation payouts must put them to rest for ever!
These court ordered compensation claims relate to events that occurred in 2007 and earlier, when Howard’s draconian, pernicious, absurd, approach to the issue was leading to people sewing up their lips, hanging on razor wire and the like. (see http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/199678/asylum-compensation-payouts-soar.html )
Despite having been the cause of them, and the people in power at the time when the relevant events occured, the Coalition now , it seems, want to argue that it is evidence of some sort of Labor failure, because more boats have been arriving here, even though the lip sewing etc seems to have declined since Howard got the boot!
The fact that some sections of the media (including the ABC) seem to have accepted this appalling piece of doublethink without even questioning it says a great deal about the media in Australia at present, I’m afraid.
Stop the Waste. Stop the boats. Stop the Kevin Rudd travel Junkets.
Love how Tone was bitching about Julia not keeping election promises but it’s OK for them to now change their broadband policy. He can’t have it both ways.
Check out the photo of Pyne , 😆 Is he trying for a Messma death stare?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/opposition-broadband-plan-could-be-changed-says-pyne-20100919-15hqk.html
Ron,
You appear to have made up your mind about the comparative costs of onshore processing versus offshore processing and the comparative costs of. mandatory detention versus community based housing. What information and facts regarding costings are you basing your decision on when making such an assessment?
Since you claim to know so much, I would appreciate a justification of your opinion cum unsubstantiated criticism.
[Stop the Waste. Stop the boats. Stop the Kevin Rudd travel Junkets.]
You will have to find a time machine to “stop the waste” when it comes to asylum seeker compensation payments, TTH. They actually stem from the time when Howard was in power and his absurd, inhuman, policies on such matters were in place.
vera,
Maybe Tony’s breath has all the nutrients of a medium sized compost bin.
Ron,
[USA at this very time has 12 milion unauthorized entrants using your crazy open borders notion]
The Greens Party have never advocated an open door, or open borders, policy. Show me where it has. Saying so, is just dishonest.
GG
lol, well he does eat grubs
gough1
Posted Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 5:48 pm | Permalink
“Ron
Abolishing mandatory detention involves saving lots of money and increasing bogan paranoia.”
infortunate you’ve simply accepted th Abbott/MSN spin and fear line , and then imput that on Labor and actualy on oz peoples
further you use that condesend ‘bogan’ word to descibe majority of aussies who live in suburbia
peoples IS happy to accept a refugee !! ie someone found to be fleeing for there lives
What peoples d0 expect is that they is FIRST processed to determine that tht is case , and to ensure they also not bring health issues to oz or to its oz fauna & plant life , and also that just like comin by areoplanes they is cleard for national security
All of these is public’s reasonable wishs , as opposed to th false implied claim that public objects to accepting into oz those A-S fleeing for there lifes
Gough1 these is actual 3 issues that Abbott/MSN IMPLY is NOT concureently being checked for that causes public fear , and seeing MSN keep that narative then of couse there is fear because MSN is there sole source of info Fact is those 3 issues do get proper addressed in C I and will be also at Cape York Centre
Abolition of mandatory detention is effective open borders under spin guise & therefore mandatory detent is comonsense acceptable & could create USA delima of pro rata 12 million unaurthorized , and rich unehtical lawers
eating grubs is not a valid reason for spewing forth shyte
btw
i luv the bbc
as you were
TheTruthHurts
Posted Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
“Stop the boats.”
that is just so unhumane
read my post above
Actually the Greens do have an open door policy for while it might be named an open door but if we followed their approach then es it would be an open door.
The Greens are good at playing word games
For non followers of AFL, this week will Stop the Boot.
Actually the Greens do have an open door policy for while it might not be named an open door but if we followed their approach then yes it would be an open door.
The Greens are good at playing word games
I’m sorry to repeat myself, but the latest “claim” by Scott Morrison trying to sheet home the blame to Labor for compensation payments to asylum seekers falsely imprisoned or otherwise improperly dealt with during the Howard years simply takes my breath away.
Has ANYONE ever seen a more cynical exercise in self denial , even in politics? SURELY even the jaded, partisan, Australian media aren’t going to fall for it? SURELY not just Labor and the Greens, but any decent Australian, is going to call this one for what it is – dirty play, a dirty past, and a very, very dirty attempt to avoid the consequences of the Coalition’s own actions.
Ron
I dont know where you are going with your post.
I dont fall for much Abbott, Labor or MSM spin.
Mandatory detention is arguable on the basis of security and health checks. Patrolling borders is common sense. Off shore detention is just pandering to fear.
We are an island. That’s why boats come in and not millions as you rightly pointed out to USA or as I might point outto Pakistan.
If we limit on shore detention to security and other screening and then release into community we will save lots of money and angst (amongst detainess)
Those seeking asylum by air which outnumbers those by boat are released into the community and most of those are FAKE refugees.
As for your millions swamping us we’ve had 25K since 1976 FFS.
Try your muddled headed ALP “forebodings of woe and fear” spin somewhere else Ronny!
Rod
[Has ANYONE ever seen a more cynical exercise in self denial , even in politics? SURELY even the jaded, partisan, Australian media aren’t going to fall for it]
Fall for it? No.
Push the lie? Yes.
Business as usual.
Will I buy their media products? No.
My business as usual.
Leave it to the Coalition to politically profiteer on the back of human misery.
They call us lefties the bleeding hearts. I think they are angry because we have one.
Rod
[Has ANYONE ever seen a more cynical exercise in self denial , even in politics? SURELY even the jaded, partisan, Australian media aren’t going to fall for it?]
We’ll see I guess.
Has the government put out a presser on this?
Has ONE coalition MP been asked about the 2PP yet?
Rod, Morrison has gotten and will get away with it. Thats right, its Labors fault that detainees are compensated for their treatment under Howard. And the MSM look the other way
[* Between 1-4 percent of the DNA of many humans living today likely came from Neanderthals.]
Don (1716).
You can take the man out of the Neanderthal…
Rod Hagen
It is outrageous what Scott Morrison is doing. It is to be expected. They are throwing grenades at Labor trying to engage them in a shit fight. I think Labor’s strategy is ignore, ignore, ignore.
[Thats right, its Labors fault that detainees are compensated for their treatment under Howard. And the MSM look the other way]
The ALP must sheet home the blame where it bloody belongs. Surely, they have learnt the lessons of the recent past.