The latest weekly reading of Essential Research’s fortnightly rolling average on federal voting intention has Labor’s two-party lead at 52-48, reverting to type after a blip to 53-47 last week. However, the only change on the primary vote is a one-point drop for the Greens to 10%, with the Coalition steady on 41% and Labor on 39%. Further questions find 22% perceiving the ABC as biased to the left (42% among Coalition voters, and 10% to 13% for the rest), 3% as biased to the right, 36% as biased in neither direction, and fully 40% responding with “don’t know”. Sixty-one per cent of respondents were opposed to Trans Pacific Partnership provisions allowing the government to be sued for policies that cost foreign companies money, with only 10% in support; and 69% thought it likely that same-sex marriage would be allowed in the next few years, compared with only 20% for unlikely. A series of responses on the government’s handling of issues finds it rating positively only on “supporting Australian businesses”, but its stocks have improved markedly since January on all measures except treatment of asylum seekers and environmental issues, with double-digit improvements on health, education and supporting Australian businesses.
AS
One of the things you do learn in politics is that once a group is convinced it’s been wronged, it’s very hard to convince them otherwise.
Doctors aren’t politicians. I don’t ask MPs to give me advice as to the appropriateness of my doctor’s diagnosis, and I don’t ask doctors to tell me what a piece of legislation means.
@ zoom, 1299
He’s accusing you of tacitly supporting the covering up of child abuse. You do that by supporting this government’s actions to criminalise whistleblowing on that matter and by opposing mandatory reporting of such abuse.
Oh and by supporting a government that throws innocent children in gulags in malaria-infested third-world hellholes like Nauru and PNG in the first place.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too – if you support this government, you support child abuse. It’s that simple.
The whole blanket ban on employees talking about what goes on in detention centres is concerning, even if they whistle-blower provisions fully apply.
It reeks of cover-up of practices that are harder to get away with if the public find out about them. There are some things that need secrecy, like identities of many of the refugees whose families may be persecuted if their governments find out. However covering information such as general living conditions is not something that should be subject to secrecy.
The mere existence of uncertainty over the whistle-blower provisions discourages whistle-blowers from coming forward. At least these problems have been found out now, rather than through the prosecution of whistle-blowers.
I am concerned that Senator Hanson-Young did not bring any of these issues up in the committee process.
I also think this “border force” merger is for crass and authoritarian political reasons.
Happiness@1131
Stable as in full of horse shit.
@ zoom, 1301
From an ABC story on the matter:
Given the Abbott Government’s excessive use of “operational matters” as a veil of secrecy over policy decisions relating to asylum seekers, do you really think they can be trusted not to pull the same veil over what’s happening in these gulags?
@ Tom, 1303
I think they should have gone all the way and called it the Ministry of Love.
Your all blinded by political argument. Which discards most facts and twists words, then ignores the obvious by creating distractions, then repeats media headlines,which were created from an unknown source, which is then interpreted by a report by a biased commentator.
@ silmaj, 1307
Now selling for just 16 low, low payments of just $9.99 per week plus postage and handling: quality tinfoil hats!
From the article linked —
[“What this act does is prevents any health workers who are working in detention centres from carrying out their normal professional activities, such as collecting data and presenting it at academic and professional forums – it criminalises it,” he told AAP.]
Which is a different matter from reporting abuse.
What this says is that they’ve been forbidden to use the data they collect there in professional papers.
I don’t know if this is unusual or not, but it’s certainly isn’t unusual for professionals to be barred from using information they collect on the job in other areas.
(Even though I haven’t been a local councillor for several years, for example, there are still issues I’m not allowed to comment on in public).
i happen to suspect shorten is telling an awful lot of fibs … whether is issue one way or other is very important is another matter
of course nothing excuses the govt witch hunt in commission
[zoomster
….I’m beginning to lose count of the slurs like this, which you make entirely without evidence.]
Its not hard to count, its 0.
[On the other hand, if someone suggests that you support deaths at sea, you get affronted.]
Affronted? I thought ShowsOn was making a fool of himself. If you remember, I said while the boats were still coming that my metric of success was not the number of boats but the quality of our compassion.
[I’m quite happy for you to make judgments about me based on what I actually say, but I think it is at the very least dishonest to smear me with things I didn’t and wouldn’t.]
I said that child abuse continues when people who are informed of the abuse do nothing.
There are very clear reports of abuse. You are quite clearly arguing here that you don’t have any problem with the legislation preventing doctors from talking about it, and you don’t have any problems with the mandatory detention policy. Hence my analysis- when people do nothing in the face of the evidence of child abuse, the abuse is able to continue.
If the Australian public as a whole, including you, had responded by saying “This is outrageous and it has to stop. This legislation is outrageous and doctors need to be free to speak” it would stop and the legislation banning doctor from speaking would be repealed.
If you and others like you change, this atrocity changes.
The silent majority on this largely anonymous blog can’t even gather up the gumption to say here that they are opposed to this policy, let alone arguing for it in public.
AS
[Given the Abbott Government’s excessive use of “operational matters” as a veil of secrecy over policy decisions relating to asylum seekers, do you really think they can be trusted not to pull the same veil over what’s happening in these gulags?]
In which case they’d be breaking the law. Which happens, of course, but that’s not a reason not to have laws.
That you have to resort to ‘but the government might break its own law!’ as a criticism of the legislation shows the weakness of your position.
@ zoom, 1309
Also from the article:
Appropriate channels being “report it to your superiors and then we’ll jail you if you go to the press when your superiors do nothing about it because the Minister has told them not to”.
on the other hand he is probably telling awful of truth as well esp about trying to regulate wages in that catering/cleaning high staff
1308
A tin foil hat is required when you aren’t directly informed. I am are you?
[Arrnea Stormbringer
…..Oh and by supporting a government that throws innocent children in gulags in malaria-infested third-world hellholes ]
Interestingly, Nauru isn’t affected by malaria!
(even the mosquitoes can’t stand the place perhaps? 🙂 )
@ zoom, 1313
Criticising legislation that strengthens a government’s ability to extra-judicially imprison and torture people on the basis that the Government will probably abuse that power given its track record is never an inappropriate criticism – it’s the entire point.
@ Happiness, 1317
Touché.
AS
[You do that by supporting this government’s actions to criminalise whistleblowing on that matter and by opposing mandatory reporting of such abuse.]
As I have done neither of those things, that is a slur. As was ModLib’s.
The support for the Border Force legislation – by the Labor party, not me, as I have said I’m not expert enough to comment – is on the basis that whistleblowing is allowed. The AFP have confirmed that whistleblowing is allowed.
So slur number one isn’t applicable to me.
As for slur number two, that’s just a slur. Nothing I have said justifies it.
If you two are willing to start this kind of gutter fighting, that says a whole lot about you.
It scarcely fits with claiming the high moral ground.
@P1/873
It’s nice to know that there is always some wierdo on PB that put words in people’s mouths, I never said anything about numbers.
That is your imaginary minds at work, trying to claim that we have to have numbers for a policy to work.
The fact is, Your policy doesn’t work and has not for a long time.
That is fact, time to deal with it.
Closing refugees or the border is not a solution to the problem.
Nauru and Manus are Australia’s Gitmos and in a fairer world, Australia would be subject to crippling economic sanctions and travel restrictions as a result.
@ zoom, 1320
You have routinely argued against people criticising the policies and singled out the party who singularly opposed it in the vote for criticism while giving those who voted for it essentially a free pass.
If that’s not supporting the policy, then I’m Superman.
I am sure the next Labor Government will respond accordingly to the blatant partisan politicisation of all Government institutions by the LNP.
I would expect the ALP to respond by limiting appointments to: Tony Abbott as London High Commissioner; Julie Bishop as Ambassador to Washington and Brandis to the High Court; and only giving Murdoch part of the ABC.
THAT will show them!!!!
Either you support the ending of child abuse against refugees, in which case you would support the Greens’ amendment to that effect that got voted down, or you support such abuse continuing, in which case you would oppose it.
There’s no middle ground here. For once, the issue is black and white.
ModLib
[You are quite clearly arguing here that you don’t have any problem with the legislation preventing doctors from talking about it, and you don’t have any problems with the mandatory detention policy.]
No and no.
Firstly, I have made it clear that I am satisfied that whistleblowing is allowed.
Secondly, I do have problems with mandatory detention. I have consistently – as you well know – repudiated Manus/Nauru.
However, I don’t see any other viable alternatives to some form of mandatory detention – and I seem to be in good company here, as most of the countries which receive refugees do seem to have some version of this in place.
Accepting that something maybe necessary and having problems with the way it is implemented are two different things.
It’s cute that you talk about your abhorence of bullies and yet resort to bullying yourself, as soon as you realise you can’t maintain the argument.
zoomster
Your posts are in contradiction to what George Newhouse wrote in his article.
When the subject is child abuse that should be of concern not blithely defending the party line.
Look at the results coming out of that RC on child abuse Labor set up to see the dangers of doing nothing.
@ zoom, 1326
And yet, you advocate for a Malaysian solution – which would have been much the same outcome, just with different jailers.
[Your all blinded by political argument. Which discards most facts and twists words, then ignores the obvious by creating distractions, then repeats media headlines,which were created from an unknown source, which is then interpreted by a report by a biased commentator.]
Sounds like the Handbook for aspiring News Corpse journalists.
zoomster:
You can’t argue for the Border Force Act and then when someone says you support the Border Force Act, put on the demure act that you don’t know enough about it to comment.
You have criticised the Greens for opposing the BFA, you have defended Marles for supporting the BFA, you have said that Senators with expertise in the area and lots of good advice have argued that the BFA is a good thing.
Your accusation that we have case a slur against you by saying you are for the BFA would be best supported by you stating explicitly that you don’t support it (if this is indeed the case). Your posts seem to suggest you support it pending further information. Hence, our comments about your support of it aint a slur!
BTW it isn’t AS and I saying what this law could do, it is:
The 41 signatories
The AMA
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Several groups of doctors (I know about the NT and Vic and there is a group in Sydney this Sat)
Several lawyers who have commented in the media in support of the Drs position
….and that is just the public stuff….I know about much more privately as well.
The point is not to actually jail a doctor. The point is to scare as many people as possible to minimise the risk of the actually horror of these places becoming common knowledge.
When that happens this policy will have a very short lifespan in the Australian electorate.
@ guytaur, 1327
Yep. As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t see the need to stop abusing children in detention, you don’t belong in any sort of intelligent discussion. Go and play with your dolls while the people with a shred of humanity fix the problem you created.
@ Happiness, 1330
Agreed until the last line. I don’t have the same faith in my fellow Australians that you seem to.
Ultimately, there are too many Australians who will just be too occupied with their own struggles (paying the bills, making the mortgage repayments, who’s going to win the footy, getting to work on time) to care about what some outsiders thousands of kilometres away are going through.
Apathy is the death of humanity.
AS
[And yet, you advocate for a Malaysian solution – which would have been much the same outcome, just with different jailers.]
Once again, you simply show your ignorance of the Malaysian solution.
Firstly, it was to be overseen by the UNHCR, who gave it tacit approval – way different from Nauru/Manus.
Secondly, there were a series of guarantees underwritten by the Australian government regarding health, education, housing, and employment opportunities.
Thirdly, there was no question of detention. They were to be members of the community.
Lastly, of course, we were going to take four times as many refugees in return.
Very few similarities with Nauru/Manus.
Can I please interject?
I’ve been reading page over page of everybody’s comments tonight, and I honestly have no freaking clue what anybody is saying.
Can somebody fill me in on why everybody is fighting each other?
@ zoom, 1334
And you show your ignorance of the realities of push and pull factors. For the Malaysian solution to have been effective at stopping the boats, the prospect of going to Malaysia must necessarily be more terrifying than remaining in the reach of their persecutor for the prospective asylum seeker.
And then when quizzed as to what happens when the quota runs out, you have the temerity to simply wave it off by supposing that we won’t hit the (quite small) quota?
Your argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
1331
Well expert how do you know the problem is not imported have you visited the country of origin. I doubt it. Your just another blind blogging critisiser who will line up against the state as they try to fathom what is required bearing in mind we don’t have a monetary printing press.
As a member of the ALP, I’m HORRIFIED by the continued adherence to the off-shore processing policy, full. stop.
While I understand why Marles did what he did and said what he said on Monday night, there’s no way on God’s green Earth I could or would defend it.
The Australian people, sadly, as a whole, support this principle and it’s fundamentally about politics. Taking a stance is courageous – but as we know on a number of fronts, in politics – no good deed goes unpunished.
Millennial @ 1335
Do not go that way. That way lies madness.
@ silmaj, 1337
Well, actually…
[Was this the flotilla some Pentecostal tele-envegelist was using as he recruited refugees through some language control technique?]
Yeah Raaraa that was it. It formed because a whole lot of refugee boats came together by osmosis or something and ended up tied to the former USS enterprise. The background to the story was the eventual landfall on the West Coast of the US of this super shanty town with a massive population of refugees.
That sort of thing (tho without the juicy plot details of the book) is probably whats coming for the western world. its already started and it’ll just keep going – they’re beyond banging on the walls of fortress Europe, they’re scaling them. How we deal with it is what we need to start thinking about. If zoomster is right about that being the future focus of the ADF then it should be a public debate. Tho if that debate were had right now I think it would be ugly.
silmaj
See reports produced presented in parliament on conditions in detention centres. That is how we know.
Its why the Government went feral on Triggs
[zoomster
….No and no.
Firstly, I have made it clear that I am satisfied that whistleblowing is allowed.]
Im glad you are satisfied, but that is not what the legal experts are saying.
This is not about actually putting a doctor in jail. All hell would break lose in this country if that ever happened.
It is about casting sufficient doubt so that doctors are frightened to tell people what they have seen.
Greg Sheridan of the Australian gets it, but you don’t seem to get it. One wonders whether that might be because you will support the ALP position no matter what?
[Secondly, I do have problems with mandatory detention. I have consistently – as you well know – repudiated Manus/Nauru.
However, I don’t see any other viable alternatives to some form of mandatory detention]
Great. You have problems with it, but you don’t see viable alternatives. Hence my post above that the abuse continues when people allow it to continue rather than shouting from the rooftops “STOP”
I shout STOP……you do whatever seems right to you.
[and I seem to be in good company here, as most of the countries which receive refugees do seem to have some version of this in place.]
Name one other developed country with this policy. Australia is the only one doing what we are doing.
[Accepting that something maybe necessary and having problems with the way it is implemented are two different things.]
You are saying I know child abuse is happening in detention centres but we have no other choice but to let it happen.
WRONG.
Stop mandatory detention (Nauru, Manus, Cambodia, Malaysia….it doesn’t matter where it is, what matters is the veil of secrecy and the lack of oversight and the silencing or attempted silencing of those who would speak out).
[It’s cute that you talk about your abhorence of bullies and yet resort to bullying yourself, as soon as you realise you can’t maintain the argument.]
Highlighting your hypocrisy is not bullying. I have taken apart the individual points you are trying to make, and demonstrating how your accusation of slurs are false.
guytaur
I am not blithely defending the party line. I am simply pointing out that the Greens didn’t have any problems with the legislation when they had a chance to examine it.
In fact, I have repeatedly said that the legislation allows whistleblowing. Marles made it clear that was a central reason for Labor’s support.
So if the legislation allows whistleblowing, there is no connection between it and child abuse – and people really should be careful about throwing around slurs like that.
Millennial @ 1335
But if you must know, a short summary is:
I’m right. Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. And those who agree with me are probably wrong to because they are agreeing for the wrong reasons.
[zoomster
……Once again, you simply show your ignorance of the Malaysian solution.]
Unfortunately, it is, yet again, showing your ignorance.
Let me remind you. The reason we don’t have a Malaysian solution is because the High Court of Australia protected the asylum seekers from having this ALP policy inflicted upon them due to the absence of protections.
@ zoom, 1344
Go on, continue to ignore the point about the Government’s track record of shoving inconvenient truths into the black bag of “operational matters”.
What if the Government decides that what happens in detention centers is “classified information”, hm? What if Nauru’s government decides it is so? Then whistleblowing becomes criminal activity, based on the Commissioner’s own words that the BFA’s anti-whistleblower provisions are about protecting classified information.
tpof
No, you are.
Arrnea Stormbringer
My goodness I hope your typing fingers are still functioning, after wading through so many pages tonight, never seen so many posts from one person before I don’t think, even beating Mod lib’s efforts
#justsaying 😀
Guytaur
What do they show.
Do we not provide shelter and food?
Or do we not immediately remove the horrible traits from the home country from where they came?
Have you been to the country of origin?