PNG PM encouraged by Abbott commitment
AAP
Updated September 10, 2013, 5:31 pm
tweet1
Email
Print

AAP © PNG's PM is encouraged by Tony Abbott's commitment to the asylum seeker deal between the countries.
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O'Neill says he's encouraged by incoming Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's commitment to the regional resettlement arrangement between the countries.

The deal to send all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat to PNG was signed with prime minister Kevin Rudd, who was defeated by Mr Abbott in Saturday's election.

Mr O'Neill spoke to Mr Abbott on Monday amid fears in PNG that the controversial scheme would be scrapped.

"I had a frank conversation with Abbott yesterday (Monday) and I was encouraged by his commitment to maintaining the arrangement," Mr O'Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

"PNG is just as determined as Australia to combat people smuggling in the region and globally.

"We both agreed that the Arrangement appears to be working, and it's in our interest to maintain it."

Mr O'Neill said he was confident that Australian aid to PNG - $500 million annually - will be maintained, including the redirection of aid under the Resettlement Agreement.

He also rejected calls by PNG Opposition leader Belden Namah for Mr Abbott to cancel the deal because it "was not in the interest of PNG and Australia".

"I urge the Opposition Leader to be more objective when debating regional and global issues like people smuggling and how PNG should help other countries tackle it," Mr O'Neill said.

"Emotional outburst for political point-scoring is unhelpful to anyone."

There are currently 680 asylum seekers being detained on Manus Island.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/18868667/?

Tell me which seats in the "working class heartland" they lost? They lost 2 portions of their base they lost this election:
1. The swing voters who bought the libs/media bs about the economy being ruined and/or treat politics like it's something out of New Idea (i.e. gossip about personality clashes)
2. Voters that disagree with their shift to the right on a number of policies and have been forced to find alternatives.

The latter probably won't be back but they'll get them on preferences. The former will as soon as the Libs do something to piss them off.

Corangamite

Hmm, Libs held it from 1931 to 2007. I don't know enough about the Victorian seats to know if the demographic there has changed radically but it doesn't convince me as "Labor Heartland" from what I can tell

Edited by mcjules: 10/9/2013 10:04:30 PM

Kingsford Smith is one traditional Labor seat where the Libs actually got more votes that Labor. Matt T. only won on Green preferences.

Do you really want to be a party beholden to the Greens?

Low ALP primary votes are going to be the reality of Australian politics unless the Greens party returns to minor status.

Most of the primary vote lost by Labor has gone to the Greens... meaning it comes back to Labor on preferences. The swing towards the Libs in this election was nothing like the swing away from Labor and the Greens... a clear indication that a large chunk of Australians chose to vote Palmer, independents, etc... basically a "screw Abbott, Rudd AND the Greens vote".



This election is going to have 3 likely outcomes, I believe - 1) ALP and LNP joining to reform the Senate to reduce the chance of minor parties getting seats, 2) ALP and Greens having to consider a formal 'coalition' as Liberals have with the Nationals and 3) someone like Nick Xenophon to start a genuine centrist alternative party.

Once that happens we'll have a left alliance (ALP + Greens), a right alliance (Libs + Nationals possibly + Palmer) and a Centrist "Xenophon Party" to bring the 'balance' back to the 'balance of power' (the Greens have basically created an imbalance of power with their far-left ideology).

The Libs hardly gained if at all in that seat.

Don't think Labor are beholden to the Greens (except in a minority government and they are actually cooperating).

Nah, that's Tony this term ;)

How's that?

The main reason that the Labor party are losing votes is because of the Greens. There's another 'major' left wing party taking votes off them all over the place.

The Liberal Party don't have that competition on the right side of the spectrum.

So a question for those who kept up with the whole election process this year..

Back when Labour set the September date for the election, there was this monster fuss made over how "Western Sydney will be where the eleciton is won and lost". Did this eventuate - was Western Sydney the big deal it was made out to be?

Judging by "the worst loss in 100 years" I'd say Labour were fxxxed in a massive amount of areas. But that's a very simple view of looking at it, I'm sure

so you don't regard Palmer united party,Katters Australia party,christian democratic party,family first or any other christian parties as right???

Aside from in rural Queensland Palmer United and Katter aren't really taking votes off the Liberal Party the same way the Greens are with Labor. And the CDP and Family First are circuses, not political parties.

how do you surmise that??

as far as i am aware there were 2 seats that changed from labor to liberal in western sydney

they were Lindsay (my electorate,Bradbury's gone yippee\:d/ \:d/ \:d/ ) and Mitchell, the rest remained Labor....so over stated i think

Yeah Liberal didn't do anywhere near as well as predicted in Western Sydney. Certainly not the 'bloodbath' some were predicting and didn't really have much do with the LNP winning the election, but did mean it wasn't as bad as it could've been for Labor.

They were certainly expecting to get Greenway, but they went and royally fucked that up.

Edited by sydneycroatia58: 11/9/2013 08:41:00 AM

True. But Lib numbers are still very large, way higher than previously.

well Labor faithful bang on about the coalition numbers being soft, but the swing against labor was 4% and the swing to the coalition was just under 2%, so if they picked up half of the numpties who gave up on labor a coalition supporter would have to be happy.....especially considering the negative slander campaign KRUDD ran....

Lowest primary vote in 100years is not the same as the "worst loss in 100 years".

The actual swing against Labor was much, much smaller than expected, and the swing towards the LNP is barely worth registering. It's an election where small parties and informal votes won big, which should be a big message to big party analysists that are smart enough to take the hint.

This election result wasn't a mandate for anything, as the LNP are claiming, other than a mandate to clean up the political styles of both major parties.

swing against Labor 4 %
swing to coalition 1.8%

Yes batfink, well done.

thanks Matt....:d

that's the first nice thing you have said to me....=d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

Labor did benefit from the Greens preferences also Palmer and Katter also preference Labor over the coalition at the last election, so it is very immature to blame the alliance with the Greens for the Labor’s failures.

When are all Labor supporters going to realize that policies are what is going to get you in to the government and they sucked at policies.

Gillard went along with Green’s Carbon Tax and renewable energy policies without the mandate, then stopped the cattle export and really damaged the whole industry and the relations with Indonesia, if Labor did not go along with such stupid decisions the Green’s would have still supported the Labor over Coalition.

Even after the worst loss in century they still have learned nothing:

Bill Shorten (said about PM Gillard, I do not know what PM said but I support her and am shore that she is right in what she said) is challenging now for the leadership, if he wins Coalition is guaranteed two terms in the government on this decision alone.

Union influence on Labor party is disproportional to union’s proportion of the workforce.

But we have seen nothing yet with voters dislike for Labor if they block the dismantling of Carbon Tax in the senate.

Lack of realistic, budgeted policies is a good start.

As for far right, if you actually look where KAP, PUP etc fit, they aren't as far right as the LNP as a whole are. If anything Labour is actually on the right nowdays based off a lot of their policies.

-PB

You really think that it's Liberal policies that got them elected?

What a load of horseshit.

Actually yeah, Border protection, reversing of Carbon Tax, Parental Payment, Payment to apprentices to finish their courses, Indigenous policies, no FBT, no mining tax and so on…

Maybe horseshit for you but the rest of Australian voting public agrees with me

considering Clive Palmer is Ex liberal party and Katter is EX National party i would suggest their votes are taken from the coalitions tally.......

same could be said for the previous Governments policies.......they definatley didn't get elected due to their policies.....

=d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

You mean less than 2% of the Australian voting public agrees with you.