Federal politicians say they do not think a formal code of conduct for MPs would improve behaviour.

The saga surrounding now-independent MP Craig Thomson and Speaker Peter Slipper has renewed focus on the standards of parliamentarians.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is happy to discuss a formal code of conduct for MPs, but she already promised to do that as part of the agreements Labor signed in 2010 to form government, and there has been little progress since a draft was issued last year.

The Opposition's shadow attorney-general, George Brandis, says constitutional change is not appropriate or necessary.

"I think that if we want to raise parliamentary standards as everyone does, then the starting point is for members of Parliament to improve their own behaviour," he said.

"You don't need to change the law or even ... the constitution to do that, members of Parliament simply have to make a conscious decision to conduct themselves appropriately."

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says he is not sure a code of conduct would change behaviour of parliamentarians.

"Look, it might work but the fact that there's so much sound and fury about a code of conduct now just shows how much on the nose politicians are with the Australian public," he said.

"Ultimately this is a case of common sense. The best integrity commissioners are the Australian public and a robust media, and I think the fact that we've come to this indicates how the system is broken and how politicians are held in such low regard by the entire community."

A House of Representatives Committee put forward a draft code last year, but the Government is waiting for the corresponding Senate inquiry to finish its work before responding.

It was due to report last week, but has delayed its reporting date until the end of November.

Senator Xenophon says the establishing of a code of conduct and a parliamentary integrity commissioner will make little difference.

"I'm just worried that this just could be another layer of bureaucracy," he said.

"People don't need a code of conduct on how to breathe, really we shouldn't need a code of conduct on how to behave decently, but clearly we're not and that's why it's come to this.

"I just think it shows a failure of this current Parliament and in fact previous parliaments in how to behave decently."

Meanwhile, independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott have been discussing ways to broaden the criteria for disqualifying an MP or Senator from Parliament.

Currently someone must be bankrupt or convicted of a criminal offence and jailed for a year or more.

"Given the furore on this issue, particularly from the Coalition, maybe it's time that the Parliament actually looked at what it can in fact do if people are found guilty of both civil and or criminal offences," Mr Windsor said.

"That might require either legislative change or change of a constitution by way of referendum."

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has distanced itself from a group of prominent doctors who say children are better off when raised by heterosexual parents, rather than same-sex couples.

Around 150 medical practitioners from the group Doctors for the Family, including a member of Victoria's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, say children raised in heterosexual relationships "do better in all parameters".

The group has signed a submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality, opposing same-sex marriage and asserting that marriage between a man and a woman is the "basis for a healthy society".

The submission says that marriage, as it is currently defined under the Marriage Act 2004, is more stable than same-sex marriages.

Doctors for the Family's convener Lachlan Dunjey, a right-to-life campaigner who has run as a Senate candidate for the Christian Democratic Party, told ABC News Radio the group is concerned about the health consequences for children of gay marriages.

"It's well proven that children who grow up with a mother and a father in a biological mother-and-father family do better than children who don't have the opportunity to grow up in that kind of family," he said.

But AMA president Steve Hambleton has rejected the claims, saying there is no evidence that children with same-sex parents are any different to those with heterosexual parents.

"There is a growing body of evidence that says there's no difference in their psychological development, their general health, their sexual orientation," he said.

Dr Hambleton says the opinions expressed in the submission do not reflect the views of the wider medical community, saying there are nearly 90,000 doctors in Australia.

He says doctors must be mindful of putting their opinions forward because they hold influential positions in society.

"That's part of the reason why it's a bit disturbing that these opinions have been proffered. It's certainly not the opinion of the AMA body of doctors," he said.

Doctors for the Family's submission references a 2011 report "For Kids' Sake", which was commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby and authored by University of Sydney law professor Partick Parkinson.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has dismissed the submission and says discrimination within the Marriage Act should end.

"A child being brought up in a loving home is far more important - and that quality of parenting is far more important - than any of the criticisms that have been waged by this group of individuals," she said.

ACT Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr is openly gay and says the doctors' arguments are "stupid".

"I think that's one of the more ridiculous propositions that's ever been put in Australian public debate. I don't know who these doctors are but it certainly doesn't accord with every other piece of research that's out there on this issue," he said.

Immediate explanation

Meanwhile, Victoria's Deputy Chief Psychiatrist, Professor Kuravilla George, who was appointed to the board of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by the State Government, is one of the doctors who signed the petition.

Victoria's Mental Health Minister is seeking an urgent explanation from the state's Chief Psychiatrist, Ruth Vine, over her deputy's decision to join forces with Doctors For The Family.

A spokesman for Victoria's Mental Health Minister, Mary Wooldridge, says the Government was unaware of the submission and is seeking an immediate explanation.

Professor George has declined the ABC's request for an interview but confirmed his involvement with the group.

Plain and simple the only way labor has a chance at the election is if Rudd is leader.

Plain and simple the only way labor has a chance at the election is if Rudd is leader.

This would further prove the Liberal party's tagline of "The government is a Shambles"

This would further prove the Liberal party's tagline of "The government is a Shambles"

They're only half right, though.

Whether they're right or wrong, the Libs would be licking their lips with another change in leadership.

One-liners derived from focus groups and dog-whistling don't add up to an acceptable refugee policy. But that is what the Coalition offers.

'Stop the boats … turn them back to Indonesia… take the boat people to Nauru.'

It is important to examine carefully the so-called Pacific solution that Tony Abbott gives us as one-liners. The cost of Nauru in the 2000s was extremely high, both for the people imprisoned and the taxpayer, with minimal benefits to Australia.

It cannot be part of a regional arrangement. In any event Nauru and the Pacific Solution cannot be repeated. That is the clear view of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) and all agencies advising the Government in this area.

Consider the following.

It is true that after 2001 the Howard government's policy practically stopped boat arrivals. But asylum seekers continued to come by air at the rate of about 4,000 per annum (in the last decade 76 per cent of asylum seekers came to Australia by air). Not surprisingly if one mode of unauthorised arrival is closed or made more difficult, desperate people fleeing persecution will make alternate arrangements. What is important is the total number of asylum seekers coming to Australia, not their mode of arrival. People smugglers sell their services to both boat and air asylum seekers seeking refuge. Fact Sheet 73 by DIAC is quite clear about this. "Many (asylum seekers who come by air) use the services of people smugglers to come to Australia." So the boats largely stopped arriving, but about 4,000 asylum seekers continued to come by air each year.

The total number of asylum seekers declined after the peak in 2001. This occurred not just for Australia but for all major refugee receiving countries. As the secretary of DIAC told the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee of the Senate of October 17, 2001, page 29:

"Given the events of September 11 [2001] and its aftermath, there was a significant return of over two million refugees to Afghanistan."

This process of refugees returning to Afghanistan was assisted by peacekeepers in Afghanistan in 2002. Not surprisingly the refugee flows to Australia fell considerably after 2001.

If we compare the flow of asylum seekers to OECD countries and Australia in the years 2000 to 2009, it is quite clear that, with a few leads and lags, the flows of asylum seekers to Australia followed very closely those to other OECD countries.



Sources: UNHCR Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries (2005-2010), UNHCR Statistical Online Database (Asylum seekers originating from, 2001-2004), UNHCR Statistical Yearbook (2004).

The number seeking entry to OECD countries rose again after the mid-2000s. Several factors contributed to this rise. In 2005 a state of emergency was declared in Sri Lanka. In 2007 the US troop surge in Afghanistan commenced, which provoked further outflows of refugees. In 2008 the Sri Lankan government withdrew from the cease fire with the Tamil Tigers and the civil war resumed. The result was another surge in asylum seekers to Australia and other OECD countries. In the last two years of the Howard government, asylum seekers coming to Australia rose from 3,094 in 2005 to 4,009 in 2007. The UNHCR Report in 2010 'Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialised Countries' noted that asylum seeker numbers have gone up for the sixth consecutive year (i.e. since 2004).

The trend of asylum seekers to Australia in the Howard years followed world trends. The figures show clearly that war, civil unrest and persecution determine refugee outflows rather than any deterrent policies in destination countries such as Australia.

In the use and abuse of statistics, there is one very important lesson. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other.

It is clear that the major reason for the fall of asylum seeker numbers in the early period of the Howard government was not its own policies, but a decline in the number of asylum seekers in the world. Certainly boat arrivals did fall, but the total numbers are what are important. When world refugee numbers rose again after the mid-2000s, so did the numbers coming to Australia. The Howard government policies had only a marginal impact on the total number of asylum seekers coming to Australia.

The UNHCR does not differentiate by mode of arrival, but Tony Abbott deliberately encourages our obsession with boat people. It is obviously good politics to focus on boat people only. We never hear him admit that more asylum seekers come by air than by boat. On the December 10, 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald reported from Wikileaks that a 'key Liberal Party strategist' told a US diplomat in Canberra in November last year, that the issue of asylum seekers was 'fantastic' for the Coalition and 'the more boats that come the better'. That 'key Liberal Party strategist' could not have been more explicit about the political game being played.

I asked the President of the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott who that 'key Liberal Party strategist was. I did not receive a satisfactory answer from either. Coalition propaganda as expressed by Messrs Abbott and Morrison is quite consistent with the view expressed to the US Embassy by a 'key Liberal Party strategist' that the more boats that come the better.

If Tony Abbott picks up the phone to speak to the president of Nauru, as he says he would if he became prime minister, he should remind himself that if he wants to get the budget back into surplus the Nauru and Manus solution cost the Howard government $1 billion over five years.

Yet after years of cruel punishment on Nauru, all but 45 of the 1,637 asylum seekers incarcerated in Nauru who were found to be refugees gained residence in Australia or New Zealand. The message is clear. Even if you are cruelly punished you are very up in Australia or New Zealand .The very few asylum seekers in the future, who might know about the history of Nauru/Manus, will not see it as a deterrent.

The Secretary of DIAC spelled out that what meagre success Nauru might have had would not work again in the future. In the Senate Committee referred to earlier, p.29, he said,He went on to say,

In April 2011, referring to deterrents generally, the UNHCR said "Pragmatically no empirical evidence is available to give credence to the assumption that the threat of being detained, deters irregular migration". The threat of detention is usually unknown. If it is known, the threat to life and limb in detention would need to be greater than the threat of war and persecution that they are escaping from. Is that what Tony Abbott has in mind – that life in Nauru would be worse than persecution by the Taliban?

Australia needs to work constructively with our regional partners to develop comprehensive and durable protection systems along the 'migration pathway'. Nauru is not on that migration pathway and has nothing to offer in any regional arrangement. The successful Fraser government's Indochina refugee program would not have been possible without the cooperation of refugee transit countries such as Malaysia. The same is true today.

Despite the reservations, the Malaysian Agreement created a new opportunity for a meaningful regional dialogue. This was a dialogue that was not conceivable even a few years ago. The Malaysian Agreement was historic. For the first time a non-signatory country to the Refugee Convention (Malaysia) and a signatory country (Australia) were in discussion on important principles of refugee protection in the region. For the first time Malaysia acknowledged the existence of refugees in its territory. UNHCR welcomed the Agreement.

Nauru is not and never was a transit country. It has no role now or in the future in helping to build a regional arrangement. It would again be a temporary political 'quick fix'. There is no end-game with Nauru. It would not be a building block as Malaysia would be in an effective regional arrangement.

Another part of Tony Abbott's flimsy Pacific Solution is the issue of Temporary Protection Visas for persons who are found to be refugees. One feature of these TPVs is that the holder cannot sponsor family members to join him (or her) in Australia. That is why when SIEVX sank off Indonesia 10 years ago with the loss of 353 lives; 82 per cent were women and children. These unfortunate women and children had decided if they could not be sponsored to join husbands, fathers or brothers in Australia, they would directly risk their own lives by boat. Few fair minded people would believe that TPVs make for humane and good policy.

The other dubious part of Tony Abbott's boat people one-liners is to push the boats back to Indonesian waters. The Fraser government in July 1979 rejected the policy of turning boats away. It said that if it did so, Australia 'would be courting international pariah status'. It is just as true today.

In the Senate in November last year, Admiral Ray Griggs of the RAN said that turning boats around at sea was highly risky and that Navy personnel are bound by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and that the Convention "would be the prime driver in the decision making of the Commanding Officer". Despite all the evidence, the Coalition continues to assert policies that are dangerous or failed in the past.

It is clear to most people who look beyond the one-liners that Nauru, turning the boats back and temporary protection visas are not viable policies.

Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, must have had Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison in mind when he said in Sydney on February 14 this year that we should

He pointed out that Yemen, one of the world's poorest countries, received more than 100,000 asylum seekers and migrants in 2011 who crossed the Gulf of Aden by boat. He added that last year 57,000 people arrived by boat in Italy and Malta. Our 'problems' are miniscule by comparison.

One-liners and dog-whistling do not make for good policy or indeed any policy at all. But unfortunately it does appeal to prejudice and our darker angels.

Two weeks ago Scott Morrison attacked the minimal government accommodation support for asylum seekers living in the community. He was assisted by the Daily Telegraph in promoting prejudice. Only last week he gave us another dose of xenophobia. He said that "typhoid cases on the latest boats highlights the risk of Labor's border failures". It was a shameful, suggesting that asylum seekers were spreading disease. His allegations have been effectively rebutted by an expert in infectious diseases Dr Trent Yarwood.

The performance of Messrs Abbott and Morrison remind me of the statement by the American satirist and journalist, H.L. Menchen, that "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the population alarmed".

Persecuted and victimised by the Taliban and the Mullahs in their own country, asylum seekers are now persecuted by the Coalition in Australia for its own political purposes. It is one of the basest and most appalling features of human history – to attack the vulnerable, the foreigner, the outsider or the person who is different. It is like the schoolyard bullying of the vulnerable and defenceless.

The Coalition continues to appeal to the worst in all of us; our fear and selfishness. The Coalition wants to frighten and bully its way into office. When will it stop? We are a better country than this. We have shown that with good leadership we will respond to the 'better angels of our nature'.

Australians showed in the outflow of 1.4 million people from Indochina after the fall of Saigon that with strong leadership we can act humanely and still protect our borders. After all, the 'problem' of asylum seekers coming to Australia is miniscule. We need more than one-liners and slogans.

And the Nauru "solution" is no solution at all. It failed before and will fail again.

No different to left wing people disregarding anything by Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones for the same reasons.

No different to left wing people disregarding anything by Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones for the same reasons.

Actually there is a huge difference, the ABC has compliance and ethical standards they must adhere to, whereas Bolt and Jones are merely pushing biased agendas often with questionable or illogical basis.

No different to left wing people disregarding anything by Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones for the same reasons.

Actually there is a huge difference, the ABC has compliance and ethical standards they must adhere to, whereas Bolt and Jones are merely pushing biased agendas often with questionable or illogical basis.

Sorry, what fields are Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones respected experts in?

they would have to have more credibilty than Tim Flannery....!!!!!...LOL

An opinion poll released today shows the Coalition's primary vote has dropped six percentage points, but it still holds a strong lead over the Labor Party.

The Newspoll, published in The Australian newspaper, has the Coalition's primary vote at 45 per cent, down six points from a fortnight ago.

Labor's primary vote has risen three points to 30 per cent.

In two-party preferred terms, the Coalition leads Labor by 55 points to 45, an eight-point turnaround in a fortnight.

In the poll, taken last weekend after the Government handed down the budget, 18 per cent of respondents said they would be personally better off thanks to the announced measures.

Satisfaction for Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott remained at similar levels to recent polls, with Ms Gillard on 27 per cent and Mr Abbott on 34 per cent.

The poll found Mr Abbott had the lead as preferred prime minister to Ms Gillard, 40 to 35 per cent.

There is a 3 per cent margin of error on the poll.

i don't give a fuck if they are popular or not....i just want them to govern the fucken country, stop wasting money and get the other part of the economy going instead of just bumping along in the doldrums..........if we are if such properous times how come the whole thing is titts up and shitty......

i don't give a fuck if they are popular or not....i just want them to govern the fucken country, stop wasting money and get the other part of the economy going instead of just bumping along in the doldrums..........if we are if such properous times how come the whole thing is titts up and shitty......

A report ranking the world's biggest polluters puts Australia in seventh place.

Conservation group World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which compiled the report, says the spiralling global population and over-consumption are threatening the future health of the planet.

Australia has risen one place since 2010, and is now sitting behind Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Denmark, Belgium and the US, in terms of its impact on the world's natural resources.

WWF chief executive Dermot O'Gorman says there is no excuse for Australia to be so high on the list.

"Interestingly other countries which have similar or higher living standards than Australia also rank lower," he said.

"So it shows that we can reduce the impact that we have on the planet while still maintaining the level of development."

The results of the survey were calculated by comparing renewable resources consumed against the Earth's regenerative capacity.

The demand on natural resources has become unsustainable and is putting "tremendous" pressure on the planet's biodiversity, the body said.

The Living Planet Report found that high-income countries have an ecological footprint on average five times that of low-income ones.

Across the globe the footprint has doubled since 1966.
"We are living as if we have an extra planet at our disposal," WWF International director general Jim Leape said.

"We are using 50 per cent more resources that the Earth can sustainably produce and unless we change course, that number will grow fast - by 2030 even two planets will not be enough."

The survey, compiled every two years, reported an average 30 per cent decrease in biodiversity since 1970, rising to 60 per cent in the hardest-hit tropical regions.

The decline has been most rapid in lower income countries, "demonstrating how the poorest and most vulnerable nations are subsidising the lifestyles of wealthier countries," WWF said.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forest were lost each year between 2000 and 2010.

"An ever-growing demand for resources by a growing population is putting tremendous pressures on our planet's biodiversity and is threatening our future security, health and well-being," the group said.

The report comes ahead of June's Rio+20 gathering, the fourth major summit on sustainable development since 1972.

Global leaders at the summit will seek to outline a path towards an economy that can balance economic growth, poverty eradication and protection of the environment.

The WWF wants to see more efficient production systems that would reduce human demand for land, water and energy and a change in governmental policy that would measure a country's success beyond its GDP figure.

But the group says the immediate focus must be on drastically shrinking the ecological footprint of high-income countries, particularly their carbon footprint.

"Rio+20 can and must be the moment for governments to set a new course towards sustainability," Mr Leape said.

"This report is like a planetary check-up and the results indicate we have a very sick planet," said Jonathan Baillie, conservation program director of the Zoological Society of London, which co-produced the report along with the Global Footprint Network.

Unemployment rate 4.9%
Cash rate 3.75%
Inflation rate 1.6%

i see what you mean

So how is the unemployment rate a symptom of a two track economy, people are either working or the aren't?

The state of affairs in the USA:

Unemployment - 8%
inflation - 2.7%
interest rates way way lower....so in your theory their economy is whooping ours??????