I assume most of the cost is associated with pointlessly housing asylum seekers at a huge cost offshore but didn't the Gillard/Rudd government spend $50bil on asylum seeker policies?

People are protesting this shit as far as I'm aware? I see asylum seeker events all over FB?

Most people I'd say would support this terrible situation being as efficient as possible. I think people blame asylum seekers for long periods of costly offshore detention. I don't for one second blame them for chasing a better life. There is also media coverage of problems at detention centres constantly costing us even more money to sort out.

If we're going to spend billions on this, let these people in and put them in a regional centre with trade shortages, teach them a trade, teach them English and about our customs and give them the best chance at being a useful member of society. It will still cost shit loads less than keeping them locked up like criminals for 18 months where nothing is achieved.

But but but!!! THE SCARY TERRORISTS!!!! Fear mongering has made off shore detention centers look like they are saving us from the next big terrorist threat.

Abbott does this all the time when he has taken a hit over something stupid he has said. He holds a press conference visits Asio and tells us to be on alert.

People buy into that.

Idealism wins every election - it's just rarely in regards to an ideal progressive minded people agree with due to the inherent scared, insecure nature of humanity as a whole.

Rightly or wrongly, I think this is how the average person sees the issue:

- They don't necessarily have a problem with immigration or immigrants, or even refugees as such (although the openly racist bigots will also be in favour of turning back the boats
- They understand that there are potentially good reasons for people to flee dangerous countries, but think that this is a problem that we can't solve.
-If we are "soft" on asylum seekers, we will be swamped by boat people and "lose control of our borders".
-If people are "genuine" they will "go through the right channels" eg go via a refugee camp.

Some key conclusions from the above:
- People understand that the issue is complex and that there is no simple solution, so think we are better off just stopping people coming in the first place.
- Australians are not necessarily more racist as a country than any other country. We are actually quite welcoming in comparison to many places. People fear "uncontrolled" immigration rather than immigration itself.

In regards to what the general public believe, it is not that hard to explain where they are factually wrong. But when you have the media constantly fear-mongering it is very hard to make rational arguments addressing the issue as a whole, because it is complex and emotive.

So while I thoroughly disagree with boat turn-back as a policy, and mandatory detention, and offshore processing, I have sympathy with the difficulty for a political party to craft an alternative narrative which will enable a more sane policy to develop.

Its just a sad situation all round.

So they want to put GST on internet purchases under $1000, how exactly do they do this?

-PB

why? It pisses me off so much. No wonder retailers are going broke here. Fuck harvey norman he's prices are a joke as it is . Sif putting gst on internet purchases will get people buying here. Fuck out of here

Make people fill out and pay customs duty and tax before their goods are delivered.

The goal isn't to get tax it is to make it harder to buy overseas so fucks like Harvey Norman don't go under sooner with their overpriced shit.

^^this!

The reason the threshold was set at $1,000 in the first place was because the cost of collecting the tax exceeds the revenue raised below that level!

MVArse, the gift that keeps on giving.

As wonderful as it is that we don't (or didn't) pay GST is great for us the poor retailer here in Australia is at a distinct disadvantage if the overseas retailer can offer the same price but not pay the GST.

Hardly fair if you're a business owner here.

I take it you have no problem with Google, Apple etc not paying tax in Australia then based on your above ludicrous post.

They're levelling the playing field that's all. As unpalatable as it is it's the right thing to do.

I think the general public has pretty much got it spot on. We understand we're not "stopping people coming in the first place" we just recognise that outsourcing our humanitarian and immigration programs to people smugglers is really stupid and dangerous. As a sovereign country we have a right to decide who we take as immigrants and not just take anybody because they came on a boat.

Contrary to what you think the boat turn back policy, mandatory detention (which Labor implemented) and offshore processing are all sensible humane policies that have brought order, common sense and pragmatism to the process as opposed to the chaos under Labor. Not to mention saving lives.

When you say "it's not that hard to explain where they are factually wrong", you just sound like a pompous twat. Most people understand the facts well enough, and it's been flogged to death in the media and everyone has an opinion, it's clear that some interpretation of the "facts" are different from others. One fact that can't be disputed is that thousands of innocent people died when Labor were running borders.



Edited by rusty: 24/7/2015 11:00:00 AM

They're idiotic policies that cost us way too much money and achieve nothing.

Why hold someone for 18 months? Why hold someone for greater than 3 months? What does it achieve?

Look I understand if these people have to be held for a week or a month to verify who they are but why hold them offshore at expensive facilities? Why not hold them locally at established facilities?

Why the hell do we treat these desperate people like criminals?

To act as a disincentive.

They're desperate. 18 months in an Australian detention centre is better than civil war in their home countries.

It won't stop the boats no matter how much BS the pollies tell us.

Online sales have increased exponentially since that report came out and are likely to keep increasing so eventually the revenue collected will outstrip administration of it. And there are better ways now of collecting and tracking these taxes.

The UK, the US, Canada, the EU, Singapore, Korea, all collect GST on O/S purchases (albeit with varying thresholds) so we're hardly alone.

I want someone to come on here and explain to me why "The Little Book Co" (TM) in Ballarat or wherever has to charge his customer GST on a purchase but a multi-billion dollar monolith like Amazon doesn't have to.

Away you go.

I'm not disagreeing. That's the rationale. Make it as hard as you can for them so they stop coming.

Who the fuck is getting on a boat if you're going to be resettled in PNG?

The Liberal Party, rightly or wrongly, have stopped people smuggling to Australia dead.

The boats are still coming if they're paying people smugglers to turn back.

They've effectively been stopped. 1 or 2 every 3 months does not obviate the fact that refugees aren't coming to Australia by boat in large numbers.


Edited by munrubenmuz: 24/7/2015 11:46:04 AM

All they've done is effectively stopped them from getting into the detention centre, that's mission accomplished as far as the general public is concerned. Anyone that cared about the plight of these people would think otherwise.

We also don't know how many boats are still trying to come.

How can you say they've achieved nothing when boats have stopped sinking, people have stopped dying, and we've actually managed to increase our intake from those long suffering in refugee camps rather than just those who can purchase their citizenship from a people smuggler? Clearly the current suite of policies are working really well and that is why Bill Shorten, the leader of the opposition, who opposes the government in just about everything, supports the boat turn back policy, and things like mandatory detention, which Labor introduced. Clearly you're not being intellectually honest when the current policies "achieve nothing" when they clearly do, and everybody but the bleeding heart brigade know it.

In regards to holding people for 3 months or 18 months, this may be improved on, I would suggest we need to hold people in detention only as long as necessary to assess their claims and clear them of security risk. If it takes 18 months that's how long it takes. But even if you support 3 months, this is still mandatory detention isn't it? It's locking people up, even children, and treating them like horrible criminals and subjecting them to torrid mental abuse is it not? Whether it's on shore or off shore what's the difference? But ultimately if you really are against mandatory detention, then you should support policies that keep people out of mandatory detention, which means supporting the current policies the government and Bill Shorten subscribe too.

Treating people like criminals, wtf? These people are fed, clothed, educated and protected . It's not ideal but it's better than a UN refugee camp. If their claims are approved they get to live in a beautiful country like Australia. Claiming they are treated criminals when Australia has on aggregate permanently resettled the second highest number of asylum seekers is an affront to Australia's glowing record on this issue. Of course some people scoff at this because they think Australia is big and rich enough to host every refugee and asylum seeker, and any contrarian view is motivated by xenophobia, racism and lack of compassion.

Edited by rusty: 24/7/2015 12:23:46 PM

Welcome back rusty!

I thought the Liberal Party must have assigned you to another forum.

Edited by biscuitman1871: 24/7/2015 12:36:31 PM

Stop being dishonest. We know the boats are a shit load less than if when Labor was running immigration. The amount of lives saved spared would be in the hundreds at least. We don't know how more would be dead if Labor were still in charge, possibly millions? We also know that any boats that attempt to come here have a direct line to the refugee council and ABC and any attempts at an arrival will be plastered Fairfax and the ABC in a desperate attempt to discredit the government.

If you were an intellectually honest you would admit that the current policies are working successfully in what they are setting out to do. You might disagree with the morality of those policies, but on a practical level you would admit they are working, rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by making trite statements like "we don't know how many boats are trying to come".

Calm down

You wouldn't know if they're coming or not. Depends what we're told by the media.

The current policies also cost us billions for a bunch of people who speak eff all English and may not have any skills. So they then cost us more money over an extended period of time.



18 months is a joke when housing someone costs thousands per week.

I will never support a policy that sends people who are largely victims of terrible atrocities away.

Have some humility.



Glowing record? So criticism from the UN is baseless? So holding people in what is essentially a jail is appropriate treatment?

Come on mate I'm right wing on most issues but have some humility for people in suffering.

I know this will be amusing but if you were in their position what would you do and how would you feel Rusty?

This is a moral issue. A moral issue we spend more on than if we were to invest in programmes to turn these people from the criminals you label them as to tax paying Australians........

I agree with this.

:lol: echo biscuitman's sentiments. Welcome back rusty! Really enjoyed this post, especially the fairfax and ABC rants =d>

I did say the policies are working successfully in what they are setting out to do (no, saving lives at sea is not the main motivation as much as you try and strawman people into claiming that they're for deaths). I also said I disagree with the morality of these policies which is worthy of debate.

If you completely disregard humility.

Do you know what the current policy costs the tax payer? I saw the figure of $50mil under the labour leadership. Has it reduced?

I don't understand why Munrub and rusty are trying to turn the discussion away from the morality of it except that they know they can't "win" with that argument. No one wants people trying to seek asylum in such a dangerous way but at what cost do you try and prevent it? The current "solution" is expensive and inhumane.

Edited by mcjules: 24/7/2015 12:59:41 PM