As I mentioned further up is it that hard to send them to where labour is needed? Is it morally wrong to get them picking fruit on a part time basis?

Mwahahaah then they can point the finger at them and accusing them on being lazy and binging off taxpayers wmwhahaahaAah1!!:twisted:

Is he from Auburn?

:lol:

There's nothing to stop them doing that now, obviously city life and benefits is more enticing than picking bits of fruit off the ground.

So let me get this right....

-You post an article to prove your point
- I read the article, and post from THE SAME ARTICLE YOU USED
- You accuse me of cherry-picking, then quote something from 2011 off news.com.au

Yeah..... nah.

You're confused because you're cherry picking the part of the article that refers to The Building a New Life in Australia, which
covers mostly recent arrivals, and that part you even highlighted in your response.

The part of the article I quoted refers to broader ABS statistics taken over a decade, and therefore is representative of long term trends of refugee employment rates or lack of.

I never claimed that 93% of refugees are unemployed only that , and I quote "most refugees remain unemployed up to 10 years since arrival" which is substantiated by this passage "2013 only 19% had a job, but over the 10 years covered by the survey, 36% had a job at some time". The news.com.au article also provides further evidence as it was published in 2011 therefore you can't weazel your way of the facts by blaming TPVs.

Your desperate frothing attempt at copying pasting and bolding passages doesn't refute any of that.

Rofl, LNP have now delisted the vid on Youtube.

#faketradie ftw.

-PB

Definitely one of Ricecrackers multis...

Yes, but that does not mean the rest are unemployed.

The ABS report you refer to states the following:

"The unemployment rate for recent migrants was 7.0%, compared with 5.4% for people born in Australia. Migrants with Australian citizenship had an unemployment rate of 4.3%, temporary residents 4.6% and recent migrants on a permanent visa 9.0%".

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6250.0Main%20Features2Nov%202013?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6250.0&issue=Nov%202013&num=&view=

That's it son just keep copying and pasting shit eventually you might stumble across something that actually supports your pov

Mate, I'm quoting from the source you used!

Im slowly thinking rusty is nothing more than a bot

What's everyone's opinion on GMOs? There seems to be a lot of hate towards it, most of which is based on fear and pseudoscience.

I haven't found much on Labor or Liberal's stance towards genetically modified, but I am shocked to see that the Greens are so openly against it.

I am also against the labeling of GMO products, as it just further promotes the incorrect notion that there is something wrong with GMOs.

The science of GMO is in - there is no harm. Anti GMO fanatics are on the same level as anti-vaxxers.

How come?

Greens are so stupid and anti-science in some respects.

An anti-vaxxer is almost certain to be anti-GMO.

I say label GMO's if required.

It annoys me how people where food supplies are secure can sit there and be so anti-GMO where people are starving in 3rd world countries. I'm sure their stomachs don't really care about the food.

What needs to happen is more research into the affects GMO's have on surrounding 'native' crops before large scale development.

Australia might not need them yet but discounting them is naive.

In NZ they have genetically modified pine trees for the forestry industry. The beaches grow higher off the ground to reduce stripping times.

Turnbull is a hell of a waffler

Watching qanda rusty? ;)

I think he's doing very well.

Even a crook Malcolm is more articulate than a healthy Shorten.

-PB

Yeah he's going ok now.

You can tell when he's stumped though haha. Back peddles pretty hard.

Getting some tough old questions though.

That video question from Mannus was a bit of a left field curveball though, hard for him to comment on that fella's exact situation.

-PB

Why are activisits so afraid of the truth on Nauru

Just for you Rusty :lol:

On a serious note, while I disagree with detention, it does amuse me how many truth bombs this article drops on parasite websites like New Matilda :lol:

Who cares either way :lol:

The entire refugee debate is utterly warped. Resettling refugees is no just longer about fleeing persecution, its basically a travel service for people smugglers to provide a visa to a first world country for a fee.

Soft cock advocates and proponents of onshore processing are being exploited by people smugglers and asylum seekers who aren't merely interested in fleeing persecution, but are chasing better economic factors, their choice of country and all the bells and whistles that go with a western country.

Nauru might not provide the same living standards as Australia, but it's far better than a refugee camp and satisfies in full all the requirements of the convention of which we are signatory. The rhetoric about Nauru and PNG being hellholes is steeped deeply in racism that these countries of savages are unable to provide basic human rights and human needs.

Advocates should be ashamed of themselves for peddling false hope and spinning lies that has no doubt caused despair among many of the asylum seekers.

The problem is that there is no transparency - the only people who have been allowed access to these places have been the visit by Chris Kenny, and now the visit by A Current Affair.

We won't know what is actually true and representative of the conditions, until media has regular access.

With people setting themselves on fire, and children regularly trying to kill themselves, this A Current Affair report cannot be the whole story.

I trust the opinion of a mental health professional who worked there for an extended period, over tabloid media:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/20/the-worst-ive-seen-trauma-expert-lifts-lid-on-atrocity-of-australias-detention-regime

Edited by AzzaMarch: 21/6/2016 01:38:26 PM

The point isn't really that he's an actor, it's an ad FFS. Just how unbelievable it is both with the actors delivery but more importantly the content. As if a tradie cares about a banking royal commission :lol:

Exactly. They can also say that the "Australian government had no involvement" but the Nauru government have been denying visas to journalists. Why would they accept these two and no one else? :-k

Furthermore, I think this article does a decent job of pointing out what was wrong with the A Current Affair report:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/a-current-affair-goes-to-nauru-refugees-facile-questions-and-lingering-shots-of-flatscreen-tvs

A Current Affair goes to Nauru: facile questions and lingering shots of flatscreen TVs

Karl Mathiesen

On Monday night A Current Affair launched a guerrilla attack on the refugees Australia has resettled on Nauru.

The ACA team were the first TV crew to make a sanctioned visit to the island since it effectively sealed its borders to journalists in 2014.

Given the chance to report from Nauru, where refugees have been brutalised under Australia’s stewardship, ACA chose to focus on the more superficial problems of life on Nauru – a thrown pencil in a classroom, stolen bikes and vaguely described health issues. In doing so, it made the refugees’ universal desire to leave the island appear similarly superficial.

“Many average Australians would have watched the story last night and wondered what all the complaining was about: on the whole, the refugees on Nauru are well-fed, most live in relative comfort and they’re free to move around as they please,” wrote ACA’s Caroline Marcus in the Daily Telegraph.

But poor living conditions and restrictions on movement are not what refugees fear. Their physical and mental safety is the most significant story embroiling Australia’s Nauruan detention regime. Marcus’s report reduced this to a parenthetic “there have been reports of sexual assaults”.

Stories of fear and abuse are not difficult to find on Nauru. On Christmas night in 2014, after slipping past a sleeping guard into two refugee camps, a photographer and I sat with refugees as they told us their stories. Speaking in hushed voices, a group of Somali women told us that they had begged Australian immigration officials to be placed back into detention to remove them from the attentions of men who knocked on their windows at night. They said they slept wearing jeans. Several reported being attacked.

The refugee community is small and has become tight-knit against adversity. They know when one of their friends has been hurt. Once word spread that a journalist was on Nauru, meetings were easy to arrange.

Most interviewees feared retribution from the Nauruan government, locals or the Australian immigration department, so they would only speak and be photographed anonymously. Thus it is unsurprising that none of these women were willing to speak to ACA on camera. It is standard journalistic practice to protect the identity of victims of abuse. Whether Marcus offered them the opportunity to speak anonymously is unclear.

Three months after my visit, the Moss review would crystallise the rumours of rape and abuse in Nauru’s detention centres. This year, a report documented the ongoing abuse of unmarried women like those we met, who live among the Nauruan community. On Monday, the Guardian revealed the mind-numbing frequency of self-harm recorded in the logs of the private security firm guarding the centres.

When given the rare opportunity to interview the Nauruan president, Baron Waqa, ACA failed to ask – or failed to air – questions about the safety of the refugees.

“Is it dangerous?” Marcus asked the country’s justice minister, David Adeang. No, he said, Nauru’s rates of violent crime are lower than Australia’s. There was no follow up.

Instead, the camera lingered reproachfully on a flatscreen TV and a new undercover playground provided to refugees by the Australian government. There were also casual questions about the money refugees paid to traffickers. In this context this information was only relevant to fuel the trope that these are economic migrants who can’t be that hard up if they can afford thousands for a boat trip to Australia.

ACA’s report sought to set the facts straight on the most facile criticisms of Australia’s Nauruan regime. Refugees’ daily protests photographed through the wire of the detention centre were revealed to be staged beside an open gate. Refugees on Nauru are fighting an asymmetric media war against the Australian government. Their unalloyed condemnation of every aspect of life in Nauru is not subtle.

Neither is the rhetoric of some of their advocates. The program started with footage of the Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young calling the island a “hellhole”. This type of hyperbole is offensive to the Nauruan people and easy for ACA to repudiate. It might be expected that an Australian politician speaks with more restraint. Nauru is not Auschwitz.

But the refugees are people devoid of hope and left only with anger. Women and children have been raped without consequence. Do we really expect them to caveat their complaints with thanks for giving them a TV?