Hidden agenda—or policy of evil?

New MH2

From Shakespeare’s Julius Cesar are these words by Mark Antony:

The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones…
Amen to that.

In the political sense, The evil that men do lives after them, equates to Kevin Rudd’s unprincipled foray upon our neighbours to the north, Manus Island, and Nauru the world’s smallest Republic. Ironically, Nauru is an island made of solid bird shit.

Only weeks ago the return of Rudd as PM forced him to face the fact that his dismantling of the Howard Pacific Solution to appease the Greens and other socialist idealists had become a disaster.

If Rudd was following the Julia Gillard compilation of asylum seeker policy drawn up during her days as shadow immigration minister, the goal is achieved as more than 50,000 have “rocked up” to our table of plenty since Labor came to power in 2007.

Image9However, Labor seems bereft of a single, original idea and so it remains with mass unauthorised arrivals seeking access to what is widely known in the smuggling trade as Australia’s invitation to a cornucopia of luxurious living forever, free.

To view the long-term results of illegal immigration Australia need only look to Europe, the UK in particular. It was the UK Labour Party that made political capital using lower, socio- economic immigrants intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of Britain.

They buggered England for a purpose they kept secret, and their dishonourable template is doing likewise here in Australia.

The average Australian battler goes to bed each night believing the nation’s welfare is safe in the hands of our leaders. We need to believe our elected representatives will act in the country’s best interests and do what is right for their fellow Australians. We can’t allow ourselves to think they might cause great harm—all faith would be lost. But that has now happened.

Why is it after six years in power that Rudd now scrambles to address the border fiasco? The influx of more than 50,000 people is proof that the situation was allowed to fester. But was it the course of a well-scripted agenda? I believe it is!

Under the British Freedom of Information Act, a secret Labour immigration agenda hatched more than a decade ago was uncovered and it mirrors the Australian Labor Party’s policy on immigration and border control. In 13 years they flooded the UK with 3.2 million foreigners. That policy appears to have been lifted by Ms Gillard.

Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, disclosed a document drawn up by a British Cabinet Office think-tank and a Home Office research unit. It stated unequivocally that Labour’s migration policy over a decade had been aimed at “social objectives” rather than economic ones and intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of Britain.

The agenda also showed that Labour had orchestrated a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism. It also noted that because of this policy, migrants and their descendants were inclined to vote Labour, some surveys found up to 80% would vote for labour.

The British government betrayed their voters by breaking the first rule of democracy: the electorate was never told it was voting for that radical agenda just as Australians will never be told why the unauthorised arrivals were ignored for so long.

How peculiar that Bob Carr recently said, “People are coming here, not now as a result of persecution, but because they’re economic refugees who have paid money to people smugglers.” Of course the do-gooders and hankie-wringers cried foul in their usual tradition of ignoring future social ramifications.

It seems that Carr was, or is not privy to his party’s plan for eternal employment. “There’ve been some boats where 100% of them have been people who are fleeing countries where they’re the majority ethnic and religious group, and their motivations is altogether economic,” Carr blurted in early June.

Several TV clips of late have featured boat people praising the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government, “they are good for us and we will vote for them,” is their practised mantra. But Labor’s clone of the UK agenda takes time to reach full advantage—four years in fact.

Contrary to popular lore, immigrants can’t vote immediately, it’s a four-year process to become eligible. The ALP’s early wave from 2008 will now vote; I can’t find numbers on how many but, for the 2016 elections a large percentage of the present 50,000 will be close to voting rights.

The evil in this trick is the number of family reunion members who will also be voters. Nobody seems to know what those multipliers might be. Once this is known, the numbers will be sufficient to change the outcome in many electorates across Australia. And, in a few years, will probably have numbers to seize a majority of Labor seats across the country for a bigger slice of the welfare pie, not to mention religious dominance.

Do you think the ALP thought this through using the same logic as their other failed policies?

And, what mess awaits the strugglers in Nauru and Manus when hope turns to despair? Who will give a stuff?

Rudd’s opportunism is …the evil that men do…

The watery grave that Labor dug

New MH2

Writers of political weeklies can’t possibly be topical given the rapid change in Labor’s pandemonium as the noose of electoral execution tightens by the day, if not hour.

Political chess moves of Rudd, Shorten and Tony Sheldon seem unlikely to cause any stay of the hangman’s scaffold. A two-party-preferred result according to surveys, have remained rather stable for more than a year. Any re-arrangement of deck chairs might save a handful of seats but won’t affect the outcome. To put it nicely—Labor is stuffed—in a manner unprecedented.

For the past 18 months voter concern about the nation’s porous borders has been marching toward top billing. And now, with the latest drowning of more than 50 off Western Australia’s coast, any hope and all spin Labor might use to camouflage reality perished with that craft and those poor souls on it.

Voter angst is mounting as more than 43,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat since the Rudd government terminated John Howard’s Pacific Solution in 2007 while Tony Abbott chirps louder about “turning back the boats” giving hope to all who find Labor’s own cost estimates of $203,704 per opportunist an unwanted burden and potential social disaster to be halted.

Meanwhile, the deluded Gillard says “the government’s border protection policies are working,” and that co-operation with Indonesia has successfully disrupted “many” people-smuggling ventures. What crap!
Eager for any opportunity to huff and puff before a camera is NSW state wrecker, now bungling foreign minister, Bob Carr. Bob’s cerebral wisdom reckoned Tony Abbott’s plan to turn back asylum seeker boats will trigger an “immediate foreign policy crisis” with Indonesia.

Carr, the old spin-doctor used a variety of descriptors with different media. “This is sheer recklessness.” And, “To talk about turning back the boats in his first days as prime minister would be to engineer a crisis in our relations with our most important neighbour.” Would also lead to a “humanitarian catastrophe on a vast scale,” and “Tony Abbott’s playing with fire,” Bob told Sky News.

However, Indonesia’s ambassador to Australia Nadjib Riphat Kesoema has ruled out any collaboration with Abbott to return people to Indonesia because it wasn’t their country of origin. Balderdash! Boats under Indonesian flag, crewed by Indonesians, port of origin Indonesia and provisioned in Indonesia says differently. The Ambassador is an idiot to assert such nonsense. Besides, it’s unlikely he would be privy to arrangements, if any, made between Abbott and the Indonesian government if there is a Coalition win in September.

Despite my low-budget opinion of Bob Carr, I must agree when he said that believing Tony Abbott will turn the boats around is to believe in fairies.

In April 2009 an Australian Navy ship HMAS Albany took in tow the smuggler boat SIEV 36 near Ashmore Reef. As HMAS Childers was boarding SIEV 36 one of the smuggler’s crew gave a cheesy grin, a salute and then touched off an explosion killing 5 and wounding 40. Blown into the water narrowly escaping death were our Navy personnel. President Bambang’s ruse for strengthened search and rescue co-operation proved a farce and the scuttling of craft is now textbook practice for smugglers.

A new wave of people smugglers has outwitted Australia’s government witless. First signal to smugglers was from the Royal Australian Navy in July 2012 when a senior officer said if there is even the slightest risk of danger to navy sailors or asylum seekers the navy skippers would disobey orders to invoke the “turn around or tow back” policy. “No navy officer would allow anyone, be they people smuggler, illegal fisherman or even terrorist, to perish at sea,” another officer said. The smugglers’ prayer mats got a fervent workout that day.

Moreover, Maritime Law says ships’ masters and crew have a legal and moral obligation to help distressed seafarers. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea: “A master of a ship at sea, which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance.”  Maritime Law is a people smugglers’ licence to print money.

Only a fool would believe a smuggler and his bilge load of illegal interlopers would allow the RAN to hook-up a tow cable and drag the lot back to Indonesia. If Abbott’s plan becomes government policy the following standing orders for all smugglers will be:

By radio or mobile phone send SOS, report position and sabotage engine. Make a cup of tea. Upon sight of RAN taxi service to Australia, open seacocks in engine room. In case of no seacocks, cut engine cooling water input or chop a hole in the hull with an axe. If anticipating difficulties with authorities, pour petrol into Bilge. All on board with life vests, and those without, will then jump into the water while one remaining crew flicks a match down the hatch.

The craft will explode, seriously burning the crewman. (Note to skippers) This is desirable as no further dialogue will occur as the situation becomes a “life saving” exercise as the navy adheres to Maritime Law convention no matter what Tony Abbott says.

Over to you Tony.

Labor’s vote stacking at taxpayers’ expense

ELECTRICIANS, security guards, government workers and
businessmen were among a wave of middle-class asylum seekers caught
leaving Sri Lanka by boat, the country's navy has revealed

In a briefing to a Liberal MP on a study tour, Sri Lanka's navy revealed
that most of the 2279 people arrested leaving on 52 boats this year from
24 locations were "economic migrants" looking for a better life in
Australia.Sri Lankan authorities believed the asylum seekers had
mortgaged property, taken out loans, pawned jewellery and received
support from others to fund the $10,000 payment for people smugglers to
take them to Australia.

More: www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Asylum Seekers and People Smugglers


IMG_7667 Dr. Michael Keane argues that people smugger's aren't the real villians: 

It goes without saying that there is no easy answer to the asylum seeker issue. However many try to have it both ways. In order to avoid what would otherwise be a logically incoherent position many people end up using the “people-smugglers” as a scapegoat. But are the smugglers evil dealers in human misery who take advantage of desperate refugees, or are they in fact noble enablers helping desperate refugee avoid persecution and torture? Of course there is no right answer.

Was Nancy Wake (who helped Jews flee the Nazis) an evil people-smuggler, or was she a hero? How people conceptualize the people who facilitate the movement of refugees to Australia (the people smugglers) must be logically consistent with their position on the relative need to accommodate asylum seekers. If people are really arriving as asylum seekers in Australia to avoid torture and persecution, then the people who “smuggle” them are helping people avoid being tortured; how can that be considered bad? If, on the other hand you define the activities of the people smugglers as bad/evil/negative then you must believe that what they did was not necessary; that is, it could not be reasonably considered that the refugees were in imminent threat from staying in Indonesia.

People often invoke the concept that the people-smugglers take “advantage” of “desperate” refugees.  It would be instructive to examine other societal norms as so far as where people are considered to be taken “advantage of” versus people taking responsibility for choices that they actively make. There are examples of similar ethical and moral quandaries in health and the legal system. What is desperate? What are they desperate for? There is no question that the vast majority of asylum seekers arriving by boat are refugees from their homeland; there is no dispute about that. But that is not the question that many in Australia feel needs to be answered in order to make sense of the asylum seeker issue. What is their situation in Indonesia? What parallels are there in our society to determine whether refugees “desperation” to come to Australia meets our collective standard of compassion? Are the people who decide to pay to come on a boat in a worse situation than those who decide to abide by the legal process or are they just more willing to flaunt the rules?

Yes, the “people-movement-facilitators” get paid for their services. But if the service they provide is really helping people to escape torture or imminent threats to life, then being paid for that service does not render their role as being criminal. The over arching argument then becomes: receiving payment for an otherwise noble, morally courageous act (helping people escape torture and death) then defines that act as being criminal. Similarly, if the receipt of payment identifies the service as being a predatory act in which the people-smugglers take advantage of asylum-seekers, then that defines the service as non-necessary and then one must assume that the refugees don’t need to arrive in Australia to seek asylum.

Australians have always been fair and, in general, are some of the most fair, reasonable and non-racist people in the world. Let’s be fair, but fair-dinkum.

There are no right answers, but activists, politicians and opinion makers must be consistent in their position. Blaming people-smugglers is merely a way to try to have it both ways.

Dr. Michael Keane is an anaesthetist and researcher with interests in illicit drug use and drug policy, bioethics and public health. He is also a lecturer in public health at Monash University, and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party. 

Why Labor has failed on border protection.

Photo on 2011-06-23 at 10.47

Thomas Murphy discusses Labor's record on border protection: 

In 2001/2002, both major parties accepted that Australia did have a problem with boat people and people smugglers, so together, John Howard and Immigration Minister at the time, Phillip Ruddock put in place the very successful Pacific Solution. At the time, the Pacific Solution had bi-partisan support.
I say that the Pacific Solution was "very successful" since it arrivals dropped from 5516 in 2001, to zero in 2002. Successful to you, or not?

"ANOTHER boat on the way, another policy failure” is how Prime Minister Julia Gillard characterized the flow of people smugglers’ vessels when she was in Opposition on April 23, 2003.

In 2007, Kevin Rudd ditched the Pacific Solution for an open border "policy" that has failed drastically.

In the recent flawed Gillard/Swan Federal Budget, the immigration department has blown out by $1.75b because of Labor's incompetence to secure our borders. This $1.75b includes an increase of 1000% of Immigration staff and the opening/expanding of detention centers.

If people see Labor as the party of "friendliness" towards boat people, they need to think again. If Labor didn't ditch the Pacific Solution, 203+ boat people would not have died, boat people would not be burning down detention centers and going on hunger strikes and finally, they would be treated with respect.

Labor's latest border protection mess up has been seen with Malaysia. Gillard/Rudd did not call the President of Nauru because Nauru is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention, well Julia, neither is Malaysia. If you check Malaysia's humanitarian record, it's simply horrific that they are going to be sending asylum seekers over there where the Police still use the cane. Not only is there a humanitarian problem with this arrangement, there's also a massive cost involved. This arrangement with Malaysia will cost us $292m, that is, $54,000 per refugee we get and $90,000 per boat person we send there. This arrangement with Malaysia will not stop the boats, this has been shown since Gillard/Bowen introduced this new plan more boats have arrived.

Under Howard's Pacific Solution, boat people were subject to Australian law in Nauru, Manus etc and were not subject to daily beatings and being locked up in a cell. This is a lously deal for Australia and will damage Australia's reputation on the humane treatment of refugees.

What does work are TPVs, Nauru and the ability to turn boats around when possible. The point of a "boat people policy" is not to stop refugees from coming to Australia, but to deny the murderous people smugglers a product to sell. Labor has failed on this premise.

If Gillard was serious about "stopping the boats" she will bring back Howard's Pacific Solution which has been proven to work and has been proven to stop the people smugglers a product to sell. Unlike Labor, the Coalition has a strong and humane record for the detention and the treatment of refugees/boat people, and will continue to do so.

I pose you the question, how can we trust a Government that cannot control our borders?

Thomas Murphy is a 16 year old young Liberal member that has a passion for Politics, and is also an AFL Umpire. 

Our men and women in uniform aren’t campaign props, Prime Minister

Terry-Barnes Australia's defence forces should not be used for political purposes, writes Terry Barnes.

As Julia Gillard’s East Timor solution unravels, it’s instructive to reflect on how the new Prime Minister sought to portray herself as she sought to flog her “Timor Solution”.
 
The day after her now highly controversial Lowy Institute speech, Ms Gillard took herself and her entourage (more of that in a moment) to Darwin, where she boarded patrol boat HMAS Broome (incidentally commanded by a very telegenic Lisa McCune-lookalike young female officer) to highlight the other side of the boat people equation – naval border patrol.  It was a beautiful day, cloudless sky, deep blue sea and the PM on the bridge, apparently in charge of the operation with the young lieutenant by her side.
 

It made for great television pictures and still photos (well, perhaps except for the one on the front page of the NT News showing the PM with right arm extended in what looked like a Nazi salute).  Julia’s looking after us, protecting Australia from the riff-raff, was the subliminal message – even as elsewhere yet another boat was intercepted.
 
All fair enough.  The Prime Minister visiting a Royal Australian Navy vessel and seeing our taxpayers’ dollars at work.  Can’t really complain I suppose, even if we grumble about the cost of getting her there and putting HMAS Broome to sea just for a media opportunity – even if the PM is trying to strike a pose as the ruler of the Queen’s Navee.
 
It’s only when we look at her entourage that it starts to stink.  Behind her aboard the HMAS Broome was the local Labor MP, Damien Hale – who incidentally sits on a wafer-thin margin.  Then again, it’s his electorate and the crew are technically his constituents. Fair enough.  But the other bloke that featured prominently, conveniently attired in a stand-out white shirt, was the Member for Lindsay, David Bradbury.
 
Lindsay? I hear you ask.  Yes, the seat of Lindsay.  In landlocked Western Sydney 1,500 miles away.  Which includes the State seat of Penrith where Labor was effectively wiped out a fortnight ago.  Where the handling of asylum-seekers is a hot-button issue.  Where the PM is desperate to show she is tougher than tough on boat people.  What else could Mr Bradbury be there for?  He has no ministerial responsibilities, he is not a member of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, nor does he have any direct connection with Northern Australia as far as I know, unless he’s holidayed there.  For him it was a freebie pleasure cruise to take in the sea air.
 
The only other reason Mr Bradbury was there was to dog whistle to his electorate, by way of the evening television news, that Labor is trying to show that it can be tougher on boat people than that nasty Mr Abbott.
 
In short this was not a legitimate Prime Ministerial visit; it was an electorally cunning stunt.  A stunt that made serving defence force personnel mere props on a political stage.
 
Politics is one thing, but the exploitation for base political purposes of the Broome’s crew, and the Navy more generally, is reprehensible.  Our defence forces – who serve in the name of Queen and country – should be above politics.  Our leaders should visit men and women in the field, but to encourage and support them on our behalf, not to exploit them.  While it could be said that any political leader’s visit to the forces – say in Afghanistan – inevitably is political, this particular event was to narrow-cast a particular ALP electoral message to a particular segment of the electorate.  To me, that’s wrong.
 
In the election campaign that’s about to begin, there will be lots and lots of picture opportunities and media events.  If people and organisations choose to be involved in them, so be it, that’s politics.  But our defence forces, who all the way to the Chief of the Defence Force serve under the orders of their superiors and have no right of opting out of such events, should be left alone to do their job.  A job, it should be said, that they do with great professionalism and at great risk.  They are to be respected, admired and supported, and they should never be exploited for base political purposes in stunts like the Prime Minister’s.
 
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott should take a lead and promise that he won’t use the defence force in the same way in the election campaign or as Prime Minister.  It would only gather him more respect, and incidentally keep the tone of the asylum-seeker debate higher.
 
In the meantime, though, perhaps the ALP should write a cheque to cover the day’s operation of HMAS Broome, and the cost of bringing the PM and her political and media entourage along.  Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for this brazen and exploitative act of electioneering.

Terry Barnes is an editor of Menzies House.

Justice has been served

The full force of the law should always be applied to those seeking to destroy our nation, writes Chris Browne.

All too often when watching the evening news I find myself shaking my head in disbelief at the soft sentences handed down to serious criminals. Brutal murderers, rapists and serial offenders regularly seem to get sentences befitting petty theft and all too often justice isn't served.

Yesterday however there was a change. Five men that conspired to attack undisclosed Australian targets with stockpiles of explosives, firearms and ammunition received sentences of between 23 and 28 years.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see them sentenced to longer periods behind bars. But within the parameters of the law and considering the infamous leniency of our judicial system, their sentences were a pleasant surprise.

Justice Anthony Whealy described their motivation as "intolerant, inflexible religious conviction" and said that they showed contempt for Australia's Government and institutions. In my book at least, as a proud Australian and from a non-legal background, that accounts to nothing less than treason. But that's an opinion for another day.

It is heartening to know that the Australian judiciary has officially sent the message that as a nation we will not tolerate religious extremism and terrorism within our borders. All we need now is for the executive to ensure the security of our borders by imposing tougher border protection measures. Only once that is achieved can we be assured that all arms of government are working together in their full capacity to protect our national sovereignty.

Chris Browne is the Editor-in-Chief of Menzies House.