Abbott Spending Like An Intoxicated Member Of Water-Based Armed Forces Circa 1960s - Federal Election 2013

Oppositiong leader Tony Abbott seemed to forget that the Australian Navy are not his personal political plaything for the media:

Earlier, top Navy brass stepped in to stop Mr Abbott grilling officers about how they felt patrolling for asylum seeker boats.

Mr Abbott toured Australia's busiest Naval port he asked several personnel for detail about Operation Resolute.

"Do you get out on those boats often," he asked four Navy personnel at an outdoor staff canteen.

"So you guys were doing people smuggling patrols?," he asked.

"What was it like to apprehend these vessels."

After a pause they offered stilted answers including "it's tiring", "a challenge".

"It's busy," said another.

While another said it was "Tiring work too, frustrating."

At this point Lieutenant Commander Michael Doncaster stepped in and asked for the questions to stop.

"Sir I'd prefer we don't talk on that line and move on," he said.

The Australian Navy previously had to tell Abbott to stop using the phrase "spending like drunken sailors."

Senior Navy officers have implored Mr Abbott to tone it down because it doesn't fit with the image they are trying to portray of the modern-day Navy professional as a sensitive, well-behaved individual.

"We are not like that any more,'' a Navy source said.

"It is not an image that is reflective of the current force or ideals.''

Tony Abbott splashes the cash:

• $67 million to deploy Australian Federal Police officers to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Malaysia to assist with joint people smuggling operations;
• $20 million to "enlist Indonesian villages to support people smuggling disruption including a capped boat buy back scheme";
• regional transit zones to help move asylum seekers to offshore processing centres without needing to go first to Christmas Island or the Australian mainland;
• $27 million for increased aerial surveillance and $71 million to Indonesia to boost their search and rescue resources;
• supplement the border protection fleet with commercially leased vessels; and
• expand the capacity of processing centres on Manus Island and Nauru by 2000.

The massive $30 billion Liberal Party sinkhole continues to grow: 

There is a gap of almost $30 billion between the size of the tax cuts and new spending the Coalition has promised and the savings it has unveiled so far, leading economist Saul Eslake estimates.

In a 34-page review for clients of how a Coalition government might change economic management, Mr Eslake, chief Australian economist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, also highlights the potential for "significant and ongoing tensions" in an Abbott government between its "genuine economic liberals", such as shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, and those who are "more sceptical about markets . . . including in many cases Tony Abbott as prime minister".

end

Still some of the most sensible talk we've heard in years on Australian TV on asylum seekers and immigration. PJ O'Rourke on Q & A :



If only our politicians were willing to speak such obvious truths, in the face of tabloid hate front pages screaming 'Invasion!'

The Australian government's latest attempt to scare away asylum seekers.



How effective will it be?

It depends on whether the dangers you're trying to escape are more or less scary than being lost in a stormy ocean,, doesn't it?

Come On In, Stay The Hell Out

Is Kevin Rudd's flippy stance on asylum seekers a future-focused strategy to make him more popular? Or less?

Kevin Rudd, October 2006 :

"Another great challenge of our age is asylum seekers. The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst.

"We should never forget that the reason we have a UN convention on the protection of refugees is in large part because of the horror of the Holocaust, when the West (including Australia) turned its back on the Jewish people of Germany and the other occupied countries of Europe who sought asylum during the '30s."

Kevin Rudd, October 2009 :

"I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for taking a hard-line on illegal immigration to Australia".

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

"...this Government makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that we have a tough line on asylum seekers"

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"(The Liberal Party) is a party without one skerrick of moral compass when it comes to people smuggling", he said.

As Chris Ulhmann, on ABC OffAir, makes clear, in a crystal clear deconstruction of Rudd's religious politicism :

The Opposition's compass at least has the virtue of pointing, roughly, in one direction.

The Government has softened Australia's stance towards asylum seekers and it is determined to maintain strong border protection. These are not mutually exclusive propositions and there are defensible, reasons for doing both.

But confronted with a rising tide of boat people it panicked because it was scared its policy changes would be blamed for the influx and the electorate would punish it.

Rudd's moral compass on asylum seekers now appears to be spinning crazily, searching for the strongest attraction.

But when RuddGov's poll numbers fall five or six points in the next few weeks, and the TurnOpp stages its biggest poll boost this year, will Kevin Rudd be upset?

Or happy?

I'm going with happy.

Rudd doesn't want to go into the 2010 federal elections with 70% of Australians favouring him as prime minister. Where's the challenge in that?

He'll be even happier when the heated protests by die-hard RuddLabor voters, appalled at his fliporama on asylum seekers, begin.

If they begin....

"Bizarre Refugee Swap"

Australia's Latest Export To United States : Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers

This is surely one of the most bizarre government policy announcements in years. Few on the Left or the Right can seem to comprehend WTF it's all about.

Here's the short version : The Howard government and the Bush administration have reached a deal which will see dozens of Sri Lankan asylum seekers, currently held on Nauru Island off the coast of Australia, packed off to the United States, where, presumably, they will eventually be given green cards and allowed to settle.

In exchange, the Bush administration gets to free up some space in Guantanamo Bay by sending hundreds of asylum seekers from Haiti and Cuba to Australian shores.

Here's Australian immigration minister, Kevin Andrews :

"This arrangement will ensure the integrity of the international system of protection and the integrity of Australia's borders is maintained, by providing protection to those who need it. It also sends a strong deterrence message to people smugglers."

It does? How? By allowing people smugglers to raise their prices because they can now say, "Hey, we'll get you near Australia, then you get to go to America!"

Have the senior ranks of the Howard government been sitting around licking cane toads?

Some sanity :

...refugee advocates have called the Mutual Assistance Arrangement, signed in Washington last week, a "bizarre refugee swap" and questioned the motives of the US Government.

And perspective :

The agreement will hose down fears in the lead-up to the election that asylum seekers could be cast into indefinite exile on Nauru. These include the 82 Sri Lankans who were intercepted by the Australian navy near Christmas Island earlier this year.

"It points to the human rights credit of Australia that the only country that will assist us is a country with whom we are in the coalition of the willing," said Pamela Curr of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. "It's shocking. My other concern is what does America expect of Australia in return for taking our refugees? The Yanks don't do anything for nothing."

The whole thing is like a a pitch for some new demented reality TV show : "We follow desperate asylum seekers from South East Asia all the way to Australia. But here's the twist. They won't get into Australia. Instead, they will be stuffed onto a plane for a mystery flight, all the way to the USA! Wait till you see the looks on their faces!"

Naturally, there's a political angle for John Howard, who's never been afraid to use the poorest and most desperate of people as bargaining chips and publicity footballs. Problem is, nobody seems to be quite sure just what that political angle will be.

The most likely angle is Howard needs to get get the Sri Lankans out of the way, and put the hose on a few Nauru Island spot fires of dissent.

Nauru Island has told Australia the Sri Lankan asylum seekers currently housed there have to be gone within six months. Howard doesn't want the status of the Sri Lankans left unresolved as he moves into election mode, and he sure as hell won't let them come to our precious shores.

Nauru is playing tough with Howard now because they no doubt fear a repeat of the situation where legitimate asylum seekers, from countries like Iraq, were detained, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars to the Australian taxpayer, for as long as six years.

Not surprisingly, Nauru is developing something of a complex about being treated like a human dumping ground by the Australian government.

Wait until Howard asks them if they'd mind storing some of the nuclear waste winging back our way from international uranium sales.

Refugees Are 'Not Washing Machines'