Real policy debate not vanity of bigotry

Now I do consider any party that would support this sleazy, megalomaniac, psychotic scumbag are not worth a vote let alone be in Government… However, knowing my bias on this so called man, let us put that to one side and look at the policies.

The Boat people saga continues, Agreement has been reached between Papua New Guinea and Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...o-promotel-new-png-asylum-seeker-deal/4832638

Now while this is interesting and along the Coalition lines, it does go further than the Coalition. Is it sustainable and will it work. To my mind, this solution will not work and as in the Malaysia solution will most likely not stand up to legal scrutiny. However, that is something that will need to be tested.

The solution will not work (IMHO) because it in no way addresses the issue of the boats directly. Deterrents generally do not work even in this supposedly civilised country. So why would it work with the people coming from desperate situations. Also, why should the people who use what they consider their only alternative be penalised for the crimes of an industry born from Australia’s extremely poor political handling of this issue.

Possibly the other thing would be to consider, Why do Australian’s want to continue to associate Processing with the boats. As I continue to say, the problem has nothing to do with asylum seekers, processing or detention, it is about the scumbag people smugglers and the politicians continuing to use this topic as a vote winner.

Is this good policy of the ALP? I do not consider so… tell me I am wrong and why.

Also, bringing the ETS forward is going to cost a great deal of money, first move is to make changes to the Fringe benefits system. This was a wise move from the Keating book of economics that now the ALP want to pillage to help this change.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...very-substantial/story-fn59niix-1226682245932
What is the government claim on this change…

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ue/story-fnho52ip-1226682283028#ixzz2ZXU59tAp

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...s-tax-tightening/story-e6frfmd9-1226681606026

This is direct attack on the middle class and the small business of Australia. Does this Government have any idea about business? Apparently not.

Those fat cats the ALP consider to be the target of this policy are in control of the cheque book. For you ignorant ALP supporters, those in control of the cheque book do not need to justify their vehicle use. For example, when in business, I was able to have tax deductable holidays simply by visiting customers and potential business clients on my holiday. This would make it a PR trip and not a holiday, all tax deductable and car usage considered as business. I could take a two week holiday overseas visit one customer (or supplier if you like) and claim the whole thing as a tax deduction. BUT for those who are employed by those fat cats… Think about it.

Honestly these policy show more to the point, policy on the run, ill thought-out and distinct lack of understanding of how to manage the economy…

Any thoughts other than the superficial vanity of the bigoted? Any other policy wanted to discuss?

 

Boat people:

It should slow down or stop arrivals and subsequently deaths at sea! There are NO legal issues from a convention point of view! The Maylasia solution would have worked but for the greens and politicisation of the coalition!

 

I know quite a few people with novated lease cars, friends, family and family of friends. Most work in the coal mines but there are a couple of state government workers too. They have all got holden utes or holden or ford cars, everyone of them. Most earn les than $100K, a couple of the miners may earn a bit more.
This is typical Kruddy Clown policy on the run. There is clearly very little consultation with anybody, Kruddy just dreams these things up and then directs his cowering minions to spin it to the sheeple.
But I have to admit I think resettling boat people in PNG is a good idea. It is after all our extremely generous welfare, health and education systems that they are trying to gate crash, they won't get it in PNG!

 

Sending people to PNG can't be challenged on the same grounds as the Malaysia solution because PNG is a state party to Refugee convention and 67 protocol. So do you actually have any reason that it won't hold up to "legal scrutiny"?

As for the FBT, the concession for salary packaged cars isn't being removed, it just now requires proof that people actually use their cars for work in the form of a log book. People who actually use their cars for work will still get concessions, but clearly a lot of companies just use it as a straight up salary replacement and there's no reason that the government should subsidise it. And if the government is going to support Australian manufacturing it should pay the money directly to specific manufactures (which it already does), and even then preferably not foreign multinationals.

 

So you consider that the high court of Australia makes decisions over Green demands and political influence of a party in opposition to the government. Do you not think, the High court of Australia actually needs to make decisions based on LAW?

The only measure of success to this policy is if the boats stop. Personally I do not think they will but that is my opinion. Although the Pacific solution and this policy are both harsh, but one worked the other I am guessing will be tested. I still feel this is not a solution but will give it a go... But in my opinion this policy falls short. Again, the solution demonises these people, which I think is very wrong. My idea was posted before so I think you can guess I do not totally in agree with this, but if it works I will not complain.

 

No they are totally different, there is no doubt that one was clearly unconstitutional. There are very few grounds, mostly that Australia will be accepting these people then shipping them to another nation. Their rights of challenge to the Australian system will be totally removed creating a possible paradox... for example, challenges for family members allowed in Australia will be in PNG, whose rulings have no effect to Australian law. As they are no longer part of Australia and the fact those that never where Australian will make any challenge extremely difficult... To put it as simply as I can.

There is one reason for doing such, people will be buying cars.

Take the incentive to buy cars, you might as well be putting the company on unemployment benefits to build cars for the scrap heap. While companies and people salary sacrifice cars get sold, people are employed to build those cars and the manufacturing companies get a chance to continue viably.

By simply giving the company the money, instead of a percentage, will cost far greater to begin with. BUT the company will shed the jobs unnecessary to the enterprise as it will have reduction in demand. Salary sacrifice means the government pays a percentage and industry pays a percentage. You propose the government pays the entire amount which assumes that the need to procure more funding coming from where?

 

I didn't support Howard's policy on the matter.

I can not see anyway I can support Rudd either.

 

The High Court decision had nothing to do with the Constitution. The agreement Bowen had with Malaysia (because they have no obligations under the Refugee convention/protocol) on the treatment of refugees was not legally binding and so was inconsistent with the Migration Act. All Rudd is doing is expanding the existing offshore processing centres in PNG that were reopened a year ago. I really don't see how you can claim that sending people to PNG won't hold up to "legal scrutiny" since Howard already did it a decade ago and Gillard already started doing it last year along with Naru.

You think that people won't buy cars if their company doesn't package it in their salary without the need for them to keep a log book? I call BS. I don't "propose the government pays the entire amount", I propose that the government should pay none. They should just get rid of all concessions to FBT entirely. If companies want to bulk purchase cars and offer them at a discount as part of salary package, fine, but the government should not be involved. The government already pays money directly to car manufacturers, billions of dollars. Do you have ANY evidence to suggest that "salary sacrifice" FBT concessions are more effective than direct money to the manufacturing industry? Any at all? And are you also saying that the money that the government pays to car manufacturers is the "entire amount", that the car manufacturers themselves spend NO money in their operations? Because I certainly never said that, and it's completely stupid. If for whatever reason the government feels that we "must" manufacture cars in Australia and sell them locally, then just raise import tariffs. But no I do not support sinking billions of dollars into foreign multinationals, and I don't know why anyone would.

 

Garry, Garry, Garry, read between the bloody lines! Had the coalition offered bipartisan support the Maylasia solution would have gone ahead! It was the best option by far! I'd rather be caught up in Maylasia over PNG any day! Maylasia is one of the stop off points for many asylum seekers, this would have been ideal! It would obviously have been a hell of a lot better in Maylasia than the country they were running from, if they were legitimately seeking asylum! It would have sent a message "not" to bother travelling the wild seas because you will end up back where you were! We were accepting more under this system as well!

 

You're right. The deaths will happen in Malaysia, indonesia, elsewhere en route, in the original camps or from the country they're fleeing.

The "problem" will still exist, but of course we won't be as exposed to it despite often contributing to, or profiting from it. Morally reprehensible.

 

The problem is not just sending them to Nauru, it is that any accepted application will be settled in PNG. This is where the legal obligations might (and I say might) be an issue. As I have stated before, processing off shore is part of the answer, no doubt, but then settling there is a completely different issue which I am sure will be tested.

Yes... You can call it BS, but as most of these vehicles are only purchased due to packaging salaries why should a person buy a new car when the car they already own can be used for the same purpose by simply filling a log book. These people will no longer buy a car every so often due to the fact there is no advantage which accounts for one third of all new cars sold today. Why?

So again, you consider that the industry should stop this? You do not see any advantage to a car industry that is supported by one third of its manufacturing with this? You also consider the industry can take that hit? Forget about the jobs, forget about the industry welfare for all...

Do you consider that cutting one third of car manufacturing in Australia evidence that FBT is more effective than just giving the industry money? Consider this, if manufacturing reduced by even 20% the car manufacturing would cut jobs. No amount of cash thrown at them will help save the loss of jobs. No amount of cash thrown will aid in reduction of car sales. Since this policy was announced, many orders have been suspended. What evidence do you need? Do you really need a blow for blow explanation on how enticing people to buy cars are cheaper than propping companies up?

How stupid are you? Did I say they spend no money on their operations? No I said do you think the government will need to pay for the entire loss from this policy? And you seem happy with that. The government pays these companies directly to make their products competitive in Australia and around the world. These car companies rely on exports to survive and the fact the government needs to prop them up to make them competitive is lost on you isn’t it. Any reduction in production will cost the industry more and as it is not competitive in Australia to manufacture, these companies will shut shop and head overseas. Ford has already done this, Holden was in the middle of negotiating a deal to continue in Australia. Now Holden is put in a hard position and Toyota has also suggested so. So the stupidity of the claim that changing from the manufacture to welfare, will only end in tears… Work it out.

Since Australia is signatory to many trade negotiations for no tariffs and the government wishes to remain trading partners, raising tariffs is out of the question. The fact that Australian sales are not enough to keep these companies in Australia is lost on you, isn’t it?

But your idea that you consider that there is no need for manufacturing in Australia demonstrates your inability to understand anything about economics. Before you claim you did not say this, You first line demonstrates that you do not think the government should worry about having a car industry, You last sentence states that anybody who thinks multinationals being enticed to manufacture in Australia is wrong. So who do you think will do all the manufacturing?

What is it you suggest? Bugger jobs? Bugger industry? As long as you’re happy who cares about the rest of Australia. I wonder, how much you would scream if all of a sudden those foreign multinationals left Australia. Interesting that you demonstrate that thinking, showing the complete and utter lack of consideration and understanding… Ignorance is bliss isn’t it Zig?

 

Ok, so we have your stupid rhetoric. Do you really have anything to add to the current policy? Or do you want to continue to spew the stupid vile bigotry that seems to be all you have?

 

Unfortunately, I fear you are right. I cannot say for sure but as there is nothing to directly address the boats I only see that the boats will continue to come. However, should this actually work, which can only be measured by the boats arriving (or sinking at sea) I will not complain about this issue.

But on a different note (all be it slight) why is it that government consider processing these people as being the answer to people smuggling? As far as I am concerned they are two different issues. This to me states that the government would rather keep this going to support their own political agenda... Sad day for Australia in my opinion, but without real alternative policy what else can be said?

 

Lol.....it's quite funny watching you squirm in the defence of your beloved coalition! That's right, you just want us to listen to your spin with a coalition flavour!

 

What do you mean by contributing and profiting from it Rec.?

Yeah, Maylasia doesn't seem to have a good record of dealing with asylum seekers, but they tend to receive tens of thousands annually! Probably not fair on Maylasia to cop the full brunt of any international fallout! The Asia pacific nations not in direct line should somehow pull together to address issues and I suppose should be one of the aims of our governments to do so as suggested from the Houston report...I think??Encouraging nations to sign the convention on human rights is also a recommendation but nations like Maylasia need substantial funding to cater for the huge numbers they are receiving! I was of the understanding that the maylasia solution was contributing a substantial amout of funding to support their dilemna!

 

You have that in common with the people smugglers.

 

Yeah definitely - That is exactly the only possible conclusion one could reach

 

We shouldn`t lose sight of the fact that Rudd`s PNG policy is an election stunt, nothing more. As Rudd has repeatedly demonstrated, policies of his that cause death, have never been an issue for him. Why would asylum seeker`s lives suddenly become an issue of concern for the ALP? Is it because Rudd is an honest, unselfishly upstanding man? A clean man who will willingly admit his mistakes, put the interests of others ahead of his own, and act promptly to right the wrongs that he has committed against people? Call me "negative", or "cynical", but I do have a sneaking suspicion that Rudd`s motivation in this case, is one of self interest. It is, after all, an election year.

Again, I may be cynical, but it`s a learned response to any of Kevin Rudd`s actions. I wish we could be more trusting that news items such as this link provides, weren`t just part of a propaganda churn out. Perhaps Kevin Rudd should apologise to the victims of his policies? It would be more manly than his other famous political apology, the one where he apologised for the "crimes" of those other dead people.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-...-will-not-travel-to-australia-after-png-deal/

The timing, and content of this "news" item, are highly suspect, considering the PC mastery of accentuating convenient facts, and completely ignoring any form of balance.

 

The policy is in response to the Coalition's continued harping on about "stop the boats". This mantra is dog-whistling and appeals to a certain, critical part of the electorate which will favour Labor over the Coalition if they can "stop the boats". From recent media reports it seems that the boats will slow down and perhaps stop.

Is it a cynical ploy? That depends on your perspective. If you're a Coalition member or voter then it is. It has to be denigrated in that manner because it effectively cuts off the Coalition's relentless dog-whistling to that critical section of the electorate. If "stop the boats" is no longer an issue then other policy matters take precedence and that's where the Coalition will be exposed.

It's a tough policy but it is working already, apparently. In terms of politics it is a masterstroke. In terms of policy it's working. Personally I don't
support it but then I have the luxury of non-accountability for that mindset.

From a purely utilitarian point of view it's good. The deterrent is harsh but the deterrence is now greater. The likelihood of people arriving on boats has massively diminished and from that the likelihood of people perishing at sea has also massively diminished. Therefore it has achieved a greater good.

As a response to resolving the issue of asylum-seekers on an international basis it is zero. But that's not it's purpose. It's purpose is to outmanoeuvre the Coalition and it has achieved its purpose.

 

So that is No, As this is not defence of any party and is simple discussion on policy perhaps you want to talk about Coalition policy? Maybe discuss your support for ALP policy and why? NO, apparently nothing but stupid bigotry?

As state discuss policy not your vain bigotry...

 

Well that is the only measure isn't it? But this now opens other doors of debate of which has little to do with the boats. As far as I am concerned this entire policy only perpetuates the problems by trying to combine the vile bigotry of some to the concern of others thus creating a paradox that continues the entire debate. BUT that is my opinion, and should the "boats stop" I do not think I could complain.

I do not consider this party perspective, this is simply an issue both parties are criminal in perpetuating for their own gains. As the policy combines processing into deterrent the stop the boats cry is linked to other issues of processing. BUT STILL, stopping the boats is the most important issue, not the Asylum seekers or the processing

In difference of any other decent policy from either party, I feel this policy is as good as the pacific solution the Coalition wish to introduce with one small difference, there is no direct action on the boats themselves. As for the processing and placement: entirely different issue that IMHO is attempting to remove any responsibility from Australia. BUT again two different issues.

Maybe, that is the test. But I am not sure deterrent is the best method. I do believe that greater access to Australian consulate or process to apply off shore is far better deterrent as it removes the need or incentive to get on the boats. BUT that is not politically potent as it will remove this entire issue from the public perception and after a while will raise questions of cost to the economy as it will not be in the face of the public.

Maybe it has worked to that purpose, but again I do feel this policy as with Coalition policy Should be replaced with better and more direct policy for the betterment of Asylum seekers and not political gain.

BUT again, if it works, I cannot complain I just have great reservations as to the effectiveness.

 

All Rudd is doing is expanding the capacity of the offshore detention centres in PNG, it is literally exactly the same thing Howard did, Pacific Solution 2.0.

As for the FBT, you keep going on about how it's better for Australian manufacturing than directly giving money to Australian manufacturers. But how exactly is making foreign imported cars cheaper better for Australian manufacturers? It's nonsense. FBT doesn't affect exports, and Australian manufacturers must export if they are to survive. Really the companies that are going to be majorly affected are leasing/salary package companies. People might even be more likely to buy slightly cheaper Australian made cars if they're not getting a discount on more expensive foreign luxury cars.

But no I don't particularly car about the car industry, it's all merely just populist nonsense. These factory jobs are no more special than any of the other 1 + million manufacturing jobs, and yet they receive a hugely disproportionate amount of government money. Then after decades of throwing money at Ford, they up and leave anyway. If the government must give away money, give it to Australian owned manufacturers. Frankly I would prefer it if they just stopped all middle and upper middle class and corporate welfare and made broad tax cuts.

 

No, that is not all they are doing, they also are not accepting any people who are granted asylum status into Australia( who arrive by boat), they are to be settled in PNG. This in no way has anything to do with Howard's policy.

What??? Do you consider this policy only affects imported cars??? The fact you find it difficult to understand that building cars create jobs, even though money needs to be contributed to create competitiveness on a global market. You would rather reduce jobs and pay more money to the manufactures just to remain manufacturing in Australia.

You really are a supporter of the Greens aren’t you? Even the ALP has some understanding of this concept, even though it seems to be small. Only the Greens consider communistic style is the best alternative. Fair enough nationalise everything, what jobs do you consider will be left?

Never said it did. I state the money currently given to manufactures is. You assume this has something to do with the FBT. The FBT only affects purchases of new vehicles. That is it provides incentive to purchase new vehicles which account for one third of Australian manufactured vehicles in Australia.

Yes directly it will affect leasing and salary package companies, indirectly it affects car manufacturing companies. One third of manufacturing within Australian car manufacturing industry is through this system, remove the incentive and people stop buying.

The fact you know little about who the government pays to manufacture in Australia is interesting. I assume due to the general knowledge provided by media you are aware of payments car manufacturing payments. Are you also aware of the payments made to other export companies? Let the government stop this waste of money, in an attempt to keep and create Australian jobs. Sure they are nothing special, but they are not alone either. Sour grapes over the fact it is so expensive to manufacture in Australia and the governments attempt to aid manufactures is simply stupid.

Yes that is right, personally you would prefer the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Never the twain should meet, that is right take any incentive to better the people’s predicament, because you do not understand how to keep jobs, how to create incentives and simply want to create a community of welfare recipients who remain totally dependent on government generosity.

 

I believe it has been the coalition`s duty to demand that the boats be stopped. To stand by, and ignore the deaths at sea, the waste of resources (that could be put to better use), and the security of our borders, would amount to criminal neglect. The people smuggling trade is a no win situation, with the capacity to expand dramatically.

I agree that other policy matters need more exposure. With the Global Financial Outlook so unsure, we need to be putting effort towards repairing some of the recent, avoidable damage done to domestic industries. Our cattle industry is one example. The way the cattle industry has been treated in recent years is nothing short of obscene. As with so many emotive subjects, the simplistic, knee jerk reaction to bad cattle slaughter practice in Indonesia, has actually CAUSED more brutality than it prevented. Now we have millions of cattle dying of thirst and starvation, farmers driven to suicide, and poverty. This is just one example of weak policy in action.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe it has been the coalition`s duty to demand that the boats be stopped. To stand by, and ignore the deaths at sea, the waste of resources (that could be put to better use), and the security of our borders, would amount to criminal neglect. The people smuggling trade is a no win situation, with the capacity to expand dramatically.

I agree that other policy matters need more exposure. With the Global Financial Outlook so unsure, we need to be putting effort towards repairing some of the recent, avoidable damage done to domestic industries. Our cattle industry is one example. The way the cattle industry has been treated in recent years is nothing short of obscene. As with so many emotive subjects, the simplistic, knee jerk reaction to bad cattle slaughter practice in Indonesia, has actually CAUSED more brutality than it prevented. Now we have millions of cattle dying of thirst and starvation, farmers driven to suicide, and poverty. This is just one example of weak policy in action.

 

What a perplexing post! This is exactly how abbott sounds when he has been out smarted.......wait up, Abbott just stands there and says nothing.....LMAO!