Favourite Prime Minister (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

What really annoys me is that... the government passes legislation meaning that after 3 years they will release detainee's... and the greens and labor ATTACK THEM on it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol again asquithian, quit thinking like such a modernist!!
Sure, you could say that the extreme left is 'compassionate' but are they truely? By killing people and destroying some labs PETA thinks it's doing something good for the world, are they? perhaps.

I really think you start getting into trouble when you start believing in 'right' and 'wrong', you have to understand that neither of these really exist.

edit: How long would your detention process take Asquithian?
3 months? then you'll be satisfied that they can come into the country?
even if you don't have the evidence?

 

[Korn]

lol again asquithian, quit thinking like such a modernist!!
Sure, you could say that the extreme left is 'compassionate' but are they truely? By killing people and destroying some labs PETA thinks it's doing something good for the world, are they? perhaps.

I really think you start getting into trouble when you start believing in 'right' and 'wrong', you have to understand that neither of these really exist.

edit: How long would your detention process take Asquithian?
3 months? then you'll be satisfied that they can come into the country?
even if you don't have the evidence?

How come u never live up to ur name "Not-that-bright" u seem to say quite intellectual and smart things in the face of adversity, sorry i mean illogical argument...no i mean unthinking lefties

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok... so still, explain to me, how long would you keep someone in custody, if you couldn't find out ANYTHING about them, before you released them into the australian public?

 

[Korn]

I have no idea what you are going on about in the first part of your post?!?!! probably part of your mental conditioning to construe anything more compassionate than you as extreme.

I hardly think 3 years in the desert is acceptable. Nor is shipping them to another country to take care of AND THEN not paying that country as promised.

It would be nice the the department had MORE RESOURCES to deal with such cases. But expecting a liberal government to SPEND MONEY on an area of public service is just stupid.

There are legal avenues for which they could apply, its a simple answer, if u break the law, u do the time

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Asquithian... it's hard to argue against taking what i'm sure are mostly nice people out of prison, but as you have demonstrated, it's alot harder to explain exactly how long you would keep them in there, if YOU couldn't collect evidence?

edit: Some of the bottlenecks in these departments can't be fixed by simply throwing money at them, there does come a point where it's just hard to get evidence.
If they could simply throw money at it and people would be processed faster, do you not think they would do it? How much money do you think they need to process people faster?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think 3 years is fine. It's wrong to keep people indefinately, and 3 years is long enough I guess that it's doubtful if you haven't got any evidence by then, you never will.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think you're being dull in this situation, what makes you think that throwing more money at the department will get things done faster?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well sometimes it takes time to uncover information (and no, hiring more people to look for the information won't necessarily speed this up, at least not as much as you think, more people doesn't = efficiency).

edit: I'm not talking about halving their budget, I just think chances are it's running at about as good as it ever feasibly will.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok you're just saying pointless crap
I don't know if that would make it more efficient, I am just sure that the government is keeping it at about it's maximum efficient state. More money doesn't fix everything.

Asquithian, to ACHIEVE justice in the most EFFICIENT way in the fastest way EFFICIENTLY possible IS important.

I am not doubting that we could spend 100 million extra and probably get through cases a VERY LITTLE BIT faster, where as up untill this point of EFFICIENCY we have reached, every 100,000 extra had the same result.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Spending more money CAN result in greater efficiency, hiring more people CAN result in more efficiency, but I'd like to know how you've come to the conclusion that this would work in this situation.

I'm for spending money where it's needed, but not to the point where the money isn't returning as much value as you could have spending it elsewhere.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It would make the howard government alot happier to spend extra money and truely investigate more people than to have to release people after 3 years i'm sure.

You can claim I don't question howard, but I do.
The fact that you think the Liberal party has never done ANYTHING good (despite firearms reform) shows who's the truely one sided person here.

 

[nick1048]

PAUL KEATING my God that guy's upfront style was exhilerating! truely inspirational

 

[Generator]

Soldier on, Asquithian.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Most senate reviews see government departments as underfunded. It's a common call cry from carious departments. When they have less staff to deal with cases those cases simply get allocated to the people who are left.

Running an office of 20 lawyers will get more work done than an office of 5 lawyers running. It's pretty bloody simple.

It's NOT that simple

If you were asked to find a needle in a hay-stack, sure 10 would be more efficient than 5, but what would be the different result in finding it if you had 10 or 20? Very little.

I don't know if it needs more funding, maybe it does? But I think that's why we have government etc to decide these things and to be knowledgable.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In many ways review of refugee applications is much harder, because sometimes there is little to work with, making it hard to make the actual determinations.
And no matter how many people you had working on that determination it would still take time.

edit: How many votes do the liberals lose because people don't like how long the refugee's are there?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

edit: I don't know? Or maybe spending the same ammount will leave it at the point of maximum efficiency?

Interesting that I can't find labors policy on detention.... anywhere on their website.
From what I know tho (correct me if i'm wrong) their detention policy is about the same as the Liberals, except they'd return detention centres back to government control?

 

[Generator]

Interesting that I can't find labors policy on immigrants.... anywhere on their website.

http://www.alp.org.au/platform/ (Chapter 7)... Ok, it isn't a policy, but close enough. I'm assuming that a policy of some sort will appear in time.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

* that mandatory detention be used for the proper administrative purposes of ensuring the health, identity and security checking of all unauthorised arrivals, enabling the expediting of processing and ensuring that those whose claims have failed are locatable and available for removal from Australia;
* that the conditions of detention be humane and appropriate to the needs of asylum seekers, with appropriate arrangements made to meet the needs of unaccompanied children and family groups; and
* that the length and conditions of detention be subject to review and that detention centres be managed by the public sector.

I can't argue with any of that really, and I think it should be run by the public sector.

 

[Korn]

To ask such a question is to encourage arbitrary decision making. YOU BEING A LAW STUDENT should know that is not to be encouraged. You know that I don't know.

...why dont we just send them to NZ ?

So how long do you think NTB?

6 years? 3 years? Should it longer? Never? What would the practical difference be between 3 years and 6 years? How is keeping someone in detetion for longer, if nothing can be leartned about them, going to help their situation?

I would say as long as it takes to prove their background and security risk level