From: "Lev Lafayette" With some familiarity with policy statements of political parties between elections you would become aware that high level statements are the norm.
< Lev fills in the many blanks in the "Greens" policy with a combination of common sense (as he sees it), the obvious (ditto), inferences from their general attitudes, current policies etc.> I have tried this approach myself in the past, but ran into a few problems. 1. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to someone else. If you have ever been involved in a business requirements workshop for an IT project you will have observed this phenomenon. I have frequently found that people regard the impossible as obvious (eg having been asked several times to implement solutions to NP-complete problems, and also to implement Human Level AI). 2. It is not clear when to apply common sense / the obvious versus existing policy versus inference from the current attitudes of the group in question. 3. There is no analysis of the implications and consequences of the policy. This is left as an exercise for the reader. The "Greens"' track record when they have made predictions on refugee policy is dismal. For example, they ridiculed the idea that softening policy on boat people would increase their numbers. This was so wrong that I think we need to add a new category of error to Pauli's three categories of error: a) Wrong b) Totally wrong c) Not even wrong (not even right enough to be meaningfully wrong) Perhaps we could add d) Green-wrong (so out of touch with the real world that it would be a complete fluke if their prediction had any information value at all). 4. If the reader performs the analysis based on filling in the blanks then we run into the final problem which is the denial that that was what was intended. Some examples: Let's say we take on board the suggestion that all refugee applications must be finalized within 12 months, which sounds reasonable. But remember, refugees are to be granted full access to the Australian legal system, with appeals, and will be eligible for legal aid. Anyone who has been involved in the legal system will be aware that fully running through the court processes in 12 months is not to be expected. And this is assuming that the administrative processes, including on-site investigations, waiting for replies from foreign governments etc can be done in 12 months. There seems to be a contradiction here. You cannot realistically resolve all claims in 12 months *and* give people full access to the courts. Also we have been told people should be able to work in Australia while their situation is being determined. And we are not going to break up families, so if two people have a child while they are here for several years, and the child has an enhanced claim on staying, and we are not going to break up families? The implication is that you can come here, get a work permit, string out the determination process until you have a child and it will be very hard ever to get you out of the country. Even the opportunity to work in Australia for 3-5 years is very valuable. I met a guy about 20 years ago in Bali who had gone to Australia and worked for a few years, then returned, a rich man in local terms - he was able to buy a nice house, had a young and pretty wife and had bought a good business. Not bad. How many people would like to take up such an opportunity? So you get told, oh no your assumptions are wrong. They will only get legal aid money and access to the appeals process if their appeal has a strong chance to succeed. So who decides this? Bureaucrats of course! So you are saying they actually will not have full access to the courts? No, .... And you run around the mulberry bush indefinitely. A pointless waste of time. Lev it might be helpful though for you to put up your own proposal and your analysis of its implications. But this fill in the blanks approach does not work. Tim