Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
"Tell Abbott and Gillard: don't punish refugees in my name"
Can someone point me at a coherent explanation and analysis of an alternative policy? I have searched in vain. The ALP searched high and low for something better and failed to find it. If they could have found something better than reverting to the hated Howard policy I am sure they would have taken it. I don't mean platitudes a la the Green's web site which basically says "be kind to refugees" & "Labor and Liberal are mean". I mean: a) What measures do we take in regard to people showing up? Do we try to inhibit this at all? Do we monitor arrivals? Based on the policy, how many people will show up and what would the cost and consequences be? What would the monitoring cost? What would be the numbers of boat people who arrive and how many would likely die at sea per annum? b) What do we do with the people who show up? Bearing in mind some will be refugees and others will be economic migrants, and others will be criminals. Do we allow anyone who arrives to stay? If not, how do we force the others to stay? Do we assess people, and what do we do with them in the meantime? What do we do with people we decide we don't want to allow to stay? How many people are likely to be in each category and what is the likely cost and impact? c) How many of the tens of millions of people in refugee status around the world will come to Australia. Will the policy imply an increase in overall immigration? Should other components be cut to compensate? What would be the economic, environmental, and social impacts of this change on current residents of Australia? d) What is the health, mental health and educational and vocational status of people who are likely to take advantage of the proposed system? What sort of citizens have refugees or other unscheduled arrivals made historically? Did this depend on our screening processes? What will be the economic and social impact? I don't want to provoke an argument about this. I would just like to know has someone actually thought through the implications of alternative policies. Nor do I mean to diminish the terrible plight of refugees and other impoverished people around the world. Personally my gut feel is we should quadruple the refugee quota but try to discourage people from arriving via dangerous boat journeys. I doubt our willingness and even our ability to take all of the tens of millions of refugees from around the world. Politicians are notorious for ignoring the second-order effects of their policies. Some material on second-order effects at this link http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/charlie-munger-ricardo-and-finance.h... Tim Josling
Hi Tim, just to this one: On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim josling wrote:
I don't mean platitudes a la the Green's web site which basically says "be kind to refugees" & "Labor and Liberal are mean".
This week Tony Abott was grilled at ABC Radio 774 about the word "illegal" refugee. He had to swallow that the word isn't right in this context, as the 1951 Convention states: (What rights do refugees have under the 1951 Convention?, http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html) "The right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31);" It did not stop him to use "illegal" again later the day at Channel Nine. Yes, there is meanness in that. People who are interested in solutions don't use this kind of misleading words against better knowledge. Regards Peter
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim josling <tej@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
a) What measures do we take in regard to people showing up? Do we try to inhibit this at all? Do we monitor arrivals? Based on the policy, how many people will show up and what would the cost and consequences be? What would the monitoring cost? What would be the numbers of boat people who arrive and how many would likely die at sea per annum?
As previous analysis on this list has shown the cost would be less than the current policy no matter what you do.
b) What do we do with the people who show up? Bearing in mind some will be refugees and others will be economic migrants, and others will be criminals. Do we allow anyone who arrives to stay? If not, how do we force the others to stay? Do we assess people, and what do we do with them in the meantime? What do we do with people we decide we don't want to allow to stay?
If it is found that someone is not a genuine refugee then they get sent back where they came from.
c) How many of the tens of millions of people in refugee status around the world will come to Australia. Will the policy imply an increase in overall immigration? Should other components be cut to compensate? What would be the economic, environmental, and social impacts of this change on current residents of Australia?
Currently the regular immigrants outnumber refugees by more than an order of magnitude. This includes "economic migrants" from second-world countries like the US. In my previous message I pointed out that the birth rate here isn't much greater than in China with their "single child policy". We RELY on immigrants!
d) What is the health, mental health and educational and vocational status of people who are likely to take advantage of the proposed system? What sort of citizens have refugees or other unscheduled arrivals made historically? Did this depend on our screening processes? What will be the economic and social impact?
We are obliged to accept genuine refugees regardless of mental health etc. But that said the people who manage to travel any significant distance tend to be smarter and more resourceful than those who don't. When I worked in Europe I discovered that Australians apparently have a reputation for working really hard, something that I would never have guessed based on my experience working here. It seems that lazy people stay home while people who go to the other side of the world for career benefits (or whatever reason) work hard when they get there.
I don't want to provoke an argument about this. I would just like to know has someone actually thought through the implications of alternative policies.
If you don't want to have an argument then do some research and stop with the leading questions.
Nor do I mean to diminish the terrible plight of refugees and other impoverished people around the world. Personally my gut feel is we should quadruple the refugee quota but try to discourage people from arriving via dangerous boat journeys. I doubt our willingness and even our ability to take all of the tens of millions of refugees from around the world.
The vast majority of refugees won't get as far as Australia. Also note that a good portion of refugees would be happy to go back if things stabilise. If the Australian government was to help establish peaceful democratic governments in some of the war-torn countries then that would not only decrease the number of refugees but result in some people going back.
Politicians are notorious for ignoring the second-order effects of their policies. Some material on second-order effects at this link http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/charlie-munger-ricardo-and-finance. html
One problem with that article is that it doesn't consider all the issues related to trade with China. If the Chinese currency had been allowed to float on the market like most other currencies or if the Chinese government had allowed it's citizens to share in the wealth (instead of just investing in the US) then things would be quite different. Things made in China wouldn't be nearly as cheap, Chinese people would be better off, and more work would be done in the US. Also the point about nuclear weapons is silly. The USSR demonstrated that no particular level of international trade is necessary to make nukes and North Korea has demonstrated that it can be done while subsisting on international welfare. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
The problem with immigration into Australia is Australia is a welfare state. In a welfare state, wealth is redistributed. This is only possible if more money is put in than is taken out. More must be put in than is taken out, rather than an equivalent amount, because the welfare state is intrinsically inefficient; so it must take from us more than it gives to us. In order to survive, the welfare state must ensure that it can continue to operate in this way. Individual refugees aren't necessarily going to be net takers from the welfare state, but, in general, any population increase is going to increase the burden on the welfare state. The more people taking from the welfare state, the more the welfare state must take from everyone else. And if it isn't overtly taking money in greater taxes it must exert greater control over people's activities to ensure that what is extracted from the welfare state is less than what is contributed to it . Controlling immigration is just one way that the welfare state protects itself. So if we want to address the root cause of immigration control,let's advocate that the welfare state be wound back. Here are some helpful links: http://archive.mises.org/4891/immigration-plus-welfare-state-equal-police-st... https://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_3.pdf On 17 August 2012 17:57, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim josling <tej@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
a) What measures do we take in regard to people showing up? Do we try to inhibit this at all? Do we monitor arrivals? Based on the policy, how many people will show up and what would the cost and consequences be? What would the monitoring cost? What would be the numbers of boat people who arrive and how many would likely die at sea per annum?
As previous analysis on this list has shown the cost would be less than the current policy no matter what you do.
b) What do we do with the people who show up? Bearing in mind some will be refugees and others will be economic migrants, and others will be criminals. Do we allow anyone who arrives to stay? If not, how do we force the others to stay? Do we assess people, and what do we do with them in the meantime? What do we do with people we decide we don't want to allow to stay?
If it is found that someone is not a genuine refugee then they get sent back where they came from.
c) How many of the tens of millions of people in refugee status around the world will come to Australia. Will the policy imply an increase in overall immigration? Should other components be cut to compensate? What would be the economic, environmental, and social impacts of this change on current residents of Australia?
Currently the regular immigrants outnumber refugees by more than an order of magnitude. This includes "economic migrants" from second-world countries like the US.
In my previous message I pointed out that the birth rate here isn't much greater than in China with their "single child policy". We RELY on immigrants!
d) What is the health, mental health and educational and vocational status of people who are likely to take advantage of the proposed system? What sort of citizens have refugees or other unscheduled arrivals made historically? Did this depend on our screening processes? What will be the economic and social impact?
We are obliged to accept genuine refugees regardless of mental health etc. But that said the people who manage to travel any significant distance tend to be smarter and more resourceful than those who don't.
When I worked in Europe I discovered that Australians apparently have a reputation for working really hard, something that I would never have guessed based on my experience working here. It seems that lazy people stay home while people who go to the other side of the world for career benefits (or whatever reason) work hard when they get there.
I don't want to provoke an argument about this. I would just like to know has someone actually thought through the implications of alternative policies.
If you don't want to have an argument then do some research and stop with the leading questions.
Nor do I mean to diminish the terrible plight of refugees and other impoverished people around the world. Personally my gut feel is we should quadruple the refugee quota but try to discourage people from arriving via dangerous boat journeys. I doubt our willingness and even our ability to take all of the tens of millions of refugees from around the world.
The vast majority of refugees won't get as far as Australia.
Also note that a good portion of refugees would be happy to go back if things stabilise. If the Australian government was to help establish peaceful democratic governments in some of the war-torn countries then that would not only decrease the number of refugees but result in some people going back.
Politicians are notorious for ignoring the second-order effects of their policies. Some material on second-order effects at this link
http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/charlie-munger-ricardo-and-finance .
html
One problem with that article is that it doesn't consider all the issues related to trade with China. If the Chinese currency had been allowed to float on the market like most other currencies or if the Chinese government had allowed it's citizens to share in the wealth (instead of just investing in the US) then things would be quite different. Things made in China wouldn't be nearly as cheap, Chinese people would be better off, and more work would be done in the US.
Also the point about nuclear weapons is silly. The USSR demonstrated that no particular level of international trade is necessary to make nukes and North Korea has demonstrated that it can be done while subsisting on international welfare.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem with immigration into Australia is Australia is a welfare state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state From the above Wikipedia page: # In Germany Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the modern welfare state by # building on a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began # as early as in the 1840s, and by winning the support of business. In the # 1880s he introduced old age pensions, accident insurance and medical care # that formed the basis of the modern European welfare state. His # paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals # were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the # outflow of immigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did # not exist.[7][8] Bismarck further won the support of both industry and # skilled workers by his high tariff policies, which protected profits and # wages from American competition, although they alienated the liberal # intellectuals who wanted free trade. That seems a good summary, welfare helps the economy and has been proven to do so for 170 years. The libertarian thing is like a cult, it's clearly not working well for the US, apart from the 1%.
In a welfare state, wealth is redistributed. This is only possible if more money is put in than is taken out. More must be put in than is taken out, rather than an equivalent amount, because the welfare state is intrinsically inefficient; so it must take from us more than it gives to us. In order to survive, the welfare state must ensure that it can continue to operate in this way.
Actually it's efficient to provide some security for the citizens. That encourages people to take financial risks instead of focussing on health care as they do in the US.
Individual refugees aren't necessarily going to be net takers from the welfare state, but, in general, any population increase is going to increase the burden on the welfare state.
Actually you want the population to remain about the same so that there are young people to take care of you when you are old. The Chinese one child policy is putting the future of old people at risk, as would the Australian birth rate if we didn't have immigration. I've already provided this data, you really should read previous messages before replying.
The more people taking from the welfare state, the more the welfare state must take from everyone else. And if it isn't overtly taking money in greater taxes it must exert greater control over people's activities to ensure that what is extracted from the welfare state is less than what is contributed to it .
You might want to compare "corporate welfare" with welfare paid to people.
So if we want to address the root cause of immigration control,let's advocate that the welfare state be wound back.
You clearly don't understand the issues. If someone is at risk of being killed in their home country then the amount of welfare paid somewhere else isn't going to stop them from leaving.
Here are some helpful links: http://archive.mises.org/4891/immigration-plus-welfare-state-equal-police-s tate/ https://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_3.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School From the above Wikipedia page: "Austrians reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments, and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics". Rejecting evidence isn't really surprising given their connection with the nutty libertarians. I previously posted a link to a paper about the correlation between believing the most nutty conspiracy theories and believing the libertarian ideas. YOu should read it. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 17 August 2012 19:52, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
That seems a good summary, welfare helps the economy and has been proven to do so for 170 years. The libertarian thing is like a cult, it's clearly not working well for the US, apart from the 1%.
The cost of adfministering welfare, as well as the inevitable mistakes made by a centrally planned system, require that the welfare state takes more wealth than it gives. I don't know why you bring up Germany. They seem to have had a few troubles over the past 170 years. You could instead look at Sweden and how detrimental it has been for them to move to a welfare state http://mises.org/daily/2259 .
In a welfare state, wealth is redistributed. This is only possible if more money is put in than is taken out. More must be put in than is taken out, rather than an equivalent amount, because the welfare state is intrinsically inefficient; so it must take from us more than it gives to us. In order to survive, the welfare state must ensure that it can continue to operate in this way.
Actually it's efficient to provide some security for the citizens. That encourages people to take financial risks instead of focussing on health care as they do in the US.
But in the USA there is generally a greater degree of entrepreneurship and financial risk taking than in Australia. That is despite the USA's inefficient socialist health system.
Individual refugees aren't necessarily going to be net takers from the welfare state, but, in general, any population increase is going to increase the burden on the welfare state.
Actually you want the population to remain about the same so that there are young people to take care of you when you are old. The Chinese one child policy is putting the future of old people at risk, as would the Australian birth rate if we didn't have immigration. I've already provided this data, you really should read previous messages before replying.
Why should any particular degree of population growth be wanted? Allow the population to grow as it will and allow the population to take care of itself as it will.
The more people taking from the welfare state, the more the welfare state must take from everyone else. And if it isn't overtly taking money in greater taxes it must exert greater control over people's activities to ensure that what is extracted from the welfare state is less than what is contributed to it .
You might want to compare "corporate welfare" with welfare paid to people.
Corporate welfare is obviously just as bad as any other form of welfare.
So if we want to address the root cause of immigration control,let's advocate that the welfare state be wound back.
You clearly don't understand the issues. If someone is at risk of being killed in their home country then the amount of welfare paid somewhere else isn't going to stop them from leaving.
Eliminating the welfare state isn't a means of deterring immigration, its actually a means of allowing for an increased capacity to absorb immigration.
Rejecting evidence isn't really surprising given their connection with the nutty libertarians.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 August 2012 19:52, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
That seems a good summary, welfare helps the economy and has been proven to do so for 170 years. The libertarian thing is like a cult, it's clearly not working well for the US, apart from the 1%.
The cost of adfministering welfare, as well as the inevitable mistakes made by a centrally planned system, require that the welfare state takes more wealth than it gives.
No-one is suggesting that paying welfare magically creates money from nothing. What it does is provide a safety net. One benefit of this is that it allows people to take risks such as accepting a job offer at a small company. Back in the days when there was no welfare or health care people wanted a job for life, that really prevented anyone other than the independently wealthy from starting a company. Another is that in modern developed countries people just don't believe that orphans should be beggars or prostitutes.
I don't know why you bring up Germany. They seem to have had a few troubles over the past 170 years.
Not related to welfare though.
You could instead look at Sweden and how detrimental it has been for them to move to a welfare state http://mises.org/daily/2259 .
Please cite a reputable source.
Actually it's efficient to provide some security for the citizens. That encourages people to take financial risks instead of focussing on health care as they do in the US.
But in the USA there is generally a greater degree of entrepreneurship and financial risk taking than in Australia. That is despite the USA's inefficient socialist health system.
Your problem here is that you blindly believe American propaganda. Please investigate what the word "socialist" means and then investigate how the US health care system works. Both of them differ from what the tea- baggers believe.
Individual refugees aren't necessarily going to be net takers from the welfare state, but, in general, any population increase is going to increase the burden on the welfare state.
Actually you want the population to remain about the same so that there are young people to take care of you when you are old. The Chinese one child policy is putting the future of old people at risk, as would the Australian birth rate if we didn't have immigration. I've already provided this data, you really should read previous messages before replying.
Why should any particular degree of population growth be wanted? Allow the population to grow as it will and allow the population to take care of itself as it will.
That's not what you do when running a country. Companies want employees and customers and they want a government policy that supports that. Citizens want an effective government that runs things well, when there aren't locals with the necessary skills they want migrants to be allowed in to do the work. Also citizens want a reasonably low crime rate. The cheapest way of doing this is to provide some level of welfare. Your problem is that you are more interested in ideology than in how things actually work.
The more people taking from the welfare state, the more the welfare state must take from everyone else.
And
if it isn't overtly taking money in greater taxes it must exert greater control over people's activities to ensure that what is extracted from
the
welfare state is less than what is contributed to it .
You might want to compare "corporate welfare" with welfare paid to people.
Corporate welfare is obviously just as bad as any other form of welfare.
Except that your crowd support it. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausintro.htm The above URL has a summary of Austrian "economics". Note that your mises.org site is sponsored by the Koch brothers who almost entirely live off corporate welfare. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
Actually you want the population to remain about the same so that there are young people to take care of you when you are old. The Chinese one child policy is putting the future of old people at risk, as would the Australian birth rate if we didn't have immigration. I've already provided this data, you really should read previous messages before replying.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_population esp. § Ageing, well-being and social policy Unfortunately the ANU reference is broken. While I don't disagree with you, Russell, I suspect your statement above is overly simplistic. ISTR many years ago hearing David Suzuki say that we already had thrice the sustainable number of humans, but a quick fact check on WP only turns up these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_sustainable_yield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Population_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
Actually you want the population to remain about the same so that there are young people to take care of you when you are old. The Chinese one child policy is putting the future of old people at risk, as would the Australian birth rate if we didn't have immigration. I've already provided this data, you really should read previous messages before replying.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_population esp. § Ageing, well-being and social policy Unfortunately the ANU reference is broken.
While I don't disagree with you, Russell, I suspect your statement above is overly simplistic.
ISTR many years ago hearing David Suzuki say that we already had thrice the sustainable number of humans, but a quick fact check on WP only turns up these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_sustainable_yield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Population_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
There is definitely room to grow here. My family pays ca. $600 on electricity per year, plus similar prize on gas. I am renting a house, and it is not very efficient. A colleague showed me her bill recently: $1500 electricity per quarter, spring, summer, autumn, winter. Interestingly, cutting costs (and your foot print) can lead to better quality of life. E.g. the programed panel heaters give me a nice warmth when I arrive, and they don't blow air around, there is no noise.. Regards Peter
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
That seems a good summary, welfare helps the economy and has been proven to do so for 170 years. The libertarian thing is like a cult, it's clearly not working well for the US, apart from the 1%.
With the possible exception of Paul Ryan and some delusional teabaggers, nobody in the USA believes the liberatarian thing -- nor has done so for well over 80 years. The ones who go around saying 'Get government out of lives, but don't allow the evil politicians to cut Social Security or Medicare' are pretending to hew to the libertarian thing, but That Word Does Not Mean What They Think It Means. Shutting down the welfare state has been a dead-letter since the early days of FDR. The USA _is_ a modern welfare state, and nobody except a few loons wants it to be otherwise, though they may claim to for reasons of ideological appeal.
Alex Hutton wrote:
In a welfare state, wealth is redistributed. This is only possible if more money is put in than is taken out. More must be put in than is taken out, rather than an equivalent amount, because the welfare state is intrinsically inefficient; so it must take from us more than it gives to us. [...]
So you want to dismantle "the welfare state" because it is lossy. Presumably you avoid air conditioners for the same reason? Going further, I guess you must be a perfectly spherical, of uniform density, in an absolute vacuum, &c. I wonder how you manage to communicate with the real world without increasing entropy...
Alex Hutton wrote:
The problem with immigration into Australia is Australia is a welfare state.
In a welfare state, wealth is redistributed. This is only possible if more money is put in than is taken out. More must be put in than is taken out, rather than an equivalent amount, because the welfare state is intrinsically inefficient; so it must take from us more than it gives to us. In order to survive, the welfare state must ensure that it can continue to operate in this way. The extreme Libertarian, right-wing anarchist, small government position; would seem to be that not only social services but the judicial system ,police and the armed services should be privatised and taxes eliminated. So surely antagonism to 'welfare' needs to be placed on the continuum between this and an extreme left-wing Marxist / socialist position. In a real political system like the US; which is not purely one or the other; citizen's taxes for example pay something like $US100K per year per prisoner; but it is quite possible that increasing unemployment benefits would reduce the total number of prisoners with a nett decrease in the cost to the taxpayer; making the welfare solution more, rather than less 'efficient' ; regards Rohan McLeod
Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim josling<tej@melbpc.org.au> wrote: .......snip
I don't want to provoke an argument about this. I would just like to know has someone actually thought through the implications of alternative policies. If you don't want to have an argument then do some research and stop with the leading questions. Well I certainly understood Tim's questions as examples of what would be considered in a "coherent' policy To quote Tim: "Can someone point me at a coherent explanation and analysis of an alternative policy? I have searched in vain. The ALP searched high and low for something better and failed to find it. If they could have found something better than reverting to the hated Howard policy I am sure they would have taken it. I don't mean platitudes a la the Green's web site which basically says "be kind to refugees" & "Labor and Liberal are mean". I mean....:" So he is not asking for answers to the questions literally , but rather a policy which addresses them !
regards Rohan McLeod
Hi Tim, more than just "Tony is a liar", I hope. It is just the first thingh I had in mind. On this note, as I said, I am living here for ten years by now, migrated short time after Tampa, and clearly shocked by the viciousness of the debate. It is strange coming from Central Europe, from Germany, and have lived in Berlin for the last ten years before. Berlin is full of people coming with or without being asked, and we just have to live with it. The open borders in Europe are having this as a side-effect, and the magnitude of the problem is much higher. However, part of the solution is, and was, the integration of wider parts of Europe into the European Union. It increased the democratic and living standards there, and eased the pressure on the migration issue. (I don't want to glorify the EU, there are problems too, but it seems to me more visionary as what I am seeing here) Australia does not seem to have a concept of building this "belt". Think about our Northern neighbour, PNG. Australian influence seems to be defined to secure Australian mining interest and palm plantages. Working together with the Northern neighbours would ease the pressure, would develope these countries, giving our industry entry to a growing market - and would lead to a natural "off-shore solution": people having a reasonable live in countries they are fleeing to are not desparate to reach our shores. Easing the pressure is one of the main reasons driving social development. Bismarck, as the "father of the Welfare state", as quoted here, was not just acting for the industry in need of skilled labour, he also had to fend off a powerful social-democratic movement. Putting a lid on a problem is never a good solution. Few billion dollars for a few thousand people per year are extremely expensive for a still tiny problem, and even Tony cannot turn the boats around. It is just rhetorics to harvest votes. What brings me to another thought, about the voting system. The voting system here clearly favorates big parties in a "first behind the post" system because the seats are not reflecting the proportions of the votes given in favour of a party. This leads to pander to "extremist views". In a proportional system you have these votes usually "quarantined" - you may have a extreme right wing party in parliament, with 5 or 10 percent, as the most West European countries have. But they do not determinate the election policies of the "mainstream parties". The main parties here seem to be sure that the race to the 50%+1 votes can be won only by the race to the bottom. Wonder whether how long they are right: after the last election they already needed the Greens and the independents.. Regards Peter
Hi On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de>wrote:
Australia does not seem to have a concept of building this "belt".
Think about our Northern neighbour, PNG. Australian influence seems to be defined to secure Australian mining interest and palm plantages.
With respect, that is not the case at all. Papua New Guinea is a complex and diverse society. Perhaps this is the real issue in terms of "refugees"....in general, both sides of the fence make judgements based on our own culture and lifestyle habits. These preconceptions quickly fall away when you live (not just visit) in a place like PNG for even a short period. Rgds BW
participants (8)
-
Alex Hutton -
Brent Wallis -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
tim josling -
Trent W. Buck