That sounds about right, Stuart, although there are Libs keeping their heads down. I recall Julie Bishop storming into Tony Abbott's office when he proposed cutting funding for Indonesian educational aid. But Petro and Judi Moylan have left. Malcolm Turnbull also seems alright (now he's no longer stealing things from Rob Hirst in primary school!) Regarding the low standard of political "debate" in Oz, (former Finance Minister) Lindsay Tanner shared your view that the media were to blame, whereas journalist Mungo MacCallum blamed "Punch and Judy".

As you say, Miron, just in relation to tax dollars the "Laboral" refugee policy is curious. Apparently places like Leonora in WA would love to have detention centres, if we must have the things at all, for the jobs and income they bring. But the refugees still wouldn't be free as in other developed countries.

"Lucky Country" summed up the provincial state of Australian politics, back in 1981, even before Australians started chewing their fingernails over a few old fishing boats on the horizon. There's a similarly great snapshot (shot over the bow?) by departing BBC correspondent Nick Bryant, in his final column, "The Consequential Country", if you're keen. He (generously) blames the current political leaders alone, rather than the people or even the parties:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14726289

Meanwhile the refugees wait in the "mental illness factories"...


--- In powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au, Stuart Fenech <stuart.fenech@...> wrote:

High,

My understanding is that Peter Garrett's views are somewhat cross factional
in nature - some views are clearly suited to the left (eg. environmental
areas), while some some are clearly suited to the right (eg. some social
conservatism). All of this operates within the strange realm of the NSW
right, though, and might also somewhat reflect ALP politics in the seat of
Kingsford-Smith. Alas, the article does not specifically say Garrett is
left; I thought he was unaligned-right.

In terms of asylum seekers, until these issues are discussed in the media
with more maturity than shallow sound bites, all that can result of these
debates is unnecessary suffering and costs to snare votes. The ALP is
conflicted between trying to do the right thing and the need to reflect the
prejudices of voters in swing seats to win elections. The Coalition,
clearly, has no such ethical issues since Petro nicked off.

Regards

Stuart

On 5 September 2011 10:32, Miron Mizrahi <mironmizrahi@...> wrote:

just because he has an opinion which aligns with that of a given faction
does not necessarily mean he is aligned to it as well.

to me the whole offshore processing makes no sense. it was instituted by
the Howard govt. - IMO - as an "out of sight out of mind" strategy. they
were being hammered in the media and to limit media access they went
offshore. in hindsight the Nauru option was also illegal since Nauru - afaik
- is not a signatory. but more than that, Nauru is dying for us to reopen.
why? because the mere presence of the centre there provided a much needed
economy. facilities have to be maintained, detainees need feeding, laundry
services, power and utilities, etc. I see no reason why our tax dollars
should go to Nauru when they can go into the local economy if centres were
onshore.

Miron

How could people get so unkind?

------------------------------
*From:* Tom <tr_espen@...>
*To:* powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au
*Sent:* Sunday, September 4, 2011 9:59 PM
*Subject:* [powderworks] NMOC - Just putting it out there (PGa makes a
suggestion on refugees)


Hi Powdies

I thought PGa was non-aligned rather than in the Left faction (a bit
like Powderworkers, maybe?), but ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-04/asylum-deal-bowen/2869666