And how many of such countries have they passed thru on their way to Australia?
Abbott policies at Liberal Conference
- Thread starter Francesco
- Start date
And how many of such countries have they passed thru on their way to Australia?
Just saying why they ain't illegals despite the rhetoric.
Just based on geographical distance if refuge is what is sought there are immediately 7 neighboring countries within 3000 km from Afghanistan with compatible culture and regional traits. (Afghanistan herself is a state signatory.) I have left out many other state signatories to come out with resonable clusters of like governance and cultural standards and with less internal turmoil.
However if you need lifestyle the typical Afghan seeker will have to pass through lots of other state signatories to reach a western democracy with western welfare who is prepared to indulge their demands. In the case of Australia the seeker will have to travel about 9810 km with commensurate travel expenses.
Source: States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol
Distance as crow flies from Afghanistan to state signatory to UNHCR Convention and Protocol in km.
Country Convention Protocol Distance(km)
Afghanistan 30 Aug 2005 30 Aug 2005 0
Tajikistan 07 Dec 1993 07 Dec 1993 634
Turkmenistan 02 Mar 1998 2 Mar 1998 a 648
Kyrgyzstan 08 Oct 1996 08 Oct 1996 1019
Iran, Islamic Republic of 28 Jul 1976 28 Jul 1976 1129
Kazakhstan 15 Jan 1999 15 Jan 1999 1569
Azerbaijan 12 Feb 1993 12 Feb 1993 1912
Turkey 30 Mar 1962 31 Jul 1968 2944
China 24 Sep 1982 24 Sep 1982 3318
Russian Federation 02 Feb 1993 02 Feb 1993 3379
Ukraine 10 Jun 2002 04 Apr 2002 3415
Egypt 22 May 1981 22 May 1981 3577
Greece 05 Apr 1960 07 Aug 1968 4102
Bosnia and Herzegovina 01 Sep 1993 01 Sep 1993 4401
Sudan 22 Feb 1974 23 May 1974 4452
Cambodia 15 Oct 1992 15 Oct 1992 4455
Czech Republic 11 May 1993 11 May 1993 4567
Croatia 12 Oct 1992 d 12 Oct 1992 4591
Philippines 22 Jul 1981 22 Jul 1981 5921
Papua New Guinea 17 Jul 1986 17 Jul 1986 9157
Finland 10 Oct 1968 10 Oct 1968 4282
Germany 01 Dec 1953 05 Nov 1969 4926
Norway 23 Mar 1953 28 Nov 1967 5118
France 23 Jun 1954 03 Feb 1971 5579
United Kingdom of Great Britain and 5820
Australia 22 Jan 1954 13 Dec 1973 9810
Canada 04 Jun 1969 04 Jun 1969 9995
United States of America (P) 01 Nov 1968. 11,927
end
Last edited:
The ones coming on the boats have disgarded their passports, so we don't really know for certain who they are.
Some immigration officials believe many are actually Pakistanis posing as Afghanis.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-02/immigration-workers-reveal-widespread-visa-fraud/3985834
According to the website below Hazaras mainly belong to either the mainstream Shia group or the other mainstream Islamic group, Sunni. Their ethnic background detailed at the website below confirms my initial guess that they will identify closely with some of the neighboring countries ending with 'Tan', in particular Tajikstan, as well as with Shia central, Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people
The diversion above does not disprove my proposition that all these Afghan seekers identify more closely on ethnic and cultural predispositions with many neighboring state signatories to the UNHCR Conventions and Protocols at closer proximity and lesser cost to Afghanistan than Australia.
Just getting back to the original topic, Abbott's ideas seems to be.
1) Get rid of the carbon tax and mining tax
2) Continue cuts in taxes and handouts, even though the revenue to fund these cuts (ie carbon and mining taxes) have been scrapped.
3) Spend on infrastructure
4) Deliver big surpluses
He will need to cut approximately $70B from government spending, to achieve this.
Of course, he hasn't said which 20% of government spending will be cut, and I doubt he will, but regardless, apparently, 'everyone will be better off'.
Of course they will Tony. Pass the kool-aid...
1) Get rid of the carbon tax and mining tax
2) Continue cuts in taxes and handouts, even though the revenue to fund these cuts (ie carbon and mining taxes) have been scrapped.
3) Spend on infrastructure
4) Deliver big surpluses
He will need to cut approximately $70B from government spending, to achieve this.
Of course, he hasn't said which 20% of government spending will be cut, and I doubt he will, but regardless, apparently, 'everyone will be better off'.
Of course they will Tony. Pass the kool-aid...
Did he say where the funding will come from for this? Is it additional to his $70b black hole in funding. Promises are just that with out funding.
Exactly which part of the speech makes you proud to be Australian?
Exactly which part of the speech makes you proud to be Australian?
The only people not better off will be the Greens and the ALP. Let's wait and see what the detail is when it comes out in late-2013 - but clearly judging from your comments you have already made up your mind about that so the point is moot.
I have no details on which to make up my mind. I agree, let's see the details - assuming that we will get any.
I deal in numbers. More spending and less income equals deficits, not surpluses. To get surpluses, Abbott will need to cut a huge amount of spending. Pretty simple, really.
Point # 1. They are not Tony Abbott policies. They are Liberal policies.
Point # 2. Let's not go chasing this mystery 70 Billion Liberal 'black hole'. It doesn't exist.
Point # 3. Let's focus on getting rid of the 150 Billion Labor 'black hole' debt. It does exist.
How any side of politics can turn a situation where they were handed no debt and over 20 Billion in cash, and in 4 short years stuff everything up so badly that they have nothing in the Bank and be able to rack up 150 Billion in debt, then have the temerity to turn around say the side that handed them a magnificent set of accounts can't manage the economy ?? WTF ??
It's all spin....and the journo's swallow the lot. Once again, no-one ever questions the Greens on their spending. It's out of control.....and will remain out of control until the public get the chance to boot them out of office. They will not change.
At the rate that Labor and the Greens are burning cash, 100 million per day, by the time the next election comes around in 400 odd days, that'll be another 40 billion of debt added to the stinking debt pile.
That's 190 billion in debt.
It took Howard and Costello 12 solid years of surplus' to pay down Keating's debt, and that mountain of debt was only half the size of the one Labor and Greens have racked up. Shameful.
These 4 or 5 years of Labor and Greens will be looked back on very harshly by society. I estimate it will take at least 15 to 20 years of conservative Govt's to repay what they have overspent.
Point # 2. Let's not go chasing this mystery 70 Billion Liberal 'black hole'. It doesn't exist.
Point # 3. Let's focus on getting rid of the 150 Billion Labor 'black hole' debt. It does exist.
How any side of politics can turn a situation where they were handed no debt and over 20 Billion in cash, and in 4 short years stuff everything up so badly that they have nothing in the Bank and be able to rack up 150 Billion in debt, then have the temerity to turn around say the side that handed them a magnificent set of accounts can't manage the economy ?? WTF ??
It's all spin....and the journo's swallow the lot. Once again, no-one ever questions the Greens on their spending. It's out of control.....and will remain out of control until the public get the chance to boot them out of office. They will not change.
At the rate that Labor and the Greens are burning cash, 100 million per day, by the time the next election comes around in 400 odd days, that'll be another 40 billion of debt added to the stinking debt pile.
That's 190 billion in debt.
It took Howard and Costello 12 solid years of surplus' to pay down Keating's debt, and that mountain of debt was only half the size of the one Labor and Greens have racked up. Shameful.
These 4 or 5 years of Labor and Greens will be looked back on very harshly by society. I estimate it will take at least 15 to 20 years of conservative Govt's to repay what they have overspent.
I don't see any problems here. The Libs are traditionally pro business, labor pro the worker. This carbon tax is all about taking from business and giving to workers.
With business friendly policies, the whole economy should get more productive. I can't see why Tony can't deliver. The most business friendly thing the Libs could do would be to get rid of the ridiculous carbon tax.
See ya's.
Yes you have, you've got oodles of budgets to judge from. Over 20 years of history of federal budgets in which to judge, since 1990.
Labor have delivered 9 budgets in that time, and every one has been a huge deficit. These last 4 from Swan have proven to be the biggest deficits of all time in Australian history. They are simply incapable of balancing the books.
Liberals have delivered 9 or 10 out of 11 budgets with surplus'. They are very capable of balancing the books. A large part of the team that delivered those magnificent budgets are still there. Abbott is one of them.
On a State level, the same modus operandi applies.
Qld - Labor Govts have been racking up debt like no tomorrow. I hear that state is buried in about 90 Billion of debt. They'll be lucky to dig themselves out of that hole. The LNP is now in to clean up the carnage left from Labor. They will deliver surplus budgets.
NSW - Labor's long rule there has left the state nearly bankrupt. Budget deficit after beudget deficit. Labor really don't care and they cannot live by their means. The new O'Farrel Liberal Govt in NSW just handed down their first budget surplus. It is the primary plank in their Govt.
Vic - been under Labor for a long time and once again is cactus. Liberals brought in to mop up the financial mess.
WA - we've had Liberal Govt for 4 years now, and they've delivered surplus after surplus.
SA - been under Labor for a long time, still are, and their budgets are always in deficit.
There is a pattern. Union hacks simply cannot manage. They have no experience in managing small businesses, and are absolutely clueless when it comes to managing large businesses or whole of country finances.
I agree in theory, but $70B in government revenue (taxes etc) is a lot of productivity. To get a surplus, while delivering lower taxes and increased infrastructure spending will require decent cuts somewhere.
And I deplore the fact that I will have to vote ALP in this State by-election this month. But better to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I was talking about the current, Abbott lead Liberal Party, and policies that will be taken to the next election.
The numbers don't add up. More govt spending plus less tax revenue means that other MASSIVE cuts will need to be made to repay debt.
We've been over this so many times. Its why we are the only western country not even close to recession.
You've been proven mistaken over and over. All the back to the early 90s.
Its always just your opinion Dazz. Nothing else.
By the way, how is Abbott going to pay for all these massive promises?
You've been proven mistaken over and over. All the back to the early 90s.
Its always just your opinion Dazz. Nothing else.
By the way, how is Abbott going to pay for all these massive promises?
Once again evand, you are conveniently avoiding facts and putting your own spin on it. We are not in recession therefore this Labor government is good. Maybe you can be our next PM?
Not quite right TC.
Its about penalising the top 500 polluting businesses in Australia and passing that money to the public. If they pollute less and/or move to modern less polluting technologies, they wont be penalised, simple. That's the idea.
Easy to gloss over the facts with blunt statements. Phony Tony is the poster boy for it. And everyone else just rattles off the same old stuff.
Its about penalising the top 500 polluting businesses in Australia and passing that money to the public. If they pollute less and/or move to modern less polluting technologies, they wont be penalised, simple. That's the idea.
Easy to gloss over the facts with blunt statements. Phony Tony is the poster boy for it. And everyone else just rattles off the same old stuff.
Attachments
We are not in good because the Labor govt. handled the GFC better then any country in the world. Fact.
Wayne Swan voted best treasure in the world. Fact.
What are 'your' facts that im 'conveniently ignoring'? I've proven you wrong about 7000 times so far, one more wont hurt.
Wayne Swan voted best treasure in the world. Fact.
What are 'your' facts that im 'conveniently ignoring'? I've proven you wrong about 7000 times so far, one more wont hurt.
Similar threads
