we need taxes secong - very important things [;)]

"you guys" ???  hmmmmm, think you've got the wrong idea somewhere along the way - if 2 people are happy together why shouldn't they be able to get married???  for me it's a step towards us showing our maturity as a country

Past/Present bias.

No...............but i'm screwing a guy that is.




NOT the last time i looked.

myriad of other STDs that are exclusive to gays,

U R FUKING KIDDING ARENT U HERE COMES

stop the boats - 3 words, 3 bloody annoying words

getting married isn't all about having kids, it's about publicly declaring your love for someone and "benefiting" from the legal consequences - personally I don't see much sense in it unless you have kids BUT it's important for some people so be that man and woman, man and man or woman and woman i have no problem with it

Coalition seizes on interception of boat carrying 116 people off Christmas Island

Joe Kelly From: The Australian - November 17, 2010

A BOAT carrying 116 people, the second biggest this year and third largest under Labor's watch, was intercepted this morning north of Christmas Island.

The arrival of the boat, the largest since February 1 when a boat carrying more than 170 people was intercepted, has been seized on by opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison as evidence that larger boats were arriving more regularly.

“What we've got is a problem that is really starting to pick up pace,” he said.

“We've now had 35 boats arrive since the election and that's been more than 1700 people.

Five of the nine boats to have been intercepted this month by Border Protection Command have contained more than 50 people.

People aboard the most recent vessel are to be transferred to Christmas Island for security, identity and health checks.

Mr Morrison said the “extra beds the government have announced will soon become redundant”.

“We've had now more than 6000 people arrive including crew in 2010 and 121 boats,” he said.

“And that has produced more than 5000 people in detention and 70 per cent of those have been there for more than three months.

“The people-smugglers are making hay while the Gillard sun shines through their failed policies.”

Mr Morrison also hit back at claims by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen this morning that his motion, which would force the government to give preference to refugees who apply for asylum offshore, was not well thought through.

“The government has to make a decision about who is going to wait longer. Is it going to be women at risk in extremely dangerous situations around the world or is it people in the detention network in Australia who have come illegally by boat,” he told The Australian Online.

“The government's failed border protection policies mean that the broader humanitarian program has been crowded out.”

But Mr Morrison conceded people could be left waiting for longer in the detention network in Australia under his motion.

“Someone's going to wait longer and the government needs to decide who they think should wait longer,” he said.

“There is a clear choice that has to be made and it is not easy.”

Mr Morrison suggested that lot of women were caught in dangerous circumstances across globe who were not very mobile and who did not have access to the resources of those who came by boat.

He also said the mental health and safety impacts of prolonged detention could be countered to a degree if the Minister used residence determination powers to deal with those vulnerable cases in the detention network, including children.

Mr Morrison said the motion came about as a result of the representations made to him by the Salvation Army and Australian citizens who had family members overseas whose applications had been refused.

not

you'll be back Loggy

boat people SHOULD BE a non-issue Jez, move on

terry mccann in the courier et al this morning

From July next year, Julia Gillard and Bob Brown will be holding hands on the levers of power in Canberra.

Entirely figuratively, I hasten to add. But still firmly and very disturbingly - with only the independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor rather tenuously permitting.

Well that's a relief - after all you couldn't ask for a more shining example of calm rationalism than Rob '17 minutes of pompous, preening fame' Oakeshott. Not.

It's less than eight months until Labor and the Greens' dangerous lunacy is unified in the ability to pass legislation through the national parliament.

Just exactly what that shared lunacy could deliver - to deliberately, needlessly hurt all Australians - has been on graphic display over the past couple of weeks with the carbon tax push and the bank bashing.

Whereas the Greens' stupidity is just, well, stupidity, albeit of the wilful teenage 'no consequences' variety, Gillard adds the extra touch of cynical dishonesty. That was shown in her article in The Age yesterday, arguing for a carbon price AKA the carbon tax that she promised we would not have "under the government I lead".

What made her thoroughly dishonest article truly exquisite was the headline: "Carbon price now or we'll pay later".

Translated into English: Unless you let me make you pay more for power now - and everything else as well, as the higher price for power and fuel feeds into the cost of everything - you will have to pay more for power later.

Except: no you don't have to. There is a very simple way not to pay more for power today and also not to pay more for power tomorrow.

Don't put a price on 'carbon' - actually, the first and biggest lie, it's carbon dioxide. And I'm still waiting to be told, when does the 'price on carbon' extend to your breathing.

The so-called price on carbon is a totally artificial construct. Whichever way it is done, it is a tax is a tax is an entirely discretionary tax, exactly like the GST. Only far more pervasive - it will tax everything.

The really vile dishonesty in the Gillard article was her deliberate failure to detail how punishing that carbon tax had to be now to achieve the outcomes intended.

That is, to force power companies to switch from cheap reliable coal to, as she wrote, "natural gas, wind and solar".

Notice a word missing? Like, nuclear. Funny about that - the word didn't manage to surface anywhere in her article. When if we are stupid enough to try to switch from coal-fired power, there is only one sensible base-load alternative. Nuclear.

Here was Gillard - mindlessly? deceitfully? - prattling on about how a carbon price would unlock one of the most powerful forces on earth: "the genius of the free market".

Free, schmee. The same Gillard - and her presumptive partner Brown - prohibits the market from providing the most effective alternative. And she also squibs out on defending that 'modification' to the free market.

Another Gillard lie. We can get much of our energy from renewable sources. After all, we already get, as she noted, "8 per cent from renewable sources". She 'omitted' to point out that almost all of that was from hydro - wind and solar provide less than 1 per cent. When of course the wind ... and the sun ... you know the rest.

Hydro comes from ... dams, which in the eyes of her putative partner are only a shade less evil than coal.

The Age, as is its wont, couldn't resist adding a yet further exquisite touch to the Gillard article, by running it next to yet another article demanding action to cut emissions. From the Sydney Morning Herald's theological editor Ross Gittins.

I couldn't have written a better headline: "Suits us to be deluded on climate". I'm presuming the 'us' was not the royal variety but included Gittins' counterpart in Melbourne, The Age's theological editor Tim Colebatch.

So what we face next July is a Gillard-Brown partnership aimed at attacking the foundation not simply of our national prosperity but of our very nation itself. Our vast resources of cheap and effective coal.

Imposing very significant costs on every Australian.

And if the Greens get their way, the duo will be setting about undermining our banking system - the other fundamental pillar of a functioning economy and society.

The Greens' stupidity is exquisite at both the micro and macro levels.

Ban 'foreign' ATM withdrawal fees. The effect will be to ban most ATM withdrawals as the banks stop allowing 'foreign' withdrawals.

Ban exit fees. That will be irrelevant to the big banks, as their sums are trifling. But devastating to the small banks and non-banks that really rely on them and are supposed to provide competition to the big guys.

Put controls back on interest rates and really 'finish the job' of wrecking consumer access to finance at reasonable interest rates.

To say nothing of undermining confidence in the banking system. The neophyte Adam Bandt should look at Ireland to see the consequences of a banking system gone bad.

Except that would be pointless. By definition, being a Green announces you are utterly incapable of rational thought.

Afraid? Feel free to pan

A lot of the soft support that the Greens have, which is buoying their primary vote figures, nationally and in states, eg Victoria is due to the protest vote against the major parties and also because a lot of people still believe The Greens are environmentalists, who care for the planet........

All it takes is a good look through their website to identify their extreme policy agenda.  The party continues to be overtaken and dominated both those on the extreme left wing and who want to impose a very socialist-agenda all under the guise of the dull and apparently trust-worthy voice of Bob Brown and their koala-cuddling "image".

A level of scrutiny against the Greens is coming and its plain to see they are not ready for it.  The soft support will quickly subside when those who have/and are thinking of voting Green under the guise that I mentioned above see through the media the true agenda/philosophy of the Greens.

The Liberal Party decision in Victoria, if a precendent followed, will certainly impact on The Greens, whether they admit it or not.  They are very much a preference-driven-machine in terms of getting bums on seats in parliament.

scary stuff jez but may work to our advantage in the long run

no doubt womble will be here soon to trash terry's measured comments.

You haven't been through it before wombleoz.

You and The Greens agree on this issue - your "answer" is to open up the floodgates and let everybody in.

That is just fanciful and unrealistic.

So it boils down to the fact that your basically saying your happy to support people-smuggling and encourage people to make deadly trips to Australia in leaky boats.

....you say this is "tricky" tactics from the conservatives, trying to make out as if we care, well ffs......we're human as well........its a deflection from answering.

You lot say, to hell with "process" and rules and waiting in refugee camps - you say, people smuggling, no worries mate.

Refugees in camps.  Come on DOWN.  No worries mate.  Room for all, services for all, infrastructure for all.

We can help EVERYBODY......[smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy]

Wake up mate.

I think when a party struggles to implement a pink batts insulation program that not only claims lives, but wastes a few billion - its fair to ask for a business plan on the spending of $43 billion of public monies.

I mean I think its fair play for the Opposition to sight business plans on the feasability of a $43 billion project.  I don't recall the Howard Government spending $43 billion on national project?  Nor do I recall the Howard Government's first term consisting of waste, debt and monumental screw ups - such as under Rudd Labor - eg. insulation, BER scheme etc.

We're talking about a massive investment in hard-wired technology, likely to be well and truly outdated by the time its wholly completed - I mean I thought wireless was the way of the world in terms of internet?

Crikey are well within their right to rabbit on about the Coalition's credibility and the hypocracy of politics - but clearly Labor have something to hide with regard to the business case - and the politics of it? - its damaging Labor.

This government is not only agendaless, directionless and lacking leadership - but it appears to be extremly fragile and certainly not effectively prosecuting its political arguments.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury-warns-over-costings-for-the-nbn/story-fn59niix-1225950465763/

TREASURY has warned cabinet it needs to give "very careful consideration" to the National Broadband Network's implementation study over coming months.  The department argued that the project carried significant risks to the national balance sheet.

The advice to cabinet, originally suppressed when Treasury's incoming brief to the government was released under Freedom of Information laws in September, was revealed yesterday.

The release of the advice comes after the Department of Communications and Broadband revealed in its brief to the government that the company overseeing the rollout of the NBN disagreed with the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study over recommendations relating to the design of the high-speed broadband network and the nature of the prices and products NBN Co would offer to customers.

Treasury has identified the $43 billion NBN as carrying significant risks relating to competition and efficiency in telecommunications and related markets, which could have an impact on the public balance sheet.

"It therefore warrants very careful consideration by cabinet in coming months," the Treasury brief said.

GET OVER IT. You lost the election.

dream on Jez

Time to join forces Womble and Jez and rally your political people on behalf of betfair and corps and most importantly the punter

Jez after all those "bungles, mishaps, waste and debt" you talk about, Labor still won the last election.

Under their new saviour Abbott the Libs get a +0.76% swing and the Greens get a +3.97 on their first preference vote in the house of reps. Sure says a lot about the conservatives standing as far as the voters are concerned.

Jez, the federal poll is still a couple of years away, plenty of time to smooth out a few things and keep the economy bubbling along just fine like it is

The fragility of this government is becoming evident even more, day by day.  I think to "expect" a poll in a few years is an optismitic view - of course supporters of this current government will be wishing, hoping and praying this parliament runs its full term. 

Wombleoz, you were talking about smoothing things out, about a good 6 months ago........and I'm sure you were saying that day in-day out during the Rudd Govt first term. 

However, we are all aware that you accept, praise and confidently embrace mediocrity.

Koala, I am aware that Labor won government through its negotiation with a Green (surprise surprise) an environmental activist (again surprise surprise) and two disgruntled former Nationals - they certainly didn't WIN the election - it was most definetely NOT a vote of confidence in a first term government - the first to lose its majority since 1932.

The election outcome showed almost 400,000 more Australians voted for the Liberal Party than for Labor - and that a FIRST-TERM government not only lost its majority - but lost its legitimacy.........and nothings changed since.....

I mean, after such an election, one would assume, the government would be eager to pull up its socks and have a strong agenda, a clear direction and start to "lead" the nation.

............gotta love the ALP.

Fair enough judge.  You may be well be right.
Anything can happen in politics.

But from all accounts, in terms of polling and focus research, Tony Abbott's standing with the public is improving and Gillard's is going backwards.

I think the ALP are well aware of their precarious political situation at the moment........