AndersB

How long will Kevin remain

143 posts in this topic

KRudd is a very good campaigner. Tony is hopeless. More and more Australian politics is being turned into an American style presidential race.

I agree.

My local member's picture doesn't even appear on the ads for this electorate. Only Kevin's.

Kevin can't represent this geographical area.

I detest the way this has developed.

Yes, its good to have a good captain, but imagine if a sporting team only highlighted the captain's contribution.

What an absolute disgrace to the Westminster system of government!

On the other hand, if I was a serving politician, I would be happy with this change in the system, because guess who gets blamed if it all goes pear-shaped. It wasn't me - it was the captain's fault!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KRudd is a very good campaigner. Tony is hopeless. More and more Australian politics is being turned into an American style presidential race. If that's the case Kev can, Tony can't.

We're a long way from the finish line, but at this stage I tip Kev to win.

After today's coverage I have to agree. Rudd tends to come across as at least knowing what he is doing (in terms of personal projection, not necessarily that I think he does) Abbott on the other hand seemed very behind the eight ball. Even stuff he ought to have been aware about like the Libs guy not knowing what the 6 points in the booklet he was holding were he just mumbled his way through. To me looked pretty weak and blustery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes think that mainstream parties create these parties to make sure that there is no legitimate debate about growth for the sake of growth (or for the sake of increasing nominal headline GDP, GDP per capita does not seem to count).

Now nobody wants to raise the issue because you automatically get associated with clowns like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes think that mainstream parties create these parties to make sure that there is no legitimate debate about growth for the sake of growth (or for the sake of increasing nominal headline GDP, GDP per capita does not seem to count).

Now nobody wants to raise the issue because you automatically get associated with clowns like this.

Aside from the one nation stupid person whom everyone should condemn. (Not least for her lack of geographical knowledge but mostly for her overt racism and ignorance)

There's a couple of premises that need to be established before any sensible debate can ensue.

Do we have the right to determine an immigration policy? That is who enters and why? Some see that we don't. The earth is a common treasury. Borders are man made construct.

Do we care what race/religion the immigrant will come from? (Even skilled) If we do this we are racist. Flat out. Me? I don't care as long as they are good peeps (and bring good recipes)

Once we establish these two principles then we can talk numbers based on environmental carrying capacity and social cohesion arguments. This of course is racist as well as we are attempting to maintain a hegemony. These are moral questions so there is no right answer - just an array of views. In a democracy highest number wins. Doesn't mean that you necessarily agree with the highest number. Agitation to change the numbers is the only alternative. Rinse and repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have the right to determine an immigration policy? That is who enters and why?

And before answering that question people should think long and hard about who borders and immigration policies benefit. I think a lot of the people forget that they are basically a resource of their countries ruling elite; the inability to change countries and allegiances is, in one light, the various ruling elites mutually agreeing not steal each others resources. If you think there is a shortage of your skills in country X and you would be better off moving there to take advantage of that situation it is made hard because your government wants your tax. Making immigration basic would give too much power to the plebs and no government wants to see that so they work together to restrict your choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Boat people" comes from the same meme as "blame the blacks", "blame the jews", "blame the wogs", "blame the nips", "blame the gypsies", etc. People* like to blame others for their own hardships, whether the blame is valid or otherwise. It's just a politically correct form of scape-goating.

Turkey is right - this is just a sideshow to take away focus of the real circus.

* People, as in generally speaking, not "all people".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have the right to determine an immigration policy? That is who enters and why? Some see that we don't. The earth is a common treasury. Borders are man made construct.

Yes we do.

If we don't control immigration policy we risk a flood of people arriving here to enjoy the wealth of this country. The risk is if too many arrive that wealth will be diluted and we may become a poor country. Call me selfish but I want to remain a wealthy country. Getting the balance right is tricky.

Do we care what race/religion the immigrant will come from? (Even skilled) If we do this we are racist. Flat out. Me? I don't care as long as they are good peeps (and bring good recipes)

I don't care what race/religion immigrants come from. As long as immigrants are willing to integrate (not assimilate). I don't want religious extremists; whether that be Muslims, neo nazis, or nutty fundamental American christians etc.

Once we establish these two principles then we can talk numbers based on environmental carrying capacity and social cohesion arguments. This of course is racist as well as we are attempting to maintain a hegemony. These are moral questions so there is no right answer - just an array of views. In a democracy highest number wins. Doesn't mean that you necessarily agree with the highest number. Agitation to change the numbers is the only alternative. Rinse and repeat.

Numbers are a difficult question - there are many competing views as to how much is too little, how much is enough and how much is too much. We need the right number of immigrants that will share our wealth, but not destroy it, contribute to our wealth but not 'steal' it, build our infrastructure but not be a burden, not overwhelm the environment, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People* like to blame others for their own hardships.

--Drunken Pre Apology Requested--

I disagree with this. I don't think people in general do. I think people like to have an opinion on "stuff" and have too many other things going on to generate one themselves for most topics. So they take their trusted source and adopt those opinions de facto.

I have spent lots of time with people that "should" be racist, fag hating, dole bludger blaming, low IQ and low earning morons. Usually when I point out clear things to them they agree. They don't change their opinions of course, even I am not charismatic, but they do quite quickly agree that "yes, you tor probably do stuff in the bedroom I don't want to know about and that is probably more of a risk to society than some gay dudes getting married" and "yes dole bludgers cost nothing in comparison to a family earning 150K and paying no effective tax because they have a couple of snot nosed genius children" and "yes we import a f*ck load of people who often do exceptionally well in the 'how much tax do we pay to support the locals' game".

They don't change their opinions, I think, because then they would have to find a new "trusted source of defacto opinions".

But I like to think that my little bit of chaos in their world helps them to question the opinions they are given.

And before anyone claims I support anything just to different I have decided, as of a few months ago when I started working on the commission into child abuse, that anyone supporting churches and other organisations because they "do good things as well as raping children" can just leave my house. I have no real issue with kiddie f*ckers any more than I have with psychopathic serial murderers, they are both a danger to society and take advantage of the compromises we have to make for society to work. But I do have a big issue with people supporting organisations that actively support the destroyers of society. It was a hard decision for me to make but I think an important one.

When politicians remember that they should be talking about how exactly we make society better for all involved I might care a wee bit more about their inane rants. In the meantime I support any measure which reduces their ego driven mania to a bit of a sideshow which is popular entertainment.

And I realise the above is probably a bit of a rant but then no one looks to me for how to guide their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we don't control immigration policy we risk a flood of people arriving here to enjoy the wealth of this country. The risk is if too many arrive that wealth will be diluted and we may become a poor country. Call me selfish but I want to remain a wealthy country. Getting the balance right is tricky.

Given the examples of, say, the US and Norway which do you want to follow?

In my opinion the US has f*cked itself by making it hard to get there. They have created a 2 tier system of "illegals and legals". Once that is accepted you then easily slide into "rich and poor". As soon as an acceptable dichotomy is created in a society the people with power can use it to blame the victim over and over. "The American Dream" shouldn't be to ride in a tinted window limo past people on the streets. Huddled and Tired masses was not what that country was about creating, it was what they wanted to take in and turn into prosperous people.

When I lived in Norway there were many people bitching about the refugees coming in and getting treated really well. The vox populi was that refugees got treated better than students. Somehow despite this Norway still ranks way high in standard of living. Australia sits between the two countries. Should we follow the policies of the one that has a better standard of living or the policies of the country which ranks lower?

I would say that rather than having vague ideas of wealth dilution instead just look at "How much do various countries spend on bringing people in / keeping people out and how prosperous are the countries 20 years later"

The idea that the wealth of a country is it's natural resources divided by the population is pretty limited I think.

I don't care what race/religion immigrants come from. As long as immigrants are willing to integrate (not assimilate). I don't want religious extremists; whether that be Muslims, neo nazis, or nutty fundamental American christians etc.

I am pretty sure that religious extremism has been linked to (in order of importance by my memories)

1. Polygamy (dudes that can't ever get laid do weird sh*t)

2. Level of corruption

3. Caste (born poor stay poor is bad)

That said we take and make our own members of those groups you don't want so long as they come by plane and are white. Our responsibility is to ensure those three things that create the extremists do not ever be part of our culture. The first two are easy. The third one is really the only one we have to worry about. Fags, Chicks, Niggers and poor people should all be able to make what they want to make of their lives based on their input, not their genitals etc.

But it takes time. The first ones will always cling to their homeland and their children will have weird sh*t ideas too. I grew up in NZ and many of my neighbours spoke a scandinavian language at home because that was what the grandfather of the house spoke.

All of the local sushi places have primarily japanese exchange students working there. Some of them will stay forever and they will become Australian, but by then Australian will have changed in the same it did ever decade since white people came here.

To claim "now is perfect and we should stop" seems crazy to me, all of the previous influxes of foreigners have made Australia stronger and more fun. Going back to a White Australia where the only spices are English and coffee doesn't exist seems nostalgic to me. I'd have to get married and have kids in that world.

Numbers are a difficult question - there are many competing views as to how much is too little, how much is enough and how much is too much. We need the right number of immigrants that will share our wealth, but not destroy it, contribute to our wealth but not 'steal' it, build our infrastructure but not be a burden, not overwhelm the environment, etc etc.

I think we have a proven aging population. The other issues are just politicians being useless. There is enough money to pay for infrastructure but oddly NSW didn't spend it for a while there.

I came here wanting to be a barman and now I pay a fair chunk of taxes to support the locals. There was no way at all of detecting me in the incoming group of the year but I have year on year provided for the locals. The US had the chance of getting me at the same time but made it too hard. Who do think won out in the dragnet of that year? Could anyone have been able to work out I was a choice person to bring in? pffft no chance.

If you want to rock out the resources argument you have to first address the incompetence of politicians argument. What exactly is QLD doing now about water after their drought period? As far as I am aware (admittedly from cab drivers) you guys had your drought, got your shower timers and then the government did nothing about preventing it happening again.

If the argument is "our leaders are too incompetent to deal with what we have and so more is wrong" then fine. That is actually a rational argument. But then don't even talk about immigrants, start f*cking nailing your leaders to the wall.

When the leader of a political party can front up to the members delegation and say "oh you all voted way the hell in support of having a vote on this but I have decided not to so we won't even vote on whether we should talk about it" there is a big problem and it is not being caused by a bunch of die hard go getters that will risk their lives to get here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the examples of, say, the US and Norway which do you want to follow?

In my opinion the US has f*cked itself by making it hard to get there. They have created a 2 tier system of "illegals and legals". Once that is accepted you then easily slide into "rich and poor". As soon as an acceptable dichotomy is created in a society the people with power can use it to blame the victim over and over. "The American Dream" shouldn't be to ride in a tinted window limo past people on the streets. Huddled and Tired masses was not what that country was about creating, it was what they wanted to take in and turn into prosperous people.

When I lived in Norway there were many people bitching about the refugees coming in and getting treated really well. The vox populi was that refugees got treated better than students. Somehow despite this Norway still ranks way high in standard of living. Australia sits between the two countries. Should we follow the policies of the one that has a better standard of living or the policies of the country which ranks lower?

You might not want to believe the Norweigen vox populi.

According to the UNHCR in 2012 the United States accepted more people for resettlement than any other country in the world.

2012 UNHCR figures for refugees and asylum seekers are:

US: 280,996 People

Norway: 54,489 People

Australia: 50,093 People

Then again there are about 10.4 Million refugees that the UNHCR is concerned about right now. Most are in the Middle East or Asia, followed by Africa - so why 331,089 travelled all that extra distance to Australia or the United States despite getting such a good deal in Norway I've no idea. :laugh:

On a separate note, I've got a great business idea - "REFUGEE LOANS". As soon as Australia opens up its boarders, I'll sell refugee loans to refugees living in camps over in the Middle East and Asia.

About $1,500 is enough for a one way economy ticket. I'll hire workers at cheap rates over in Pakistan to sell one way non-refundable air tickets at a reasonable loan rate - say 25% per annum compounding, calculated daily. Only available to those 10.4 million the UNHCR is worried about :thumbsup:.

Once the Refugee is here in Australia either on benefits or working they can start to pay me back. If I can make say...... an average of $200 in interest across 10.4 million people....

Well, at that point Mrs Money and I can move somewhere that doesn't have an infrastructure crisis!

Dead Money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To claim "now is perfect and we should stop" seems crazy to me, all of the previous influxes of foreigners have made Australia stronger and more fun. Going back to a White Australia where the only spices are English and coffee doesn't exist seems nostalgic to me. I'd have to get married and have kids in that world.

I agree that multiculturalism has brought great benefit to Australia.

I think we have a proven aging population. The other issues are just politicians being useless. There is enough money to pay for infrastructure but oddly NSW didn't spend it for a while there.

I came here wanting to be a barman and now I pay a fair chunk of taxes to support the locals. There was no way at all of detecting me in the incoming group of the year but I have year on year provided for the locals. The US had the chance of getting me at the same time but made it too hard. Who do think won out in the dragnet of that year? Could anyone have been able to work out I was a choice person to bring in? pffft no chance.

I agree that bringing in a "sensible" number of young go-getters each year to offset the issues of aging population is a good idea.

If you want to rock out the resources argument you have to first address the incompetence of politicians argument. What exactly is QLD doing now about water after their drought period? As far as I am aware (admittedly from cab drivers) you guys had your drought, got your shower timers and then the government did nothing about preventing it happening again.

If the argument is "our leaders are too incompetent to deal with what we have and so more is wrong" then fine. That is actually a rational argument. But then don't even talk about immigrants, start f*cking nailing your leaders to the wall.

Hand me the nailgun and a decent alibi - I'll get started.

But even with competent leaders, I still believe that there is an immigration number (say x), which is likely between null and infinite, and which is better for Australia in the long term than either null or infinite. I want x. And that's a different want to wanting competent politicians - I'm greedy and wont both thanks all the same! :D

Dead Money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might not want to believe the Norweigen vox populi.

Nope, it was the same type of reaction as the stuff I was bitching about "oh the refugees will be the death of us". Somehow they stayed at the top of the table of lifestyle.

US: 280,996 People - 1 refugee per 1100 people

Norway: 54,489 People - 1 refugee per 100 people

Australia: 50,093 People - 1 refugee per 450 people

So we are in the middle. If we were to switch to a rate comparable to Norway it would mean we would take in 248,000 : almost as many as the states.

That is the scale of the difference between the three countries, the greens proposed increase to 30K from 20K of one type (numbers from memory) is almost a nothing change in that scale.

Then again there are about 10.4 Million refugees that the UNHCR is concerned about right now. Most are in the Middle East or Asia, followed by Africa - so why 331,089 travelled all that extra distance to Australia or the United States despite getting such a good deal in Norway I've no idea. :laugh:/>

I get the feeling that Norway feels taking in one refugee per person is about the most it can handle and, importantly, the populace at large seems to agree.

On a separate note, I've got a great business idea - "REFUGEE LOANS". As soon as Australia opens up its boarders, I'll sell refugee loans to refugees living in camps over in the Middle East and Asia.

About $1,500 is enough for a one way economy ticket. I'll hire workers at cheap rates over in Pakistan to sell one way non-refundable air tickets at a reasonable loan rate - say 25% per annum compounding, calculated daily. Only available to those 10.4 million the UNHCR is worried about :thumbsup:/>.

Once the Refugee is here in Australia either on benefits or working they can start to pay me back. If I can make say...... an average of $200 in interest across 10.4 million people....

Well, at that point Mrs Money and I can move somewhere that doesn't have an infrastructure crisis!

Dead Money

:)

If you did it in a manner where they were trained before coming in it is a win / win situation. Train everyone at University Australia, the ones that fail the course go back to their lives with skills which might actually be useful. The ones that pass are cheaper than growing our own people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hand me the nailgun and a decent alibi - I'll get started.

"A drunk guy on the internet told me to" doesn't work anymore? dammit, that was my preferred mode of getting all the power!

But even with competent leaders, I still believe that there is an immigration number (say x), which is likely between null and infinite, and which is better for Australia in the long term than either null or infinite. I want x. And that's a different want to wanting competent politicians - I'm greedy and wont both thanks all the same! :D/>

The problem is that the incompetent leaders are happy using the topic of boat people in a way which doesn't address the number x and helpfully keeps everyone from talking much about the competency issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And before answering that question people should think long and hard about who borders and immigration policies benefit. I think a lot of the people forget that they are basically a resource of their countries ruling elite; the inability to change countries and allegiances is, in one light, the various ruling elites mutually agreeing not steal each others resources. If you think there is a shortage of your skills in country X and you would be better off moving there to take advantage of that situation it is made hard because your government wants your tax. Making immigration basic would give too much power to the plebs and no government wants to see that so they work together to restrict your choices.

I agree. I think Detroit's population decline is an example of what happens when economic conditions lead to higher taxes and fewer services. People leave for greener fields. This places more burden on those that stay, vicious cycle etc. Those that do stay tend to be those that can't afford to move or don't have the skills to find work elsewhere. Country borders and controls on immigration mean that governments can impose their will on the people more without too much fear of mass exodus. I wonder when US states will start imposing interstate moving taxes.

On the otherhand there are great benefits to the people in having citizens committed to their community, and willing to put in time and effort into making it a great place to live. This however, among many things, requires the right policy settings of the government. The policies need to avoid promoting fear and devision. They also need to discourage parasitic behaviour and a wide wealth distribution. Far easier just to 'imprison' people within the borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And before answering that question people should think long and hard about who borders and immigration policies benefit. I think a lot of the people forget that they are basically a resource of their countries ruling elite; the inability to change countries and allegiances is, in one light, the various ruling elites mutually agreeing not steal each others resources. If you think there is a shortage of your skills in country X and you would be better off moving there to take advantage of that situation it is made hard because your government wants your tax. Making immigration basic would give too much power to the plebs and no government wants to see that so they work together to restrict your choices.

A converse view to this argument is that the people behind the border are protected from the influx of cheap labour. Much as the medieval peasants post plague (and population decreases) had more bargaining power with their feudal lords and could up sticks and move to a new manor for better wages and conditions due to the lack of competition, if those elites were controlling countries rather than estates their interests would be better served by importing as much cheap labour as they could to drive down wages in their own fiefdoms.

Australia is taking in ~290000 immigrants p.a. The elites don't seem to mind importing higher numbers of skilled labour. The populous, I think is possibly more opposed to big Australia than they are to asylum seekers.

I'm ambivalent about big Australia on environmental grounds mainly.

The fear of people whom I work with in the IT industry for example is:

It could work out that importing more IT workers results in a bigger industry therefore making us more competitive in the global sense. More work for everybody. Pay rises.

OR

More people for a limited amount of jobs. We are high wage earners and increased competition is designed to drive down wages. IT workers are a dime a dozen.

I don't know which is more likely. I think that there are actually only a limited number of people that really are good at IT and there are a sh*tload of hangers on. So maybe the third way is even if there is a surplus of the really talented people then the economy will get some innovation which takes us back the the first scenario. No fear. :)/> But what will the hangers on do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we do.

If we don't control immigration policy we risk a flood of people arriving here to enjoy the wealth of this country. The risk is if too many arrive that wealth will be diluted and we may become a poor country. Call me selfish but I want to remain a wealthy country. Getting the balance right is tricky.

I don't care what race/religion immigrants come from. As long as immigrants are willing to integrate (not assimilate). I don't want religious extremists; whether that be Muslims, neo nazis, or nutty fundamental American christians etc.

Numbers are a difficult question - there are many competing views as to how much is too little, how much is enough and how much is too much. We need the right number of immigrants that will share our wealth, but not destroy it, contribute to our wealth but not 'steal' it, build our infrastructure but not be a burden, not overwhelm the environment, etc etc.

I think you've expressed the majority view on accepting uncontrolled numbers of asylum seekers zaph. There is a fear that the risks are to the downside. It is very likely that this view is selfish and that as tor asserts the risks are minimal but the thing about risk is that you don't know until it has been realised until you have a problem. I don't know that the number of asylum seekers that have the cash to pay smugglers equates to the full 10 million odd people in refugee camps. I'd assume not. But if you open the gates completely the numbers will and have increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the examples of, say, the US and Norway which do you want to follow?

In my opinion the US has f*cked itself by making it hard to get there. They have created a 2 tier system of "illegals and legals". Once that is accepted you then easily slide into "rich and poor". As soon as an acceptable dichotomy is created in a society the people with power can use it to blame the victim over and over. "The American Dream" shouldn't be to ride in a tinted window limo past people on the streets. Huddled and Tired masses was not what that country was about creating, it was what they wanted to take in and turn into prosperous people.

When I lived in Norway there were many people bitching about the refugees coming in and getting treated really well. The vox populi was that refugees got treated better than students. Somehow despite this Norway still ranks way high in standard of living. Australia sits between the two countries. Should we follow the policies of the one that has a better standard of living or the policies of the country which ranks lower?

I would say that rather than having vague ideas of wealth dilution instead just look at "How much do various countries spend on bringing people in / keeping people out and how prosperous are the countries 20 years later"

The idea that the wealth of a country is it's natural resources divided by the population is pretty limited I think.

I am pretty sure that religious extremism has been linked to (in order of importance by my memories)

1. Polygamy (dudes that can't ever get laid do weird sh*t)

2. Level of corruption

3. Caste (born poor stay poor is bad)

That said we take and make our own members of those groups you don't want so long as they come by plane and are white. Our responsibility is to ensure those three things that create the extremists do not ever be part of our culture. The first two are easy. The third one is really the only one we have to worry about. Fags, Chicks, Niggers and poor people should all be able to make what they want to make of their lives based on their input, not their genitals etc.

But it takes time. The first ones will always cling to their homeland and their children will have weird sh*t ideas too. I grew up in NZ and many of my neighbours spoke a scandinavian language at home because that was what the grandfather of the house spoke.

All of the local sushi places have primarily japanese exchange students working there. Some of them will stay forever and they will become Australian, but by then Australian will have changed in the same it did ever decade since white people came here.

To claim "now is perfect and we should stop" seems crazy to me, all of the previous influxes of foreigners have made Australia stronger and more fun. Going back to a White Australia where the only spices are English and coffee doesn't exist seems nostalgic to me. I'd have to get married and have kids in that world.

I think we have a proven aging population. The other issues are just politicians being useless. There is enough money to pay for infrastructure but oddly NSW didn't spend it for a while there.

I came here wanting to be a barman and now I pay a fair chunk of taxes to support the locals. There was no way at all of detecting me in the incoming group of the year but I have year on year provided for the locals. The US had the chance of getting me at the same time but made it too hard. Who do think won out in the dragnet of that year? Could anyone have been able to work out I was a choice person to bring in? pffft no chance.

If you want to rock out the resources argument you have to first address the incompetence of politicians argument. What exactly is QLD doing now about water after their drought period? As far as I am aware (admittedly from cab drivers) you guys had your drought, got your shower timers and then the government did nothing about preventing it happening again.

If the argument is "our leaders are too incompetent to deal with what we have and so more is wrong" then fine. That is actually a rational argument. But then don't even talk about immigrants, start f*cking nailing your leaders to the wall.

When the leader of a political party can front up to the members delegation and say "oh you all voted way the hell in support of having a vote on this but I have decided not to so we won't even vote on whether we should talk about it" there is a big problem and it is not being caused by a bunch of die hard go getters that will risk their lives to get here.

I can't remember an election in which our political "leaders" have proven themselves so unworthy of the office.

They do reflect the choices of the population however so my own disgust is not limited to politicians.

Given the difficulty with choosing winners from the vast bulk of immigrants we have chosen skilled migration as the dominant category. This scattergun approach is deemed the best approach to achieving a higher quality intake. Truth be told you as a kiwi can come and go as you please. You were almost another state and CER ensured that kiwis are honorary Australians.

Having said that we would happily exclude the next Einstein based upon formal skills and perhaps it would serve this mediocre country right. It's a lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2012 UNHCR figures for refugees and asylum seekers are:

US: 280,996 People

Norway: 54,489 People

Australia: 50,093 People

Dead Money

Do you have a link for these figures DM?

The UNHCR figures that I have found have for 2012:

Australia: 15,790

Ranked 15 per capita with 0.7 asylum seekers per 1000

US: 83,430

Ranked 24 per capita with 0.3 asylum seekers per 1000

Norway: 9,790

Ranked 7 per capita with 2.0 asylum seekers per 1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah I forgot...

As a member of the APS I can now be sacked for criticising the government! :)/>/> Even anonymously!

PS urged to stay silent on social media

This could be my ticket out of Canberra. :P/>/>

How have they defined social media? Like can you criticise the government on say breakfast talk back radio? Does a net forum count as social media? How about someone else's backyard BBQ versus your own?

Does working for the ABC make you a public servant and limit the journalists?

and where is your twitter feed? I'm gonna guess your password and save you from canberra :)/>

Edited by tor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now