Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Fly direct from
Canberra to New Zealand

Administrator Stanhope soon to be returned to us

By johnboy - 23 September 2013 93

The ABC has news on Jon Stanhope’s stand against the Government out on Christmas Island:

Christmas Island’s administrator Jon Stanhope says he will have to reconsider his position if told not to speak publicly about boat arrivals.

His comments come a day after the first asylum seeker vessel since the Federal Government implemented its new border protection policy arrived on Christmas Island, carrying about 30 people.

The Government is not providing any details of the boat, but the ABC has been told by people on Christmas Island that the passengers include men, women and children from the Middle East.

Under the previous Labor government, media outlets were notified each time a boat was intercepted.

However, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison imposed new restrictions on the flow of information about asylum seeker boats, saying he will only provide weekly briefings – the first of which will be today.

One imagines that if Administrator Stanhope doesn’t stick to his knitting the Abbott Government will not hesitate for a second to sack him.

It is also worth noting that the decision to announce via media release every single boat arrival is largely what made this stupid non-issue into the maker and breaker of Governments.

We do not announce every 747 arriving at Sydney Airport with asylum seekers onboard (they are never, ever announced, nor are British backpackers overstaying their visas).

Ceasing to bother with the feverish announcement of boat arrivals is the best thing we can do to de-politicise the issue and stop worrying about them in the much bigger picture of the huge migrant inflows to Australia that continue under both parties.

But Jon Stanhope has never been one to let pragmatism or even his own ideals get in the way of a chance to play the martyr.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
93 Responses to
Administrator Stanhope soon to be returned to us
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
5
TFarquahar 6:49 am 11 Oct 14

dks00k said :

“We do not announce every 747 arriving at Sydney Airport with asylum seekers onboard (they are never, ever announced, nor are British backpackers overstaying their visas).”

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying, the analogy is probably not the best one to use.

We dont report on every visa overstay or asylum seeker that gets off a plane, cruise ship or freighter, however I’m sure a chartered 747 full of refugees landing at Sydney with no clearance sure as hell would make front page news.

dks00k, just to fill you in a a few facts. Asylum seekers, the very few, that may arrive on a 747 at Sydney Airport would do so with a valid passport and visa. If they did not possess these they would be denied uplift in the country from which they are travelling. The same applies to Visa overstayers. They arrived with a current passport and visa. This takes me directly to my point. If it was that easy to obtain asylum in Australia why would people pay anywhere from $5000 US to $12000 US to get on a boat and travel to Christmas or Cocos Island? Why? Because they do not arrive with a passport, visa or any usually any other form of documentation. They obviously possessed these types of documents previously as they just did not teleport from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq or other places to Indonesia. No they flew.

Please get a grip on reality and check your facts.

IrishPete 7:41 am 28 Sep 13

I posted this on another thread, in response to an off-topic post by someone else, but it’s more appropriate here:

“Two boats have arrived since the government was sworn in. http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/residents-report-asylum-seeker-boat-arrival-on-christmas-island-20130926-2ugnr.html

The incident you describe is not being described as a “turn back” even by the Australian government. It’s being described a a rescue, in Indonesian waters. Now maybe they are playing diplomacy, suddenly and belatedly, but I don’t think that’s the whole story.

I think there have been three rescues this week, the most recent (after you posted) with significant loss of life. As I heard about it on the radio this morning, I wondered about three boats in one week incapable of making the journey – that’s actually not far off what lots of people predicted would happen when “turn back the boats” came in – boats would be disabled or scuttled.

Perhaps the smugglers are actually not willing to risk a “good” boat and are instead sending dodgy ones, but so far they haven’t got out of Indonesian waters so they haven’t yet been able to test the Australia Government’s bravado.

IP”

Aeek 8:48 pm 27 Sep 13

Postalgeek said :

Two sides having nuclear weapons doesn’t prevent war. The concept of M.A.D

It can if they use them.

Postalgeek 4:14 pm 27 Sep 13

Two sides having nuclear weapons doesn’t prevent war. The concept of M.A.D might deter nuclear exchange, and concern about escalation might deter direct conflict, but there were plenty of proxy wars between the US and USSR during the Cold War, including Korea, Middle East, Latin America, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

IrishPete 3:00 pm 27 Sep 13

howeph said :

Can we not go OT on nuclear deterrence.

Just for the record, someone has used quoting wrongly and the Thatcher reference appears to have been made by me. It wasn’t. I’d rather not remember my years living under Margaret Thatcher’s iron fist.

IP

howeph 2:05 pm 27 Sep 13

Can we not go OT on nuclear deterrence.

johnboy 1:57 pm 27 Sep 13

housebound said :

So why the arms race between India and Pakistan?

well:

a) the US still has an official policy of maintaining a second strike capability so a growing body of thought is by no means dominant.

b) India and Pakistan are not the US

c) India and Pakistan are tiny nuclear arsenals so far, so mutually assured destruction isn’t on the table (yet)

housebound 1:53 pm 27 Sep 13

johnboy said :

When it comes to nuclear deterrence there’s a growing body of thinking in the US military that it’s crap. Simply on the basis that who wants to be the winner anyway once the whole world is a nuclear wasteland?

So why the arms race between India and Pakistan?

caf 1:38 pm 27 Sep 13

Robertson said :

IrishPete said :

Thatcher famously claimed that nuclear weapons prevented war. Some people believe that magic rocks can keep tigers away. Aren’t both those statements the same kind of nonsense?

I don’t think so – the whole concept of nuclear deterrence has been explored and its mechanism analysed in some depth, and many people find it quite credible.

It’s not really possible to rigorously test either, though, and there is a decent chance that much of deterrence theory is nothing but post-hoc rationalisation.

Certainly there are also many people that believe the highly intricate deterrence theories of analysts like Herman Kahn are nothing but elaborately constructed nonsense.

    johnboy 1:44 pm 27 Sep 13

    When it comes to nuclear deterrence there’s a growing body of thinking in the US military that it’s crap.

    Simply on the basis that who wants to be the winner anyway once the whole world is a nuclear wasteland?

Robertson 10:59 am 27 Sep 13

IrishPete said :

Thatcher famously claimed that nuclear weapons prevented war. Some people believe that magic rocks can keep tigers away. Aren’t both those statements the same kind of nonsense?

I don’t think so – the whole concept of nuclear deterrence has been explored and its mechanism analysed in some depth, and many people find it quite credible.

The concept of magic rocks has no such such detail associated with it.

JC said :

Correct the migration ACT is the law that covers entry of people into Australia. Though I suggest you go read the bit about asylum seekers, .

How about you quote us that bit, and provide a reference?

IrishPete said :

When the facts don’t suit, attack the messenger.

The messenger, in this case Hoffman, left out most of the facts.

I didn’t attack her by criticising her for being fat, or for being an AJP voter, I simply pointed out the glaring deficiency in her analysis, based as it was not only on cherry-picked facts, but also on tiny sample sizes.

5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site