Ardern’s Manus Island offer

Written By: - Date published: 7:36 am, November 18th, 2017 - 298 comments
Categories: australian politics, blogs, David Farrar, greens, International, jacinda ardern, labour, Media, Propaganda, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: , ,

It has been an interesting week.

Jacinda Ardern has stuck to her guns and again invited Australia to consider New Zealand’s Manus Island refugee offer.

Good on her.

Australia’s initial response, that it has signed a deal with the US of A and that no help was required was frankly bollocks.  The Trump White House was that annoyed with the deal that it was the only thing that Trump talked about during his initial conversation with Malcolm Turnbull.  After reading the transcript you really get the feeling that very very few Manus based refugees are going to make it to the US of A although apparently some have been approved for resettlement.

But the Turnbull Government is in a difficult position.  The world is looking at Manus Island and the almost universal response is amazement and disbelief at how bad Australia has managed things.

Of course the problem is that Turnbull and Co will be doing polling and focus grouping on the issue and they will realise they are onto a political winner by being belligerent.  I can’t understand it myself but I have been in Australia during general elections in the past and this issue (boat people) strikes a real nerve amongst swinging voters.  Fear and loathing is always a formidable combination.  And which right wing party worries about human rights norms and international obligations when there are votes to gather?

The Turnbull Government is clearly in a bind.  Jacinda has shown it to be a heartless ruthless bunch.  So how should it respond?

Earlier this week it leaked information to a Rupert Murdoch owned paper which allowed it to put its spin on the debacle.  And you have to admire such native cunning.  The spin was that refugee boats are on their way to New Zealand because the Ardern Government is perceived to be a soft touch.

From the Courier Mail:

PEOPLE smugglers are moving to cash-in on a left-leaning New Zealand as it can be revealed

Operation Sovereign Borders has turned back four boats trying to get across the ditch.

In shock new details, it can be revealed crime syndicates have tried to bypass Australia’s tough immigration measures and attempted to send four boats, carrying 164 asylum seekers, to NZ.

It comes as there are genuine fears within intelligence communities that the direction of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who has kept her predecessor’s offer to resettle 150 refugees but has been highly-critical of Australia’s policy may be used by people smugglers to encourage desperate people to risk their lives at sea.

The Courier-Mail understands that “chatter” has resumed among people smugglers who have pointed to the stand-off between Australia and NZ.

 It is not know when the boats were intercepted or what country they started from but it is believed they told OSB they were headed to NZ. They were turned or towed back to near Indonesian waters.

The chances of boats making it all the way to New Zealand are remote.  New Zealand’s isolation makes us a very unlikely target.

It is quite possible that faced with the prospect that his boat would be turned back if he said he was going to Australia the captain of a refugee ship told a little fib and said they were going to Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Greens in the Australian Senate then stepped in and expressed support for the Nauru refugees.

I understand that the Senate has formally passed a resolution of support although I can’t confirm if the wording of the resolution was that proposed by Senator McKim.

Then Ardern countered by pledging $3 million from the Foreign Affairs Aid budget to cover ongoing costs in Manus.  And she managed to get the Australians to agree to work on a process so that if New Zealand’s offer was accepted then it could be instituted quickly.  From Stuff:

Jacinda Ardern has given $3 million of taxpayer money to help refugees on Manus Island.

The money will go to either the Papua New Guinea government or the Red Cross, and will be used to assist the stranded refugees.

Ms Ardern made the offer after discussing the deal with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who again refused the initial offer of New Zealand taking 150 refugees.

Ms Ardern has discussed the matter twice informally with Turnbull at the East Asia Summit, but did not get the “substantive meeting” she wanted.

However she said she did not get “snubbed”, adding that every time she’s asked to meet with an Australian official about Manus Island, her request has been accepted.

“I can tell you that New Zealand’s offer remains on the table. It remains on the table because the need remains,” Ms Ardern told reporters.

“We believe we have a role to play as members of the international community and as neighbours to Australia, to offer our support in finding a resolution to this situation.”

Ms Ardern said she and Mr Turnbull had agreed to get officials started in a process, so if Australia did take up the offer, it would be able to happen quickly.

Round two of the Australian response has now occurred.  Peter Dutton, and if there is a more reprehensible human being on the planet let me know, has said that if New Zealand helps the Manus Island inhabitants then the New Zealand Australia relationship will suffer.  Strange that an act of humanity should cause a diplomatic incident between long standing friendly nations with so much in common.

My personal opinion is that Dutton is the worst sort of politician, willing to subject non Australian humans to misery for political gain.  There should be a special place in hell for him and his sort.

And he has shown he does not care where they are from.  Kiwi born bikie Aaron Graham beat Dutton twice in the Supreme Court but Dutton still managed to have Graham extradited to New Zealand, even though Graham had spent 40 of his 50 years living in Australia.  The rule of law does not matter for some right wingers.

Australia has gone into full smear mode.  The latest claim is that the refugees at Nauru are paedophiles.  The leaked report did not disclose how many or who.  This leak also brings into doubt the accuracy of what Malcolm Turnbull said to Donald Trump when he claimed the bulk of the refugees were economic refugees from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Two ex security guards have chosen to smear the residents.  The moral standing and judgment of people wishing to do this job should be questioned.  And when you subject people to terrible conditions they can do terrible things.  I am waiting for National’s smear machine to start although it appears that it already has.

Of course there is the upcoming Queensland State election.  And the Libnats are seeking second preferences from One Nation voters.  It must be hard for the right to not go full on racist when an election is approaching.

As William O’Maley puts it:

Australia’s offshore warehousing of asylum seekers who approach Australia by boat is not driven by concern about border controls, or about people smuggling, or about loss of life at sea.

Rather, in the context of an electoral system based on compulsory, preferential voting in single-member constituencies, it has become the device by which the ruling Liberal-National coalition seeks to attract second-preference votes from electors who give their first preferences to Pauline Hanson’s racist One Nation party.

The left in New Zealand have chosen to insist that Ardern is not doing enough. Much as I love them I have to respectfully disagree.  I can’t imagine her doing more.  Although I do hope that the TPPA negotiations result in a further improved position for New Zealand.

And there are suggestions that this Government should care instead about the local poor.  As if the drummers have given a damn about their plight during the past nine years …

298 comments on “Ardern’s Manus Island offer”

  1. Zorb6 1

    So, housing,homelessness,and child poverty at home are not enough of a task!Lets annoy Australia instead to show what caring people we are.Very poor strategy re Manus Island refugees,and not supported by the majority of New Zealanders.This Govt,do not need an opposition to undermine them.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1

      You don’t speak for the majority of New Zealanders. For one thing, your breath stinks of bigotry.

      • Zorb6 1.1.1

        I’m guessing you do not know the definition of ‘bigot’.Look in a mirror and you will see one.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1

          Is it “someone who invents false dichotomies in a failed attempt to excuse the obscene”?

          • Zorb6 1.1.1.1.1

            Try’ a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions’.You learned something today.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.1

              You made a false claim and invented a false binary choice, and in my considered opinion that has the whiff of bigotry about it.

              I’m sure you’re a lovely fluffy gorgeous sweety bunnikins, but on this occasion you let some ugliness slip out, twinkle-breeches.

              • Zorb6

                Thats merely your opinion,and not fact.Get outside,go for a walk,a swim even,you need some distraction from your futile obsession.

                • Cinny

                  National offered the same thing Zorb6, to take in the Manus Refugees, Aussie refused Key’s offer, Key didn’t continue to pursue it. Nor did he make any worthy dent with NZ poverty and suffering, rather he quit being PM and happily accepted an award from the aussies and a knighthood via bill english. Meanwhile NZ suffering increased and refugees continuted to rot on Manus Island.

                  So here we have a new government, who are taking steps, made plans, taking action to ease poverty and suffering in NZ. A government that dosen’t like to see people suffering, so much so they offer help, when it’s turned down by aussie (due to power tripping and the lust for votes) our new government keeps offering it, such is their stamina, compassion and back bone.

                  Do we need to have a gauge on how much people are suffering before we help them?

                  Meanwhile it’s a beautiful day outside and I’m left wondering, what is Zorb doing today to help kiwis in poverty, those without a home, those suffering in NZ?

                  What are YOU doing to help those suffering in NZ? Or is voting enough?

                  • tracey

                    Funny that those boats, which must first have started coming 4 years ago when Key offered sanctuary to 150 refugees, never got here. And only 4 have tried, apparently, in 4 years.

                    Remember the Howard govts lie about children being thrown overboard prior to an election

                    • Venezia

                      Yes. There are no sources given for these stories about boats headed for NZ, and no other detail, just ” news” items fed to the media. Fake news?

                  • Zorb6

                    So keep making the same offer and keep getting the same answer=brilliant politics.There are millions of refugees around the world as you are well aware and rewarding this lot sends the wrong signals as the Aussies have stated.Zorb has enough on his plate ,working and paying his own rent as it is.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      The Liberal Party is not “the Aussies”.

                      Your precious taxes won’t go up one cent to help the Liberal Party’s victims. I bet most of the refugees will end up paying more tax than you do anyway.

                    • Cinny

                      ‘Zorb has enough on his plate, working and paying his own rent’ – as most people do zorb.

                      Excuses….as one finds time to comment repetitively on a political blog…

                      It’s ok, I understand, maybe you could take some time to understand that everyone is not the same, as you, or me, some need help, but it’s up to US if we help them, or make excuses while we help no one other than ourselves.

                      JS

    • Heather Grimwood 1.2

      to Zorb6 at 1 :Majority of New Zealanders??? Statistical proof please.

    • Delia 1.3

      Regardless of our economy,we have always taken refugees.

    • greywarshark 1.4

      Services that people need is what should be provided to NZ you say. Why? Because it is right and people should be treated fairly throughout the world. It’s very hard to do that, there are constant drops in quality of care. But to keep trying is our task in life. So don’t tell us not to care about others at all Zorb6. You are a mean one.

    • katipo 1.5

      It’s my observation that those who use the argument that we need to look after the poor in NZ before ‘others’ usually have little empathy for either i.e. they don’t have a history of speeking up for the former but often have a lot to say about why it’s not a good idea to help the latter.

      • David Mac 1.5.1

        Ha, yes.

        “I’m not going to give $10 to him, he’ll just go and spend it on booze”…..which is exactly what I was going to spend it on.

      • tracey 1.5.2

        Agree wholeheartedly

      • Zorb6 1.5.3

        Hardly conclusive evidence of anything.Going by the report of the NZ security officer who has direct experience of dealing with the Manus refugees,we definately don’t want them.

    • mickysavage 1.6

      So, housing,homelessness,and child poverty at home are not enough of a task!Lets annoy Australia instead to show what caring people we are

      Its not an either or. Plenty of work is being done on alleviating poverty.

      • Zorb6 1.6.1

        A question of priorities then.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.6.1.1

          Governments, amazingly enough, can do more than one thing at a time. Extend paid parental leave, enact equal pay legislation, reduce housing market speculation, make Bill English assume his ultimate form, and put pressure on the Liberal Party.

          One small step for a government, too difficult for Zorb6.

    • Tracey 1.7

      Can you point to your outrage when Key first suggested this 4 years ago and last offered it last year?

      It is odd that making these offers opens us up to visits by boats cos with the first offer made 4 years ago they are taking a long time to get here.

      Is this why Key just rolled over as kiwis in Oz got treated worse and worse cos Australia intercepts so many boats on our behalf???

    • Starboard 1.8

      Agree. What a total cluster****. J Arden..not my PM.

  2. Tuppence Shrewsbury 2

    This is not a smart play by the government. It’s hard enough getting benefits for New Zealanders in Australia. I don’t see how this so called principled stand will make it any easier.

    It’s really cutting off your nose to spite half a million New Zealanders

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

      Where would you draw the line? You prepared to tolerate torture and concentration camps; how far does the Liberal Party have to go before you’ll stop wringing your hands?

      • syclingmad 2.1.1

        Is it a line that needs drawing? We’ve stuck our noses into Australian territorial security issues and we’re surprised they are pushing back? No question it’s a humanitarian issue but it’s naive to believe everyone is going to fall into line because we say we’re about the politics of caring and kindness.

        Strategically the government needs to sit back and consider whether this is worth falling out with the Turnbull government over so early in their term. As pointed out, we have broader issues at stake with the erosion of the rights of NZers living in Australia. Stirring up the waters on unrelated matters is surely a bit shortsighted. This is realpolitik rather than values now.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

          The Liberal Party has already started going after New Zealanders who live there. Get off your knees.

      • RedLogix 2.1.2

        “Torture and concentration camp” overeggs it. I agree they’re not holiday camps either; these people should never have been left in this place for so long. In that respect Dutton really has fucked up, and now just walking away and dumping the problem on PNG is no better.

        But there are 65m other refugees in the world right now and I’d hazard a guess many of them are living in conditions not a lot different to Manus Is; in many cases a lot worse. This is part of a much bigger problem that’s beyond the capacity of either Australia or NZ to solve on our own.

        Just for a sense of scale, 65m is a bit more than the generally accepted 63m death toll for the whole of WW2. And no-one thinks it’s going to get better anytime before it gets a whole lot worse.

        Of course Manus Is sits squarely in the context of the ‘boat people’ issue that has for more than a decade torn Australian politics into shreds. It’s an ugly, brutal problem …. and short of simply declaring the Australian borders open for all who care to arrive … no-one but no-one has suggested any ‘good and humane’ solution to this specific question.

        If you or anyone else has a better answer, I’d sincerely love to hear it. But just hopping up and down yelling ‘torture camp’ doesn’t cut mustard.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1

          Human rights violation camps if you prefer.

          The Liberal Party’s attitude to this isn’t about finding solutions it’s about appealing to the worst demons of our nature, for personal gain.

          If your neighbour of many years, with whom you had shared business interests, behaved this way would you just shut your doors and wait for the screams to die down?

          • RedLogix 2.1.2.1.1

            No. I’ve personally stepped into a few such incidents over the years. It was the right thing to do, but you never get any thanks for it.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.1.1

              Especially not from a government that treats NZer’s living in Australia as hostages – or at least, that’s what’s being implied with the suggestion they will suffer for Ardern doing “the right thing”.

        • David Mac 2.1.2.2

          I agree, 600,000 Myanmar nationals have been forced from their burned villages into camps over the Bangladesh border. The Rohingya people aren’t accused of rape, they’ve watched their mothers sisters, wives, daughters being raped. Their loved ones have been brutally murdered and maimed, everything they possess burned to the ground. They aren’t able to magic up 2 years income to pass onto criminal people smugglers.

          There are over half a million a bit further North of Manus Island that have more pressing needs. Trying to make a difference in the world by welcoming refugees is a futile token solution. We must help them where they live.

          http://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2017/11/5a0eb2b74/home-made-rafts-arriving-myanmar-refugee-population-density-soaring.html

          The Tasman Sea is formidable but far from impenetrable. Boat smugglers have been mucking around in ramshackle vessels for generations. Kupe made several voyages to NZ 700 years ago without a scrap of metal in his boat or GPS on his phone. We sail similar replicas around the pacific, hand-made in a bloke’s shed.

          Boat smugglers don’t sell a seat on a boat, they sell hope. They care little for the dangers their customers face. I fear a glimpse of opportunity in NZ could see us having to make some much harder decisions.

          The Aust government are concerned about undesirables backdooring into Aussie via NZ. If we vet and welcome Manus Island refugees I think it’s possible that in response Australia may move towards requiring all NZers to undergo a visa application process prior to visiting Australia.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.2.1

            Trying to make a difference in the world by welcoming refugees is a futile token solution. We must help them where they live.

            QFT

            If we vet and welcome Manus Island refugees I think it’s possible that in response Australia may move towards requiring all NZers to undergo a visa application process prior to visiting Australia.

            I’m fine with that – just so long as the Australians are fine with having to do the same thing when they come here.

            • David Mac 2.1.2.2.1.1

              “I’m fine with that – just so long as the Australians are fine with having to do the same thing when they come here.”

              Yeah I hear you Draco, but it runs against my grain. On the grand scale I think we stand a better chance of doing better if we build bridges rather than walls.

              • greywarshark

                We are building bridges that will connect us to the rest of the world not just to scabby Australia with their ranting white voices. What a shocker it is to see the proud Australian warrior turn into a mean money counter
                when running the country,

                I remember when Nancy Wake came to Australia to live she joined the conservative party and they used her to get publicity but wouldn’t give her an electorate she could win. Now there was a proud woman who would have brought their profile up in Oz (of course she was part NZ too).

                But they were still into white Australia policies then, now it’s anyone who wasn’t transported early on. All the later arrivals are dodgy.

        • Just for a sense of scale, 65m is a bit more than the generally accepted 63m death toll for the whole of WW2.

          To put it in scale ~65m is 0.001% of the ~7.6 billion in the world ATM.

          ~65m sounds like a lot but, in the vast scheme of things, it’s pretty much meaningless.

          This is part of a much bigger problem that’s beyond the capacity of either Australia or NZ to solve on our own.

          There is a much bigger problem – world over-population. Of course, that’s not the reason for these refugees which also needs to be addressed but it is certainly a concern for where the refugees want to go. We certainly can’t take them all in ourselves and many other nations can’t either.

          All of them working together might be able to do something. All of them working together may be able to do something about the cause of refugees as well but the nations don’t seem to want to do that either.

          • Andre 2.1.2.3.1

            ” … 65m is 0.001% of the ~7.6 billion …”

            A few zeroes and decimal point in odd places there. But yeah, even at 1%, still just a rounding error in the context of world over-population.

          • David Mac 2.1.2.3.2

            Isn’t 65m about 1% of 7.6 billion?

            5 to 6 billon of us are living on less than $2 a day.

            • greywarshark 2.1.2.3.2.1

              Yes stats are important. Say there are a lot of dead bodies after a battle, mass killing, natural disaster, and they have to be taken to the side of the road ready for transport. Then they get piled neatly heads together in groups of 20, then the piles get counted and a figure for the situation is easily estimated and pass on to the authorities concerned with keeping track. Children should be placed by apparent parents but laid so that their heads are all together, and children should have a separate count.

              This type of objectivity is not helpful when thinking about the living and needy. That is why United Nations workers like David Shearer can be so dismissive of living people’s needs. Their perceptions have been brutalised.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.3.2.2

              5 to 6 billion of us are living on less than $2 a day.

              Your worldview needs an update.

              If you increase the amount to $2.50/day the figure is about 3 billion.

              Not that this is “good” – but at least it’s improving, no?

              The world attained the first Millennium Development Goal target—to cut the 1990 poverty rate in half by 2015—five years ahead of schedule, in 2010

          • marty mars 2.1.2.3.3

            Its a wee bit like climate change non arguments imo – ‘its too hard, its too big, we’re too small, it wont make a difference anyway’… sadly both refugee and climate change are tightly interlinked – if we dont do something now we aren’t just condeming others to misery, we are condeming ourselves.

            • KJT 2.1.2.3.3.1

              Well. We can’t make much of a dent, but we can make some difference.
              But the best way to stop refugees is to stop supporting Governments that impoverish, bomb their countries and/or install repressive dictatorships,

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 2.1.3

        I draw the line at meaningless offers designed to antagonise our allies. Australia takes more refugees per capita than New zealand and spends more. If they won’t take these 150 men, whose refugees status is questionable at best, who is jacinda to come white knighting on their behalf?

        dying in the ditch over an issue that’s only a humanitarian crises in the eyes of The Australian governments opponents is pointless. ask yourself, why were the rest of Manus island refugees resettled in Aussie and not these ones?

        But go on, push for your “humanitarian” option. The majority of New Zealanders can see that the 150 men are completely undesirable

        • Psycho Milt 2.1.3.1

          If they won’t take these 150 men, whose refugees status is questionable at best, who is jacinda to come white knighting on their behalf?

          More to the point: if they won’t take these 150 men, who are they to play Dog in the Manger when someone else offers to?

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 2.1.3.1.1

            That’s a specious argument. if New Zealand is apparently holding its head so highly over the matter, why are we demanding that Australia hand over the dregs at the bottom of the barrel? I know in some circles it’s the highest form of pontificating, but when you’ve got to sell the notion to the New Zealand public?

            Discounting them as racist, the inevitable answer, will show to voters that the government doesn’t care about the views of common New Zealanders or their brethren in Australia. But pursue it. See where it gets you

            • McFlock 2.1.3.1.1.1

              Why do you have to call people “dregs”?

              Oh, because if they were normal human beings, not helping them would be unjustifiable. And offering help when others refuse to becomes the act of a normal human being, rather than some sort of political point scoring.

              • Ed

                It worries me the language Tuppence Shrewsbury uses.
                Dregs sounds mighty like ‘untermensch’.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch

                • McFlock

                  I suppose that’s the difference between a nazi and an ordinary tory jerk.

                  I suspect tuppence just likes to write off individuals in need as a pretext to avoid helping them, rather than having any wider belief system.

                  • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                    Nice try you too. I know this cause makes you feel even worthier than any other cause du jour, but having a hard line on the Manus 150 is not the same as having a no refugee’s policy.

                    they aren’t genuine refugees and they got caught by a change in Australian domestic policy and their histories ruled them out of being able to reside under any visa in Australia. That is Australia’s choice

                    • McFlock

                      “they aren’t genuine refugees”
                      If they weren’t before (which the overwhelming majority probably were), they are now.

                    • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                      the remaining 150 aren’t. their circumstances haven’t changed. they tried to jump the queue at the expense of genuine refugees and got caught. The rest were and have obviously been resettled

                    • McFlock

                      Wow – queue-jumpers and not genuine. Each and every one, eh? Gosh. Based on the word of the same folks who already have a history of lying about refugees for political gain.

              • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                Paedophiles? rapists? murderers? oh sorry, shall we call them the unfortunates?

                Unfortunately they chose to be on the wrong side of australian policy and their past caught up with too. Their behaviour on manus, regardless of the fact they are detained there, is deplorable.

                Not helping them is entirely justifiable. Some people are deserving of help despite their past, others behave as if helping them is their right regardless of their behaviour.

                It’s interesting watching the die hard supporters of refugee’s die in the ditch over this. It’s making the argument against refugee resettlement overall in New Zealand that much stronger, trying to defend a position on these 150 men that is close to indefensible.

                Genuine refugee’s are deserving of our help. this lot don’t fall into that category.

    • Delia 2.2

      You will never get benefits there, but you will get them here..this is the difference you have choice, refugees don ‘t in this case.

    • tracey 2.3

      Yes, what was Key thinking making multiple offers in the last 4 years when Oz must have told him they were holding off an avalanche of boat people for us.

      Kinda funny to see all these fans of TPP not wanting to be part of the world when it comes to refugees. We didnt take syrians cos “not our part of the world”. Now we wont take refugees from our backyard cos the Aussies say no.

      Can you list benefits for NZers we have got from Oz in the last 5 years?

    • Delia 2.4

      Refugees have nothing to do with benefits in Australia, they Australian govt has it rules and if you don’t like it don’t go there.

  3. Antoine 3

    From where I’m sitting, she’s achieving nothing, antagonising the Aussies and embarrassing herself very publicly.

    A.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

      She’s antagonised Peter Dutton. I’m not sure he’s representative of Australians but.

      This will be a face-saving compromise for the Australian government, whatever it means to the Liberal Party.

    • From where you’re sitting, it’s embarrassing to stand up for human rights? Good to know.

      • Antoine 3.2.1

        You have to be able to make your feelings known on one issue, without damaging the wider relationship. That is of the essence of diplomacy, and failure to do so is the embarrassment.

        A.

        • Psycho Milt 3.2.1.1

          The wider relationship? The ugly characters running Australia have been egregiously mistreating NZ citizens for several years now – if that hasn’t “damaged the wider relationship,” why would anyone get their knickers in a knot over this? There’s nothing embarrassing about doing the right thing, and the only embarrassing diplomatic failure of ours re Australia in recent times is that no-one in government has called out that closet Gauleiter Dutton for the racist fuck he is.

          • tracey 3.2.1.1.1

            Bra bloody vo!

            We havent pushed back on the aussies much at all and their response? Pat our heads and erode kiwi rights in Oz.

          • Zorb6 3.2.1.1.2

            Two different issues.Is this Manus Island position known as ‘virtue signalling’?If it is, it serves no useful purpose.Making bleeding hearts’ feel virtuous has no place in this issue.

            • Psycho Milt 3.2.1.1.2.1

              In the context of the comment it was replying to, very much the same issue: what might damage the NZ/Aus relationship.

              Is this Manus Island position known as ‘virtue signalling’?If it is, it serves no useful purpose.

              Good job it’s actually about getting 150 human beings out of Australian detention centres then, eh?

              • Zorb6

                No its not actually.If there are 6-700,what makes 150 worthy?You tell me.

                • McFlock

                  I agree. We should take the lot. 150 is a half-arsed layover from the nats, who only made the offer safe in the knowledge the aussies would reject it.

                • You have a point – we should have ditched Key’s original offer and asked for all of them. There’s no point in conducting a lottery.

                  It’s kind of an accidental point though, in that you’re actually using a “perfect is the enemy of the good” argument to try and claim that helping no-one is better than helping 150 people.

                  • Zorb6

                    On that basis,maybe you could adopt one.

                    • Helping people should be a matter of personal charity rather than societal responsibility? You’d fit right in with ACT, but few here are going to have the patience for that kind of bullshit.

                    • Zorb6

                      Charity begins at home. Russell Crowe offerred to find accommodation and jobs for 6.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Whereas you’ve offered to help no-one and that’s the moral of your story.

                    • Zorb6

                      Who have you offered to help OAB?No one at all.You are just a handwringing cheerleader for people you know nothing about ,who tried to enter Australia illegally.No doubt the 6-700 will be 4 times that after taking into account repatriation of partners and children.

                    • McFlock

                      oh noes, nz will be flooded with 2800 rapists, thieves, murderers, and non-genuine, queue-jumping refugees, and not even some of them will be nice people!

                      That must cost the government almost as much as a tory asset sale.

        • tracey 3.2.1.2

          Or as Key and Brownlee call it, rolling over and having your tummy rubbed in the hope a crumb will fall from the table.

          Saying our piece behind closed doors has
          A. Not changed the treatment of Manus Islanders
          B. Not changed how Australia treats NZers in Oz (arguable made it worse)

          Can someone list the benefits accruing to kiwis on OZ when we used quiet diplomacy to express our views?

    • Delia 3.3

      She has stood by NZ traditional values, and that is not to be scoffed at regardless of your own opinion regarding taking the Manus Island refugees. Do we want a world where all govts just put people into life long detention and leave them there?

      • greywarshark 3.3.1

        This is in our part of the world RL. It is not helpful to this to quote the total number of refugees in the world. We have some in this part of the world/ Australia is in a bind.

        It is the victim of its own preferential voting system and we should take note of what Mickysavage says about that when voting systems are being discussed for change in the future. Remember how the hard-liners can vote for their own wacky person and party and then get a second bite going to another party that has the right stench about it. With preferential we would never get rid of ACT I think.

        And+ to Delia 3.3 and Pat 4 and marty mars all over, good thoughts.

    • KJT 3.4

      Not the Aussies I know. They are embarrassed by their countries indifference to human rights.

      This is the Liberal party appealing to rabid right wing racist swing voters.

    • tracey 3.5

      Despite getting support from the UN.

  4. Pat 4

    Shes a hard row to hoe when youre coping flak from all sides….but I think Jacinda Adern has demonstrated she has the leadership qualities to deal with this….would be nice (though unexpected) if she were allowed to get on with the job and be judged by results.

  5. Sparky 5

    If Labour were as kind and caring as they claim to be why are they pushing through the CP(TPP)? There are thousands of Kiwi’s who are living in grim conditions, in cars, on the street, etc. Much of this can be contributed to the ruthless capitalism started in the 80’s and continued till today. This so called deal is yet a more vicious continuation of this pro capitalist neo liberal policy and will no doubt make things even worse again for many people.

    Much as I sympathise with the plight of these people Labour can’t do the right thing on one hand and the wrong thing on another (CPTPPA) and expect people to applaud.

    • Actually that is exactly what they can do – this is called politics, not – do it sparkys way.

      • Sparky 5.1.1

        Well if you enjoy being in the opposition Marty I suppose you could always do as you like? And its not “my way” its the feeling of a good number of left wing voters who expected better of Labour when it comes to the TPP and I’m pretty sure they know it too.

        • marty mars 5.1.1.1

          I simply saying it is impossible imo for any political party to aligh 100% with someone – they will always disappoint. This is the way of politics.

    • Much as I sympathise with the plight of these people Labour can’t do the right thing on one hand and the wrong thing on another (CPTPPA) and expect people to applaud.

      QFT

      Still, I’m not really sure if offering to take the refugees is the right thing either.

    • Delia 5.3

      Not miracle workers, it will take years to undo the National damage machine, we still have international refugee obligations. By the way the Labour of 1985, is not the Labour of today. I may as well blame Key for all the damage Muldoon did to NZ causing it to be bankrupted and hence the reforms of the Labour govt 1985.

      • Sparky 5.3.1

        Yes so why pursue the TPP deal Delia? If they want to undo the Nats damage you refer to not amplify it?

  6. mauī 6

    When I heard the news that Australia had turned back 4 boats that were headed here I knew it was dirty politics at play. I read it as Australia trying to look like the honourable one trying to help us, and that we should be grateful. very sneaky indeed.

  7. Good post. Keep at it Jacinda and labour. The dirty bastards don’t like the light shown on this horrendous situation and the vile spin from some aussies. Keep focusing on alleviating suffering for the poor people.

  8. Bob 8

    Give this debate to Kelvin Davis, he can handle it!! NOT!
    He’s an embarresment.

    • National needs better trolls. Your inability to spell embarrassment is an embarresment.

    • red-blooded 8.2

      He’s brand new – give him a chance. He clearly needs some support around him when acting as PM, and it’s a pity that he was left in this situation just a few weeks into the job, but that was unavoidable. I’m not saying he handled the public things like Question Time well – he didn’t, but there are other parts of the job that he may be doing a lot better. You don’t know and neither do I. I’m reserving judgement for a while.

  9. red-blooded 9

    Ardern is in a tough situation. Those who criticise her should clearly say what they would do and how it would help, remembering:
    1) This is our neighbourhood,
    2) We are a prosperous, peaceful country,
    3) Offering to help one group of people doesn’t mean you care less about others or do less for them (NZ homeless, NZ poor, NZers living in Aussie…),
    4) She has offered interim help (money for immediate needs) as well as long-term help (sanctuary for 150 people approved after our usual screening processes),
    5) The Labour-led government has also committed to doubling our annual intake of refugees and using a range of means to help our Pacific neighbours affected by climate change.

    I’d say she’s getting it about right. We’ve helped out like this before, when Australia was in a slightly more reasonable mood. The US isn’t going to open its arms any time soon, and in the meantime we have people stuck in a dreadful situation (and that includes the citizens of Manus Island, who have had their homeland turned into a prison camp).

  10. Ad 10

    Kia kaha Prime Minister.
    You are right on.

  11. Upnorth 11

    Where are the domestic policies. It costs 1m to settle each refugee I use previous quoted numbers.
    That is 2 and bit affordable home for our own poverty stricken people.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      When did you ever lift a finger to help anyone anyway.

    • greywarshark 11.2

      Perhaps our poverty stricken people should sail to other better countries if it is so hopeless here! When you are forced to move you do.

      I don’t know if NZs have enough energy and determination. The strugglers have not voted for something better for the last 9 years. There is a welfare system here, and probably they could do lots better than they are now by uniting, having friendly groups that help each other and enable each other. But I know from experience how hard it is to get anything co-operative going, many have no spirit. Instead they say what about us, and expect people to jump out of the woodwork.

    • tracey 11.3

      It is part of the cost of living in a connected world. You reckon no money or help came from overseas post chchch earthquake?

  12. greywarshark 12

    Some background on what Australia will ‘sink’ to over boat people:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair
    2001 –
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3WJ10xGkas
    Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock announced that passengers of SIEV 4 had threatened to throw children overboard. This claim was later repeated by other senior government ministers including Defence Minister Peter Reith and Prime Minister Howard….

    Although reports indicated that the strain of being towed was the proximate cause of the asylum seeker boat eventually sinking,[3] Australian Prime Minister John Howard asserted that the asylum seeke

    https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/how-children-overboard-lie-developed

    https://www.safecom.org.au/kids-overboard.htm

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/reith-rewrites-history-to-hide-the-shame-of-children-overboard-lie-20120831-255u3.html

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-boat-that-changed-it-all-20110819-1j2o2.html

  13. Grantoc 13

    In my opinion Labour should sit back now and monitor developments vis a vis the Manus island refugees.

    Jacinda has raised the issue; made an offer; prodded the Australian ‘bear’ and pushed activism and diplomacy to the limit on this point. She can currently claim the moral high ground with some dignity.

    Going beyond where things presently sit creates a very high risk of retaliatory action by the Australian government that will be detrimental to many New Zealanders. Possible retaliatory action, such as maybe needing visa’s to travel from NZ to Australia, would likely create a backlash against Labour here. New Zealanders, whilst generally sympathetic to the plight of refugees, will not willingly give up their hard won rights (i.e visa free travel to Australia for example) to improve the rights of Manus island refugees.

    Jacinda has made the point; the offer is on the table, I suggest she let it lie there for now and see what happens.

    • greywarshark 13.1

      It would be good if visas were introduced to Australia and vice versa. Then perhaps people could visit the Cook Islands etc. Go where they really need the money to Samoa and Tonga also. A lot of our tourists come from Australia, okay that would be less, but we have them coming out of our ears. What we need to do is get more money out of long-staying tourists.

    • Jum 13.2

      I’m still struggling to analyse why people would want to go to Australia…

      Spiders, snakes, sharks, and that’s just the politicians.

      • Grantoc 13.2.1

        Jum

        Clearly your analysis is very limited.

        The ties between NZ and Australia are strong, varied and complex.

        Take one such tie – family connections. There are tens of thousands of NZders and Australians who are co joined through marriage or long term relationships and family in general. Consider the the impact of restrictive border controls on them by way of example. This group of NZ/Aust citizens won’t thank NZ Labour if Labour stirs things up sufficiently to the point that Australia takes steps to restrict movements between the two countries. Nor will they willingly concede their ‘rights’ for the ‘rights’ of Manus Island refugees, if this is a potential outcome.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1.1

          New Zealanders in Australia are already treated as second class citizens. To protect their remaining interests, we should use ‘soft’ power to weaken the Liberal Party.

          Or accept that the Liberal Party will use them as human shields.

        • Anne 13.2.1.2

          Clearly Grantoc you don’t recognise humour when you read it.

    • KJT 13.3

      It is only racism, that we do not have the same freedom of movement, between New Zealand and the Pacific Islands.

      We owe Samoa and Tonga given our recent past. Also, I am sure some “white” Kiwi’s wouldn’t mind retiring to the islands.

      And definitely Australia’s dislike of Brown hued Kiwi’s that drives their more recent clamp downs on New Zealanders.

  14. bwaghorn 14

    ”The chances of boats making it all the way to New Zealand are remote. New Zealand’s isolation makes us a very unlikely target.”

    one wonders if that’s why we get to play high and mighty on this,
    if the gov was serious wouldn’t they offer to take them all on the proviso that they can’t use nz as a back door to aussie.

    • red-blooded 14.1

      “if the gov was serious wouldn’t they offer to take them all…”

      Do we offer to take all refugees from any other zone of suffering? We’ve offered to take a number we believe we can handle – there’s a lot of support work needed when resettling a refugee.

      “…on the proviso that they can’t use nz as a back door to aussie.”

      And how would we do that? Write a special law, listing each individual and saying that they can access all rights of NZ citizenship except the right to travel to Australia with the intention of settling there? I don’t think it’s possible for a democratic government (as opposed to a totalitarian state) to limit the rights of its citizens to settle in another state. The only way those rights can be limited is by the other state withdrawing the right to settle in their country.

      It’s a complicated situation. Ardern is juggling a lot of competing concerns. I think it’s to her credit that she’s keen to help in practical ways, and trying to be flexible about how that help is delivered.

      • bwaghorn 14.1.1

        ”And how would we do that? Write a special law, listing each individual and saying that they can access all rights of NZ citizenship except the right to travel to Australia with the intention of settling there? ”

        if i was from a shit house country and had the chance to live in a not so shit house country , i would gladly accept citizenship on the proviso that i waved the right to move to another country.
        as for writing laws , i fought thats what govments do like

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1.1

          Whereas this would be us changing our laws so as to appease racists.

          Not. Going. To. Happen.

        • red-blooded 14.1.1.2

          “as for writing laws , i fought thats what govments do like”

          No constitutional democracy can stop its citizens from emigrating and settling in another country. It’s. Not. Possible. If you fought it was, you hadn’t fought about it much. Maybe you need to fink a bit harder.

          Thee only government that can stop someone from settling in one particular country is the country that’s receiving (or declining) the settler. That’s one of the complications here – supporting the refugees whilst not pissing off Australia to the point that they limit the right of Kiwis to settle over there. At present, under CER, we have reciprocal open borders.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1.2.1

            If the Liberal Party goes down that road, and the Aussies don’t reverse the policy at the next election, I think we should retaliate by doing nothing.

            Make it plain to Australian citizens that they’re welcome to settle here and enjoy the benefits of living in a social democracy, that our tertiary institutions are open to them, that we value them and their talents.

            I wouldn’t even support asking them about their connection to the Liberal Party.

        • Psycho Milt 14.1.1.3

          Ain’t no way we’re going to create a second-class citizen category just to appease Australian racists. Australia has the means to identify NZers it doesn’t want in Australia and to prevent them travelling there – that covers it off nicely.

      • KJT 14.1.2

        I doubt these refugees will want to go to Australia after being treated worse than criminals, by the Australian Government..

    • David Mac 14.2

      Yes, there are large tracts of interior bushland in Northland occupied by folk that would welcome a family of damp visiting folk on their doorstep with welcome arms. The boat in Grey’s last link, that vessel looks up to trans Tasman passage.

      Most of us would welcome them in, offer a dry change of clothes and a feed. Then some of us would ring immigration, others John Campbell. Are South-east Asian people smugglers likely to see and share Checkpoint via utube? Of course, niche viral with a subtitle pulled through. A free brochure.

      I think we need to tread lightly or we could very quickly find we’re having to make much heavier duty decisions.

      Obviously there are many that disagree with me and that’s cool but I can’t get away from thinking that we need to choose the families we offer breaks to. I can see letting new New Zealanders self select via who has the money and bravado to sail as contrary and harmful to the good nature of the gesture.

      • KJT 14.2.1

        I take it you would have turned back the refugees in 1938 to 1945, also!

        • David Mac 14.2.1.1

          They didn’t float in on a boat that they bored holes through 25m offshore. There’s no turning around a sinking boat.

          Playing ‘Whatabout’ becomes ping pong and diminishes the quality of any debate.

          I think your send a frigate to get them argument is strong KJ, it’s a curly situation.

  15. KJT 15

    I think our new Government is doing the right things on this one.

    The only extra they could do is send a frigate direct to PNG, with the agreement of the PNG Government, to pick the refugees up.

    • Cinny 15.1

      That’s a great idea KJT. It would also enable the refugees to begin adjusting to kiwi styles during the voyage to NZ, before they go through transition centre in Akld. Gosh they could even send some refugee admin people/interpreters (not sure what they are called) to help them with paper work and such, onboard, saving time on arrival.

      There’s good food on those frigates and good people. The crew would be viewed as ‘rescuers’ by the refugees and some wonderful relationships would develop, everyone would learn something new. And it’s good training for our Navy.

      Yeah that’s a fantastic idea KJT, send a frigate to pick them up please and thank you.

  16. Cinny 16

    Al Jazeera are covering the Manus Island situation rather extensively

    “Australia’s government says the 600 men have been offered alternative accommodation elsewhere on Manus Island, but the refugees say it is not safe from locals who want to do them harm. Many asylum seekers have been attacked in the past by Papuans who do not want them on the island.”

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/australians-rally-barricaded-refugees-manus-171104110852638.html

    “Under the American deal, struck with previous US President Barack Obama and bitterly criticised by his successor Donald Trump, just 54 refugees have been accepted, with 24 flown to the US.”

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/australia-rejects-zealands-offer-refugees-171105105929593.html

    “Papua New Guinea’s immigration minister has told Al Jazeera that Australia must “immediately facilitate” a New Zealand offer to take 150 refugees formerly detained in an Australian prison camp on its Manus Island.”

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/australia-pressured-resettle-stranded-refugees-171105171742290.html

    Video clip just over 2mins long, worth watching on the first and third links

  17. Tanz 17

    Go for it Jacinda, this is a huge vote loser already. Read the Herald today? The majority of kiwis don’t want this, but then, what Labour leader ever listens to what the majority wants? Very much out of step with New Zealanders, apart from all the backtracking of pre-election promises, lol. I do feel Sir Richard Prebble (one term govt) will be proven right! Shambles so far, in every possible way. Oh, the arrogance. Student politics inflicted upon our once fair nation. Thanks for that legacy, Winston, but it will be au revoir come 2020 (or less).

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1

      This is the way it works. You do the allegedly unpopular things in the first year of your first term. Like National privatising our stuff or attacking human rights, for example.

      Then you do a bunch of more popular things, like extending paid parental leave, and enabling citizens to sue for equal pay – sending a strong message to employers to get their shit together. You increase the minimum wage above the rate of inflation.

      You stop overseas speculation in the domestic housing market. You address massive underfunding in the health & education sectors. You make Double Dipton reveal his true character.

      By the time three years have rolled around, everyone’s forgotten that you poked the Liberal Party in the eye and upset a few locals.

      It’s good to see you’re keeping your hopes alive though. Don’t give up.

      • BM 17.1.1

        That’s a second term strategy.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1

          When your objective is to attack human rights and the rule of law, maybe. Increasing citizen’s pay-packets, not so much. That, my little bundle of malice, wins support 🙂

    • The majority of kiwis don’t want this, but then, what Labour leader ever listens to what the majority wants?

      She’s reminding Australia of an offer made in 2013 by a certain Rt Hon John Key, now forgotten but at one time a National Party MP and Prime Minister of New Zealand. As I recall, no catastrophic vote loss ensued.

    • Jum 17.3

      Tanz,
      Any poster that quotes Dick Prebble has no right to any listening audience.

    • Anne 17.4

      Sir Richard Prebble? I missed that. When did he get knighted?

      Or is Tanz @17 still immersed in her alternative reality?

      • Tanz 17.4.1

        Prebble should be knighted, for his service to the county under the Lange govt, for helping to fix Muldoon’s muck-ups and for having represented Act, who should take him on as leader again, would be a winner for 2020. National will get a single party majority by then anyway (they are only 3 per cent from that now), and will be able to govern alone, for a very long time, sending this unmandated three headed hydra govt into Oppostion for a long long time! That’s if Winston doesn’t pull the pin first. With him, anything can and will happen! In the meantime, wish he’d tell Jacinda to stop badgering the Aussies, they are getting seriously agitated. Arrogance much.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.4.1.1

          😆

          You’re going to be so disappointed in 2020.

          • Tanz 17.4.1.1.1

            Labour are backing out of most of their pre-election promises already,
            Grant’s fiscal hole has been proven and Jacinda is making NZ look very silly already. If I could I would stake money on it, – they will not last three years. I know several Green and NZ First voters who are already having buyers remorse. Why is okay for Labour to promise oodles pre-election and then back out of promise after promise? Is this not just mere bribery for votes? One term govt, National are right though, they dodged a bullet. Winston is now the very silent partner, funny that…still think he preferred National (just makes more sense – biggest polling party and more stable coalition,- but they would not sell their souls for power. Bennett basically said that in Parliament last week.),

            Good for them, kudos with the voters, especially as it goes pear shaped, which it has from day one. There is no honeymoon, unless you are part of the left wing media lapdogs. So comical, but watch as NZ is forced into a recession, and National had us in stellar position, it’s all gonna get blasted away. There is a reason more people voted for National than Labour and the Greens combined!

  18. Jum 18

    Sorry Anne
    ‘Anne 13.2.1.2
    18 November 2017 at 4:06 pm

    Clearly Grantoc you don’t recognise humour when you read it.’

    I was being a little bit humorous, but really, if any of us seriously believe Australia gives a damn about NZ and NZers then they’ve caught the NAtz bug.
    Aussies treat the Aboriginal people like scum, they treat the Kiwi people like scum and they have rupert murdoch who is scum.
    If Kiwis are so greedy they want to disappear over to Austraaaaaaaliaaaaaaaa when they can earn more money and then come rushing back to NZ when they’re facing a bit of financial difficulty why should I be in the slightest bit interested.
    We’re being sold a pot ful of tripe by the Aussies, who are found to be bigoted, more racist than we are, and not telling the truth about the support NZ gives to australia, over many years now, in protecting the shores of australia and New Zealand from greedy human traffickers.
    Wanna interest me; get rid of the greed from both shores and start treating all people like human beings. Across the world we are dealing with despots and huge international corporates, hellbent on destroying anything good about humanity.
    I’m not sure, at this stage, who’s winning.

    • Anne 18.1

      Oh I couldn’t agree more Jum. There are lots of exceptions, but still the majority of Aussies are a racist and bigoted bunch of ignoramuses.

      • RedLogix 18.1.1

        On the whole I’ve found Australian’s pretty much the same as Kiwis. The big difference is that they tend to be more upfront about what they’re thinking, they rarely leave you in any doubt as to where you stand with them.

        Kiwis may well find this a bit unsettling, but interpreting it as meaning they’re all bigoted and racist isn’t justified. Indeed given they just managed a landslide vote in support of SSM I don’t think it’s justified at all.

        (Indeed the biggest ‘no vote’ areas came from suburbs in West Sydney and Nth Melbourne dominated by non-white Australians.)

        The longer I live here the more irksome I find this smug kiwi attitude that somehow kiwis are better people than aussies.

        Or anywhere else for that matter; the past decade or so I’ve had the privilege of living and working in Israel, Australia, Singapore, India, Russia, Canada, Laos, Philippines, Colombia, Mongolia and Mexico. All very different places with massively different cultures. There are aspects of all of these places I both liked and disliked, sometimes quite intensely. But I find that people the world over share far more in common than in difference; it just depends on what you choose to pay attention to.

        • bwaghorn 18.1.1.1

          but how do you kill a conversation dead if you cant chuck the racism word at people trying to understand ? which is the far lefts favorite ploy

          • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.1.1

            You mean the “dead cat” strategy? I can’t think of anyone from the Centre Right who ever employed it. Not a single one.

            • bwaghorn 18.1.1.1.1.1

              it’s expected from them , the bar should be higher for your side

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                So which is it? The “Far Left”, or everyone left of centre? Last time I checked, the “Far Left” aren’t in parliament. Unless you can point to any Marxists or Maoists in the Beehive, that is.

                • bwaghorn

                  in nz terms the far left is the greens , not very thrilling but i’m happy with it that way

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    You can link to someone from the Greens employing a ‘dead cat’ strategy, or are you talking about them criticising actual racism?

                    • bwaghorn

                      more there supporters chucking the word racism around, you seem to have a huge supply of dead cats , hmm are you working for gareth

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      You think my description of the Liberal Party as racists is intended to shut down debate? Rubbish. Our close political and economic ally has enacted xenophobic human rights abuses and it’s our duty to respond to it.

        • Anne 18.1.1.2

          Redlogix @18.1.1

          I have to confess that my response was based on interactions with Australians (I lived in Perth for a while) a long time ago. I made some good friends and a few of them continued to be friends after I returned to NZ. But overall, I found them bombastic and quite rude. Since that time the social climate has probably changed enormously and maybe its time for me to change my views as they are likely to be out of date. 🙂

          • RedLogix 18.1.1.2.1

            I found them bombastic and quite rude

            Exactly … they do speak their mind more directly and with less concern for your feelings as a rule. But once I learnt to expect this I started to find it more honest and easier to work with as a rule. Indeed they expect it back as well; if you start hedging and qualifying all the time Aussies find this a bit sus.

            And now that almost 25% of the population was not born in Australia, they’ve become a lot more diverse as well.

            Another subtle difference; we feel safer here. While Aus can do really big awful crime just like anywhere else, in most places there just isn’t the ongoing level of petty crime, aggro and tension that’s so common in NZ. Especially in smaller regional towns there is an incredibly relaxed, open friendliness everywhere we go.

            The one thing I really hate about the place … they’re some of the worst tail-gaters on the planet. 🙂

    • Cinny 19.1

      If it is accurate… yup that’s exactly it. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ accurancy comes in many forms $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2

      Baba Yaga I disagree: we need to know a lot more about Ian to assess his involvement in this ongoing human rights violation.

      • Cinny 19.2.1

        + 100%

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2.2.1

          You have two completely unverifiable stories from the people with the massive conflicts of interest and a track record of telling lies about refugees.

          Well that’s sure convinced me of something, but it doesn’t cast you in a very good light.

          • Zorb6 19.2.2.1.1

            What verifiable information have you seen that vouches for the integrity of the detainees regarding their testimony on conditions and events on Manus?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2.2.1.1.1

              1. Theirs isn’t the only testimony.
              2. The fact that the Australian government just offered them $70 million dollars in compensation.

              • Baba Yaga

                Neither of which says anything about the integrity of the detainees.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Yawn. Zorb6 was dribbling about “the integrity of the detainees regarding their testimony on conditions and events on Manus“.

                  Get a life.

                  • Baba Yaga

                    And your response did not address his question. That there have been human rights violations (the reason for the compensation) does not mean the inhabitants of Manus are telling the truth.

                    • mickysavage

                      Holy shifting goalposts. You originally stated there are two security guards making claims against the detainees and now all you are saying is there is no proof the detainees are telling the truth.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “You originally stated there are two security guards making claims…”

                      I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I have only quoted one guard.

                      “…and now all you are saying is there is no proof the detainees are telling the truth.”

                      No. I was challenging the idea that being offered compensation for human rights abuses proved you told the truth about other matters. That’s an absurdity.

          • Baba Yaga 19.2.2.1.2

            “You have two completely unverifiable stories from the people with the massive conflicts of interest and a track record of telling lies about refugees.”

            No, what we have is eye witness accounts from what appear to be reliable sources.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2.2.1.2.1

              If you think anonymous Ian is a reliable source, that’s on you. Meanwhile, on Earth, a face-saving backdown from the Liberal Party.

              Apparently their “intelligence leak” isn’t a reliable enough screening process. Or perhaps it was just another bunch of lies from the people who’ve been caught lying over and over again on this very issue…

              In any event, it looks like the Prime Minister has achieved a major victory, and yes yes I know you disagree with that very very hard, and I couldn’t give a shit what you “think”.

              Weep and wail for me, but not so loud you can’t hear the laughter.

              • Baba Yaga

                There is no victory in accepting these people into NZ. None. And you might want to check the comments underneath the article you linked to. There is much to admire about Ardern, but this isn’t amongst it.

                • Uh, duh-uh, the obligation to look after refugees isn’t predicated on there being a benefit to your country from it. In fact, that’s pretty much excluded as a criterion.

                  And no, I wouldn’t want to check the comments under the Stuff article – I get all the ugly shit opinions I can cope with from mud-wrestling the grumpy old White men on Kiwiblog.

                  • Baba Yaga

                    ” the obligation to look after refugees isn’t predicated on there being a benefit to your country from it. ”

                    I didn’t claim it was. It is my opinion, however, that people to whom we offer refuge should show their gratitude by being good citizens. The folk on Manus are off to a very bad start, and are hardly the sort of citizens we want in this country.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      You aren’t the sort of citizen I want in this country.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “You aren’t the sort of citizen I want in this country.”

                      You don’t know anything about me. The Manus Island inhabitants are illegal migrants who are alleged to have committed some pretty heinous crimes. That you would even want them in NZ says a lot more about you.

                    • McFlock

                      We know more than enough about you from your comments here. Not anonymous allegations with political benefit, your own words.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “We know more than enough about you from your comments here. ”

                      No, you don’t. All you know is that I want NZ safe for NZ’ers. Not illegal migrants who commit horrendous crimes. This isn’t a political issue, it is simply common sense.

                    • McFlock

                      Well, with respect, we also know that you’re a self-absorbed idiot who’se happy to excuse massive abuse and religiously recites a 1980s economic catechsim that most NZers have rejected (going by the ACT poll results).

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “happy to excuse massive abuse…”
                      Evidence please.

                      ” and religiously recites a 1980s economic catechsim that most NZers have rejected (going by the ACT poll results).”
                      You mean giving low paid more of their own money in their hand?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      …which then gets taken back immediately in GST.

                      There’s nothing I can (or want to, to be serious) do about your right to pollute this country with this rote-learned filth, but I’m sure as hell going to do my utmost to stop it having any effect whatsoever on our existing immigration and refugee (or any other) laws.

                      99.5% of voters agree.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “…which then gets taken back immediately in GST.”

                      What I’m proposing has not impact on the amount of GST paid. None. I had thought you had some understanding of these matters.

                    • McFlock

                      Evidence supplied.

                      You mean giving low paid more of their own money in their hand?

                      No, the idea that you’ll think they’ll be better off with tax cuts rather than a more equitable society. If you said the tax cuts for the poor should be more than matched by tax increases for the rich, you might come across as less of a prick.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Evidence supplied.”
                      For what?

                      “No, the idea that you’ll think they’ll be better off with tax cuts rather than a more equitable society.”
                      Tax cuts for low income earners will lead to a more equitable society, because they will have more money in their hand, and be less dependent on state support.

                      “If you said the tax cuts for the poor should be more than matched by tax increases for the rich, you might come across as less of a prick.”
                      Your thinking really is 1970’s. This isn’t about pitching people against each other, although you seem hell bent on framing it with your own virtue signalling. I want people on low incomes to have more money in their hands, not be state dependents. My thinking is mainstream, yours is archaic.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I want people on low incomes to have more money in their hands

                      Lifting wages is a good way to do it, and for that we’ll need some government intervention in the market, chiefly in the area of employment law, but also involving minimum wage rises and benefit increases.

                      These are going to happen no matter how much you can parrot the 0.5% party’s deeply held beliefs.

    • bwaghorn 19.3

      i bet if you lock up any large group in a single sex environment you will get ill behaviour , it’s not an excuse to not help them,

      • mac1 19.3.1

        It happens in boarding schools, the military, hostels, frat houses and prisons.

        The “but there are criminals amongst them” is a nasty argument- a clever but loathsome ploy.

        At least John Key, with his refugee background, understood this when he issued his invitation.

        What has changed, apart from the politics of the critics, now that NZ’s 2017 PM has done the same thing?

        • Cinny 19.3.1.1

          Rupert Murdoch and Channel Nine haven’t changed that’s for sures $$$$$ owning the narrative spinning it which ever way favours the tory government

          Do they even have a government over there in aussie?

      • Baba Yaga 19.3.2

        Actually, yes it is. It goes to the character of the individuals. There are many more deserving cases, I’m sure.

        • Cinny 19.3.2.1

          Meanwhile those on Manus continue to suffer and have their mental health destroyed among other things, due to people turning a blind eye because they don’t know how to deal with the situation.

          Awesome solution Baba.. not !!

          What happens to those on Manus then Baba? How desperate will they get? How angry will the locals get?

          • Baba Yaga 19.3.2.1.1

            No-ones turning a blind eye, but I’d suggest there is a lot of virtue signalling going on here. There are many people across the world in need; we can’t help them all, so let’s at least ensure we help those who have the best chance of being returning something to our communities when we welcome them in.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 19.3.2.1.1.1

              What? We should accept refugees that will pay us back? Why not set up a people smuggling operation while we’re at it?

              • Baba Yaga

                “We should accept refugees that will pay us back? ”

                I didn’t say ‘pay us back’. I said ‘returning something to our communities’. Like obeying our laws. Being peace abiding. Not being a financial drain on our society.

                And that is a completely reasonable expectation.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  I realise that dividing people into “deserving” and “undeserving” is a core centre-right “value”, but I don’t have much truck with it.

                  • Baba Yaga

                    Governments of all stripes have made such distinctions for decades, however you choose to characterise it. It’s called ‘vetting’.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      It’s time for your reality check:

                      During vetting, the character assessment criteria are that people can be turned down because they:

                      are likely to commit an offence in New Zealand that is punishable by imprisonment
                      are likely to be a risk to security
                      are likely to be a threat to public order
                      are likely to be a risk to the public interest.

                      So nothing about returning something to the community then.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “So nothing about returning something to the community then.”

                      You’re confusing two streams. Vetting is distinguishing ‘deserving and underserving’ (your words). ‘Returning something to our communities’ (my words) is something I am saying SHOULD be an expectation. I didn’t relate the two.

                    • Anne

                      It’s called ‘vetting’.

                      You’ve finally admitted a truth. That’s precisely what the NZ government plans to do – vet them. In fact I read somewhere the NZ vetting process has already started. And the sooner the better because it means NZ will be able select ‘the best candidates’ to bring to NZ.

                      You’re a fake Baba boy.You know perfectly well that the normal processes for accepting refugees applies just as much in this case as in any other. And who are you to declare they are all “undeserving” refugees. Have you been there? Have you spoken to them? No.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Have you been there? Have you spoken to them?”

                      No, but I don’t need to have visited the headquarters of the mongrel mob to know I wouldn’t want them living next door to me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      That settles it then: they should be moved into your house and you can find somewhere else to live, so that they don’t have to endure you as a neighbour.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “That settles it then: they should be moved into your house and you can find somewhere else to live, so that they don’t have to endure you as a neighbour”

                      Or…even better…the Manus Island ‘refugees’ can come and live with you!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I’m sure some of them may indeed end up settling in my neighbourhood*. I won’t give it a moment’s thought.

                      You, on the other hand, will want some way to identify them. Got any ideas?

                      *Edit: unless they decide to move en masse to Australia, that is. In which case you should make sure you point them out to Peter Dutton.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “You, on the other hand, will want some way to identify them. Got any ideas?”

                      I’m sure they’ll make themselves known.

                      Here’s a good piece by John Armstrong…have a read…it tells of some more deserving causes.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11945367

            • greywarshark 19.3.2.1.1.2

              Oh very wise and far seeing Mr Yaga.

              • Zorb6

                @Anne’In fact I read somewhere the NZ vetting process has already started. And the sooner the better because it means NZ will be able select ‘the best candidates’ to bring to NZ.’Is that called getting ahead of yourself?

            • Cinny 19.3.2.1.1.3

              No we can’t help them all but we can help the ones that are closest.

              I’d happily have them living next door, having felt the love, warmth and gratefullness of refugees before.

              Don’t even start sowing seeds by comparing them to living next door to a gang, that’s just spinning lies and mistruths in order to justify your own position on a topic you obviously have no personal experience with.

              Is it your fear of the unknown which holds you back in your own life Baba? You’ll never know or reach your own potential if you are afraid.

              • Baba Yaga

                “Don’t even start sowing seeds by comparing them to living next door to a gang, ”

                It’s a valid comparison.

                Remember that not all of the inhabitants of Manus are/were genuine refugees. They are seeking to enter Australia illegally, to cue jump over legitimate refugees who are prepared to go through the proper channels.

                The remaining men on Manus, the ones our PM wants to assimilate into our society, have been described as follows:

                “The people who have transitioned out to the community, quite possibly not a problem – but the ones that remain would be a major issue.
                “They are fearing for their safety for a very good reason, they are the ones that have caused all the problems in the local community.”
                He said guards wore cameras which recorded violence, threats and verbal assault, and he was in charge of documenting it before passing it to authorities, along with a “mountain of paperwork”.
                “These people are hiding their criminality behind loss of documentation, and if she continues to push the issue I would not be surprised if Malcolm Turnbull slammed the door on New Zealand.”
                http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/criminals-torture-and-the-long-wait-on-manus-island

                Yes there have been human rights abuses on Manus, no denying it. But these people are rat-bags, and I for one don’t want them in my country.

                • Macro

                  Such a load of bullshit here it is difficult to know where to start!
                  Firstly at least 90% of those detained illegally by Australia on Manus Island have been assessed as being Refugees. Secondly under the UN Convention for Refugees (which Australia signed in 1954 BTW) these people were Asylum Seekers and as such were not attempting to enter Australia illegally.*
                  The people who are committing the criminality are the Australian Government.

                  *

                  What rights does a refugee have?

                  A refugee has the right to safe asylum. However, international protection comprises more than physical safety. Refugees should receive at least the same rights and basic help as any other foreigner who is a legal resident, including freedom of thought, of movement and freedom from torture and degrading treatment. Economic and social rights are equally applicable. Refugees should have access to medical care, schooling and the right to work.

                  http://unhcr.org.ua/en/who-we-help/2011-08-26-06-55-36/368-protecting-refugees-faq

                  • Baba Yaga

                    “Firstly at least 90% of those detained illegally by Australia on Manus Island have been assessed as being Refugees.”

                    You’ve exaggerated the figures in your own reference. The article says ‘almost’ not at least’.

                    The number is actually 87.7%, meaning 12.3% haven’t. How many of the 150 are in the 12.3%?

                    “Secondly under the UN Convention for Refugees (which Australia signed in 1954 BTW) these people were Asylum Seekers and as such were not attempting to enter Australia illegally.*
                    The people who are committing the criminality are the Australian Government.”

                    You seem to be asserting they are genuine ‘refugees’, having in the previous sentence admitted 10% (a figure you got wrong) weren’t!

                    How many of the 150 are in the 12.3%?

                    • Macro

                      How many of the 150 are in the 12.3%?

                      Gezz your thick!
                      The answer is frigging obvious!
                      None
                      Why? because they would not be refugees. Those who are not assessed as refugee status may be returned to the country of origin – or if stateless to a country that will accept them.
                      Now as to the figure of around 90% assessed – you will have noted that that that figure was over a year ago and the PNG govt was still in the process of assessing the claims of further asylum seekers. So over 1 year ago just under 90% had been assessed as genuine refugees and I am sure that that figure would be even more. In fact bearing in mind the way the Australian Government has persecuted the whole lot of them, they should all be granted asylum as refugees from Australia.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “The answer is frigging obvious! None Why? because they would not be refugees. ”

                      Effectively what you are saying is ‘they must be refugees because they aren’t illegals. They aren’t illegals because then they would be not be refugees.’

                      I think it’s called circular reasoning. Or rank stupidity.

                    • Macro

                      🙄
                      Having a degree in logic, mathematics, and philosophy I understand completely what constitutes a circular argument – which is more than can be said for you.
                      Let me explain it in tiny little steps.
                      People fleeing from their country of origin (Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, etc) had passed through Indonesia (which although allowing them some solace from reduced threats of murder and violence to their persons) provided them with next to nothing nor opportunity to find gainful employment. So they then sort to find Asylum in Australia which they understood to be a signatory of the UN Convention of Refugees. Being apprehended on a boat from Indonesia was their mistake and they were transported to Manus Island where the PNG authorities along with the UN investigated their claim to refugee status. Now almost all of those remaining on Manus Island have been assessed to be genuine refugees. They are technically no longer asylum seekers they are refugees. I would imagine that the few who were not assessed as needing refuge by the authorities would have been returned to their country of origin – as happens here and elsewhere around the world.
                      So when in June 2016 the authorities had assessed 87% of those then present on Manus Island as being genuine refugees (well over 150) – with still more to be assessed; NZ’s offer to take 150 refugees would be well filled before anyone of doubtful status was considered! Indeed once an Asylum seeker had been assessed as not being genuine they would have been removed and sent back to where ever they came from. You insincere angst is patently of little consequence.
                      Now as to the severe problems that many of these men are now exhibiting, I request you to imagine placing yourself in their shoes. You have escaped from a country where you have likely been tortured, discriminated, abused, threatened with your life, witnessed abuses to your family and friends, and have little prospect of surviving if you were to be returned. This is the facts of life of those who seek refuge in another country.* These were the facts of life of almost all of those now detained on Manus Island – these facts have been verified by the authorities so they are not subject to dispute. Almost all refugee men have experienced abuse of one form or another and are fearful for their life. It is not inconceivable that they then almost without fail suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Placing such vulnerable souls in a detention centre is hardly the prescribed treatment for such a health issue, and indeed is highly likely to exacerbate the condition rather than relieve it. Your so called expert “Ian” is hardly the ideal person to be place in charge of the care of such distressed persons.

                      *

                      For seven years Tibo Rogers and his family were on the run, fleeing escalating fighting in Sierra Leone. Against the odds, and thanks to UNHCR, Tibo managed to secure a secondary education, and a future.

                      “The only reason I am alive today is because of the kindness my father showed a stranger. It was April 1991 and my family and I were living in a small village called Bandajuma. It was a very happy and safe place to grow up, where every child belonged to the whole community. One night, a stranger came knocking on our door. My father offered the man a glass of water. The next day our village was hit, but this very same stranger, a rebel now in full military gear, spared our lives in appreciation for my father’s small act of kindness.

                      For the next seven years we were on the move, as conditions in Sierra Leone deteriorated. We fled from one place to the next, constantly fearing for our lives. I saw things no boy should see. I somehow escaped to neighbouring Guinea and with four other boys I continued on to Ghana. It was only then, when we were handed over to UNCHR officials and registered in Krisan Refugee Camp, that I finally felt safe.

                      Despite everything that had happened, I still wanted to go to school. My fierce determination to finish my education moved the UNHCR officers, and eventually they found a place for me in a secure secondary school. For seven years I was in that camp I worked hard at my studies. When I was eventually resettled, I was able to go to university and study International Relations. I can’t thank UNHCR enough for giving me the opportunity to learn. When I first arrived in Ghana I had no hope. UNHCR gave me hope gave me hope by educating me. I feel so very fortunate.”

                      Just one story
                      and there are millions more like it.
                      http://stories.unhcr.org/refugees

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Having a degree in logic, mathematics, and philosophy I understand completely what constitutes a circular argument …”

                      Then what possessed you to fall into the trap?

                      The rest of your post is muddled nonsense. On one hand you claim all the inhabitants of Manus were/are refugees, then you state “in June 2016 the authorities had assessed 87% of those then present on Manus Island as being genuine refugees”.

                      The point you so conveniently overlook is that Australia run a very real risk of being overrun by these ‘refugees’, illegals or whatever else you want to call them. It’s all very well advocating for NZ to welcome these people from the comfort of a secure home in PtChev. It is a very different matter entirely welcoming these people. You just don’t get it.

                    • Macro

                      Oh dear! What a pity you are unable to distinguish between asylum seekers and refugees.

                      To make it easier for you, consider the case of a family forced from their home in Syria by war and bombing.
                      1. They are now “displaced persons”, and they will remain displaced persons until such time as they reach the boarder of Jordan (or which ever country the are fleeing too).
                      2. Then they become “Asylum seekers” ( around 1 million people a year seek asylum). As an asylum seeker they tell their story to the authorities in the country that they are now in, and are then assessed both by the country and the UNHCR as to their status. *
                      3. If their story stacks up, and it is considered that it would be prejudicial to their safety were they to be returned to their country of origin, they are then classified as genuine “refugees” a status that allows them to stay in the country where they have sort asylum, and where their basic human rights are protected, and they can then work towards a more longer term solution.

                      In general parlance the generic term “Refugee” is applied to all of these three phases, however such a liberal use can cause much confusion – particularly in small minds such as yours.

                      I hope the above (and the links to the UNHCR) will be of benefit to you.

                      * Actually in the case of mass migrations of people across borders – such as in the case of war it is not always possible or necessary to conduct individual interviews with every asylum seeker who crosses a border. These groups are often called ‘prima facie’ refugees.
                      As of Dec 2014 there were around 1.8 million people still awaiting a decision on their Asylum claims.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “What a pity you are unable to distinguish between asylum seekers and refugees.”

                      I know the difference. You used the expression refugees on both occasions. Here. I’ll quote from your post:

                      “Now almost all of those remaining on Manus Island have been assessed to be genuine refugees. They are technically no longer asylum seekers they are refugees.” and “I would imagine that the few who were not assessed as needing refuge by the authorities would have been returned to their country of origin”

                      then

                      “So when in June 2016 the authorities had assessed 87% of those then present on Manus Island as being genuine refugees ”

                      Your post was muddled nonsense.

                    • Macro

                      !!!!
                      🙄
                      Clearly your comprehension skills are sadly lacking…

                      But I see this has been pointed out to you before.

                      Your faux angst at any suggestion of receiving any refugees from Manus belies your true motivations here.

                      You may continue to protest troll – however I will leave the “discussion” . I am sure that the casual reader can determine where the truth of the matter lies – and it is cleary not within your lies.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “I am sure that the casual reader can determine where the truth of the matter lies”

                      I’m sure the casual observer will see through your intellectual snobbery and realise you stuffed up.

                    • BabaYaga

                      “And if they prefer to stay on manus, imagine how bad home is.”

                      Indeed. That is the problem for so many refugees. We simply can’t help them all.

                • McFlock

                  If they’re not legitimate refugees, they can’t queue jump over legitimate refugees. They’re in a different queue altogether.

                  • Baba Yaga

                    “If they’re not legitimate refugees, they can’t queue jump over legitimate refugees. They’re in a different queue altogether.”

                    But they’re trying to. That’s the point. And Australia is stopping them. So should we.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      No, we shouldn’t. None of your rote-learned arguments have any validity.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      You are showing your naivety. As is our PM.

                    • McFlock

                      The point is that you should make up your mind as to why we shouldn’t help these specific people, when it’s well within our power to do so. Are they legitimate refugees jumping the refugee queue (which isn’t actually possible, but whatevs), or are they something other than refugees and therefore in a different queue altogether?

                      At least pick a lie and stick with it, rather than choosing lies that undermine each other.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “The point is that you should make up your mind as to why we shouldn’t help these specific people”

                      Ardern’s Manus Island offer

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      You are showing your ability to parrot right wing talking points and argue in circles, and you seem to think this is clever and profound.

                      In the meantime, all you’re actually doing is revealing your inability to think for yourself.

                      I know you aren’t going to stop. When you earn another ban, you’ll come back with another changed name and continue to regurgitate this tired dull script.

                      We need better wingnuts.

                    • McFlock

                      And if that was a reliable report, would wouldn’t have needed to parrot contradictory lies about queue jumping people in another queue entirely.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “And if that was a reliable report, would wouldn’t have needed to parrot contradictory lies about queue jumping people in another queue entirely.”

                      Having two lines of argument is not a sin, McFlock. You’re struggling with coming up with one!

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “You are showing your ability to parrot right wing talking points …”

                      From eye witness accounts? Right wing talking points?

                    • McFlock

                      You having two lines of argument that contradict each other means I need only point out that you’re obviously making shit up.

                      All you ever needed was one decent, reliable argument as to why we should leave these people to suffer.

                      Non-genuine-queue-jumpers cancel each other out.
                      NZ employee of detention camp operator that abused refugees is unreliable and probably has a massive conflict of interest. I note “Ian” is happy to break Australian law and talk about abuses in the camp when it makes the refugees look bad, but the way his role was portrayed he would have been complicit in documenting the abuse of prisoners in the camp. Did he speak out about those abuses? If not, why not? If he’s telling the truth, you might have a decent reason to withhold asylum (therefore no queue to jump). but he’s unreliable.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “You having two lines of argument that contradict each other …”
                      They don’t.

                      “All you ever needed was one decent, reliable argument as to why we should leave these people to suffer.”
                      There are more deserving cases. People who aren’t criminals. There we are.

                      “NZ employee of detention camp operator that abused refugees is unreliable and probably has a massive conflict of interest.”
                      Neither. And his account is not the only one I have referenced.

                      “If he’s telling the truth, you might have a decent reason to withhold asylum (therefore no queue to jump). but he’s unreliable.”
                      12.3% are not refugees, so they ARE queue jumpers.

                    • McFlock

                      So 87.7% are refugees, and using a legitimate method to claim asylum and are therefore not queue jumpers.

                      And 12.3% are not refugees, so are not in a refugee queue at all, and cannot be queue jumpers because they’re not in that queue.

                      So we should bring over the 90-odd% who are refugees, and put the rest in the standard immigration queue. What we shouldn’t do is leave them to suffer.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “So we should bring over the 90-odd% who are refugees…”
                      My understanding is those (or most) have already been resettled. But in principal, I agree.

                      “…and put the rest in the standard immigration queue.”
                      NO! Not if the information in the public domain about those remaining is anything to go by.

                    • McFlock

                      The ones we look at will all be assessed for refugee status. If they don’t meet the threshhold, then they go into the immigration line. If they are as bad as the Australian-government-sanctions rumours suggest, they won’t meet the immigration test and they won’t get in. But they will be fairly considered.

                      And if not all the “legitimate” refugees have been happily resettled (rather than “abandoned”), then that way they can come over as refugees and we won’t leave them to slip through the cracks.

                      It’s pretty simple. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Baba Yaga has carnal knowledge of sheep.

                      There, it’s in the public domain.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “The ones we look at will all be assessed for refugee status. ”

                      Let’s not waste out time on them. There are many more deserving cases.

                    • McFlock

                      Let’s not waste out time on them. There are many more deserving cases.

                      It harms nobody to make sure of that.

                      You’re not perfect, Australia’s not perfect, “Ian” (the guy who documented camp abuses without publicising them until it was convenient for the aussies) definitely isn’t perfect. Let’s just make sure that some innocent people haven’t slipped through the cracks before we decide to leave them to suffer. If we decide to do that.

                    • BabaYaga

                      “Let’s just make sure that some innocent people haven’t slipped through the cracks before we decide to leave them to suffer.”

                      McGlock that is not an unreasonable position, I agree. I’m not sure I share your confidence in the vetting process.

                    • McFlock

                      Would you rather an imperfect system err on the side of accidentally letting a few bad eggs in, or would you rather it err on leaving innocent people to suffer alongside those bad eggs?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Would you rather an imperfect system err on the side of accidentally letting a few bad eggs in, or would you rather it err on leaving innocent people to suffer alongside those bad eggs?”

                      I’d rather an imperfect system focus it’s attention on a people group with less risk.

                    • McFlock

                      How do you know the relative risk without an impartial assessment? The Aussies and their camp guards have a massive incentive to as biased as fuck on this issue.

                      And the risk should be balanced against need and one’s ability to immediately mitigate that need if they are deemed worthy of assistance.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “How do you know the relative risk without an impartial assessment? ”

                      By considering the behaviour of people.

                    • McFlock

                      Shouldn’t we evaluate every potential refugee on a case-by-case basis, rather than simply making assumptions based on our own cynicism?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Shouldn’t we evaluate every potential refugee on a case-by-case basis…”

                      Not necessarily. If they’ve been involved in the activities reported on Manus, then we want no part of them.

                      And by the way, they are being told to leave. If things are so bad there, they need to head back home.

                      https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/police-storm-manus-island-camp-and-demand-refugees-to-leave/ar-BBFvXbd?ocid=spartandhp

                    • McFlock

                      If they’ve been involved in the activities reported on Manus, then we want no part of them.

                      So we can judge them together if we know each individual was involved in alleged actions of members of the group? How would we know that?

                      And if they prefer to stay on manus, imagine how bad home is.

                    • McFlock

                      Indeed. That is the problem for so many refugees. We simply can’t help them all.

                      We can help the ones on Manus – within hours or days. We should.

                      You missed this bit:

                      “Shouldn’t we evaluate every potential refugee on a case-by-case basis…”

                      Not necessarily. If they’ve been involved in the activities reported on Manus, then we want no part of them.

                      I’m really interested in how you think we should determine that a manus island prisoner was “involved in the activities reported” without eveluating them on a case by case basis.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “We can help the ones on Manus – within hours or days. We should.”

                      No, we shouldn’t. There is enough information to give them a very wide berth.

                    • McFlock

                      As I said, it harms nobody and costs little to make sure that the “children overboard” crowd haven’t been telling lies again.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      ” it harms nobody and costs little”
                      You don’t know that. Remember the kiwi’s deported from Australia that Kelvin Davis supported? One third went on the reoffend here in NZ. I don’t trust the government at all on this issue.

                    • McFlock

                      They were NZ citizens deported from aus because of their criminal history (and had a recidivism rate of half that of NZ prison system graduates). We couldn’t turn them away, even if we wanted to.

                      I’m saying that we should look at each of the detainees and see whether they should get asylum. If the aussie camp commandants are right and these are awful people, they won’t qualify for asylum. But the aussies have a history of blatant lies and saying mothers throw their own children into the water, so I sure trust the aussies a lot less than I trust NZ immigration officials.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “We couldn’t turn them away, even if we wanted to.”
                      That didn’t mean Kelvin had to behave like a fanboy.

                      “I’m saying that we should look at each of the detainees and see whether they should get asylum. ”
                      And I’m saying I don’t think it’s worth the effort with this group.

                    • McFlock

                      Kelvin Davis stood up for NZers being abused by the australian government. That’s part of his job.

                      And you might be happy to write off groups of people to leave them to suffer, but that is a tendency of your political leaning.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Kelvin Davis stood up for NZers being abused by the australian government. ”

                      They weren’t being abused, they were criminals, who had lost any right to citizenship.

                    • McFlock

                      Actually, they still had every right to NZ citizenship. Hence Kelvin Davis’ involvement.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Actually, they still had every right to NZ citizenship. Hence Kelvin Davis’ involvement.”

                      Kelvin Davis was involved because he is soft of criminals. It follows him around.

                    • McFlock

                      So he was accidentally doing his job of helping NZ citizens who were being detained without trial, then.

                      Try to focus: he was a NZ MP, looking out for NZ citizens. That’s. His. Job.

                      So to recap: you think we shouldn’t help anyone detained illegally by the aussies because you personally believe they are all bad people. Onya, mate.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “So he was accidentally doing his job of helping NZ citizens who were being detained without trial, then. ”

                      No, he was poking his nose into another countries sovereign right to remove criminals from their communities.

                    • McFlock

                      No, he was poking his nose into another countries sovereign right to remove criminals from their communities.

                      They were NZ citizens being detained without trial. In fact, they were being detained because they were NZ citiziens – if they were Aussies in their paperwork, they’d have been free.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “They were NZ citizens being detained without trial.”

                      They were NZ citizens of whom 1 in 3 have reoffended since being sent back to NZ. Keep digging McFlock.

                    • McFlock

                      How does that contradict what I wrote?

                      They were NZ citizens held without trial.

                      Two thirds of them have not committed any criminal offence since coming to NZ. Should they have been left to the Aussies?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Two thirds of them have not committed any criminal offence since coming to NZ.”

                      Yet. But everyone of them committed a crime in Australia.

                    • McFlock

                      And did their time. And yet they were still being detained without trial.

                      If empathy or basic principles of justice don’t rock your boatpeople, try a little bit of enlightened self interest – if nobody cared about people they didn’t like being unfairly treated, who will stand up for you?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “And did their time.”

                      And then were being deported, as is Australia’s right. But hey, this government seems hell bent on p’ing off one of our most important trading partners.

                    • McFlock

                      And then were being deported,

                      It’s spelled “detained”. If they’d been “deported”, Davis wouldn’t have had to do a darned thing.

                      Glad to see that you follow in the fine fuckwit tory tradition of valuing trade over even NZ citizens being held without trial.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “It’s spelled “detained”.”

                      No deported. That’s why they came back to NZ. Perhaps you would have been willing to have them as neighbours?

                    • McFlock

                      No, they were being detained when Davis was involved. They were not in NZ, they were in a camp. Therefore they had not been deported, they were being detained.

                      As for whom I want to be neighbours with, I’d prefer them over you.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “No, they were being detained when Davis was involved. ”

                      Pending deportation.

                      Quote – ‘Up to a 1000 criminals – including killers, sex offenders, drug dealers and outlaw bikies – will be dumped on New Zealand’s doorstep in the next five years.’
                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/71091542/Hundreds-of-criminals-face-deportation-to-New-Zealand

                    • McFlock

                      Yes, pending. As in “detained without trial”.

                      Basically, your problem is that you have no evidence the non-NZ asylum seekers have done a damned thing wrong, but you don’t want to help them.

                      The people who did have a criminal history were NZ citizens, and as such entitled to all the rights and representation of NZ officials and elected representatives as any other NZer, but you don’t think those rights should be extended to people you don’t like.

                      Both groups you want to abandon because “trade”.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Basically, your problem is that you have no evidence the non-NZ asylum seekers have done a damned thing wrong, but you don’t want to help them. ”

                      Read the Stuff article.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I note that the Stuff article doesn’t mention the group McFlock referred to.

                    • McFlock

                      Dude, you’re abandoning people to detention and maltreatment because Stuff said so. What next, taking a position on deploying troops to south Sudan because Woman’s Weekly had a pictorial?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “I note that the Stuff article doesn’t mention the group McFlock
                      referred to.”

                      It’s the same group of people.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “…you’re abandoning people to detention and maltreatment because Stuff said so. ”

                      No, I’m calling out Davis for representing criminals ahead of law abiding NZ’ers.

                    • McFlock

                      were law-abiding nzers being detained?

                      BTW, you quoted the section of my comment of 2:17pm that referred to non-NZ asylum seekers, and then you proceeded to talk about the NZ detainees. That’s what OAB was pointing out.

  19. Cinny 20

    AWESOME TUNE IN … Listening Post has just started, 2nd story up is about Manus Island. Here is the live feed for watching it now…. will post the link for the story when it is available (probably tomorrow)

    Such a nerd this is my regular saturday night viewing, love love the Listening Post

  20. mac1 21

    “Speak truth to power”. Sometimes the powerful don’t like the truth- it is shaming, disturbing, requiring action, requiring effort, requiring a principled stand in return.

    Jacinda Ardern has spoken the truth to those in power in Australia over these detainees.

    It’s what a mate does- tell your mates when they’re wrong. The friendship will suffer if nothing is said and the wrong continues. At least your mate will know that his mate will act with principle in his dealings. At best, the mate will change his ways.

  21. Peter Bradley 22

    This is not a good fight to be making with Australia. It’s being done for show and political brinkmanship not because NZ has a great concern for refugees. If that were the case the new NZ government would instead be talking about raising our refugee intake from 750 year and would start doing the political and financial hard-work to welcome tens of thousands of refugees via the UN into NZ.
    Instead the government has decided go for moral grandstanding with a country that took in over 17,000 refugees a year. I’m disappointed and embarrassed at what I see as cheap and lazy politics aimed at scoring points rather than doing something to actually make a difference. We’ve had that for 9 years and I, for one, voted for something different.

    • mac1 22.1

      When is the fight for human rights, basic respect and humanity not a good fight?

      • greywarshark 22.1.1

        It’s being done for show and political brinkmanship not because NZ has a great concern for refugees.

        How come you think you speak for NZ wishes? You mean that the people you gather with at work, sport, the pub or church, think alike about this. However that is not NZ as a whole. We I think care, but don’t want to be swamped, and if we do too much it will rebound on us and Australia will hate us for showing up how far back they are from their obligations under humanitarian agreements that as a supposedly advanced government, they have signed up to.

    • red-blooded 22.2

      “It’s being done for show and political brinkmanship not because NZ has a great concern for refugees. If that were the case the new NZ government would instead be talking about raising our refugee intake from 750 year”

      You do understand that there’s already a commitment from our new government to double our annual intake of refugees, don’t you, Peter? I mean, you wouldn’t want to make yourself look foolish by making accusations that are so easily rebutted..?

  22. Cinny 23

    Manus Island story starts at 14.30

    “Covering Manus Island

    Last year, Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court ruled that Australia’s imprisonment of asylum seekers on the islands of Manus and Nauru was illegal and ordered the closure of the camps.

    Unfortunately, the story attracted little attention since Australia’s offshore “processing centres” for asylum seekers have operated largely under a shroud of secrecy.

    Journalists trying to report on conditions at the prisons have been blocked at every turn by the governments involved.

    Eighteen months since that court ruling, the camps are now closed but the refugees are refusing to leave fearing attacks by local people.

    The Listening Post’s Johanna Hoes returns to the story of the refugees on Manus Island and Nauru.

    Contributors:
    Elaine Pearson, director, HRW Australia
    Paul Farrell, senior reporter, Buzzfeed Australia
    Matthew Abbott, documentary photographer
    Amir Taghinia, former Manus refugee
    Behrouz Boochani, refugee

  23. Cinny 24

    Remember this… 15 Jun 2017

    Australia to pay $53m to Manus Island asylum seekers

    “The Australian government has agreed to pay 70 million Australian dollars ($53m) to more than 1,900 asylum seekers who sued over their treatment at the Manus Island detention centre on Papua New Guinea (PNG).”

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/australia-pay-53m-manus-island-asylum-seekers-170614054721385.html

  24. Philj 25

    Can’t wait for Ozzy mainlanders to seek climate refuge in NZ.

  25. Muttonbird 27

    What I can’t work out from the Peter Duttons and David Farrars is what these men are going to do once forced off the detention centre site.

    If they are so concerned about them committing sex abuse crimes now then they should be very worried about what might happen when several hundred men are released to the wider community of 43,000 on a remote island in a country with scare resources.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    2 days ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago