If that is where you are going I wouldn't start from here.

I can't figure out if that saying is from ancient mystic or an Irish joke but it sums up for me where we are with the debate around asylum seekers in this country.


I doubt that anyone in their right mind would accept an offer to take on the job of Immigration Minister tomorrow. The only possible exception might be the current shadow minister, but only because it would mean his side would be warming the seats of treasury benches.


It looks more than likely onshore processing of asylum seekers will be 'forced' upon us by recent High Court decisions and because both sides are more intent on playing politics with the 'non-issue' than working in the better intersts of the nation and our once proud tradition of being a warm hearted and welcoming nation.


This has become a highly emotional and complex issue mostly because of political football, opportunism and the unfortunate fact that fear is easier to sell than common sense policy.


What would I do if I were to be offered the job of Immigration Minister?
The obvious answer is 'Thanks, but no thanks, I don't have a death wish'. However, as I have been self selected, I would start from here:


First thing I would be doing is to separate the whole asylum seeker/refugee issue from border protection. This has nothing to do with border protection. Anyone who thinks that Australia will be invaded by hordes of people in ricketty old wooden fishing vessels is either stuck in some cold war time warp or in the thrall of some cheap spy thriller novel. Get serious folks, when one of those countries to our north decide to invade they will use sturdier craft and they will be in a solid mix of sea and aircraft.


We can still decide who comes to our country and how they get here within some limitations and we will be better at it if we do it with an open heart rather than living in fear of being invaded by red and/or yellow hordes (or any other colour for that matter).


This in the short term is going to be a tough sell but one that has to be done.


Tied in with this we need to explain that this 'problem' is not a big one. Heaps has been written on this. More people are saying it out loud. Anyone with doubts about selling this could take a lesson in history from the late Peter Andren MP by reading this Inside Story article Opposing John Howard on asylum seekers, and winning by Peter Browne. Andren won his rural seat of Calare with an increased majority at the so called 'Tampa Election'


While dealing with those two challenges we also need to change the focus and understanding on the so called People Smugglers. There is no doubt that there are criminal elements involved in the movement of people seeking asylum and there is much debate about whether they are smugglers or providing a much needed service. I don't intend to debate it here and now. What we need to focus on is the real crime of people smuggling. There are people being smuggled into this country for illegal purposes and the victims of these criminals are subject to slave like conditions as prostitutes and in other positions of servitude. This is the people smuggling trade that needs to be smashed and have its' business model broken. You can get loads of info at the Australian Institute of Criminology website including this report: Organised crime and migrant smuggling : Australia and the Asia-Pacific.

Having started from here, where do I go now?
There is a lot more to be done and I would need lot's of advice but here are some of the things I would review early in the piece.

Family Reunion and it's effect on boat arrivals
Without searching for specific evidence lately I have reasonable grounds for believing that one of the major causes for the increase in the numbers of women and children arriving by boat was directly related to the Howard governments clamp down and reductions in the family reunion component of our immigration programme. This needs to be corrected.

Do we need to deter asylum seekers travelling here by boat?
This is a tough one. I don't think there are very many people who are happy when the hear about people losing their lives at sea while attempting the voyage here and from that point of view we should do everything in our power to minimise the number travelling here that way. We also have to accept the fact that no matter what deterences that are put in place some will still attempt to get here that way.

Think about deterances in your own life. If you drive a vehicle how often have you travelled over the speed limit? If you drive over the limit do you slow down as you approach a speed camera and then pick up speed again once out of sight of the camera? I have spoken with people involved in the area and seen data that shows that even as close as 200 metres before a speed camera there are a number of speeding vehicles and more than the number caught by the camera.

It looks as though we may not get to find out but the Malaysia people swap may have acted as a deterant and an effect on boat arrivals in the short term but I suspect it would not have stopped the flow completely. Certainly not in the medium term.

What sort of numbers can we handle?
Personally I am ambivalent about the numbers though it does seem we may need to increase our intake. If we do increase it will need to be handled with care but if we have done our 'sales job' on border protection etc. properly it will be less of a challenge.

Medium and long term solutions
There is now doubt we need to work within in the region to change the dynamics of the problem of displaced persons and the Bali Process is important and we must continue to support it and work with other participants to improve the situation.

Taking off my pretend ministers hat and being me again I must say I have had problems with with the government's proposals around the Malaysia Solution. After listening to Erika Feller, UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection on Radio National's Sunday Profile I have changed some of my thinking. It is well worth listening to. If you would rather read it you will find the transcript here.
Finding reasonable discussion or reporting on the issue is not easy but I am encouraged that one of our finest journalists George Megalogenis is set to write a piece on the topic and has opened his blog for discussion on the topic. There is some pretty good commentary there.

The big question is: Would you take on the job?

Does Compulsion Curtail Freedom?

I have long held a view that legislation for political purposes will eventually come back to bite you in the bum. More on that in a moment.

In a piece posted at Menzies House, Socialist bias in every Australian election Jason Kent argues that compulsory voting benefits the left and also makes Australia less free.
Kent in his opening paragraph writes:

Compulsory Voting means that freedom in Australia is mandatory. It’s not true, but the fact that Compulsory Voting says it’s true, makes it so. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that means Australia is, and continues to become, less free than it might have been otherwise.

Hmm, interesting, 'it's not true but I am going to attempt to prove to you that it is'.  Compulsory voting takes away our freedom not to vote and, it seems, leads us down the slippery slope to socialism. Kent argues that those 'who favour greater government regulation & control (socialists) are more likely to comply with compulsory voting' therefore those with socialist leanings are more likely to vote than those freedom loving conservatives who, because they believe in the freedom 'not to vote', don't vote. Apparently there a lot of people who dislike compulsion so much they don't even register to vote and these people appear more likely to be freedom loving conservatives.
So we as a country are under the thumb of those damned socialists and closet communists as a result of compulsory voting. He ties his argument into contemporary politics with this:

Today we find ourselves so far to the ‘left’ that we’re set for the world’s biggest carbon tax, we have a climate change authority & several other climate change bureaucracies, a government owned and controlled national internet provider, and there’s even talk of an internet filter and media censorship; not to mention the government’s flagrant abuse of power with its constant lies, duplicity, and growing disregard for public opinion. We shouldn’t be anywhere near this point.
Compulsory Voting is the type of insidious socialist deception that the ALP and the Greens thrive on: a biased electoral system disguised as being more democratic than democracy. It’s the perfect socialist tool. That’s why Julia Gillard informed a group of Americans recently that Compulsory Voting was her favorite aspect of the Australian electoral system.

Well I'll be buggered. Why didn't I see that? Our Prime Minister (a devout socialist) favours compulsory voting and that proves beyond doubt it is all a socialist plot. I will come back to this a bit later.
I don't know of any convincing evidence that compulsory voting favours one side or the other and if we take US or UK experience into account voluntary voting hasn't prevented the election of conservative governments. Nor has compulsory voting prevented the election of conservative governments in Australia.
There is a Parliamentary Library Research Brief (October 2005, revised March 2008) that discusses the subject at length and it has this to say about compulsory voting favouring one side or another:

For the political parties, the most important question associated with the retention/abolition of compulsory voting is personal: does compulsory voting help or hurt our cause? Over the years, many observers have claimed certainty on this question, but the evidence remains inconclusive, making any estimate very difficult. As the earlier Parliamentary Library paper on compulsory voting put it, ‘no group or party can be sure of how it would be affected by the abolition of compulsory voting.’

The paper goes on to quote many conservatives who in fact think that the abolition of compulsory voting may in in fact damage the conservaties more than those damned socialists. But what about the 'great unwashed'? we the voting public? What do we think? Well as you would expect the brief delves into that and says:

Although some Australians no doubt resent having to attend a polling place, opinion polls have long shown that there is a solid amount of community support for compulsory voting:
The majority of Australians endorse compulsory voting and could be said to consent to the obligation to vote, not merely because they feel bound to obey the laws of a relatively just society, but because they apparently regard this particular law and its entailed obligations as a reasonable imposition on personal autonomy.

and then goes on to cite research and opinion polling that show support for compulsory voting ranging from 60% in 1943 to 74% in 2005. There is no meaningful difference in support between major-party voters.

Is compulsory voting really compulsory?
There is of course a field of thought that says we don't actually have compulsory voting what we actually have is 'Compulsory Attendence at a Polling Place' (for those that are registered to vote). It is a myth that I have also put. A quick visit to the AEC website and you will find this:

It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:

• High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
• Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
• High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
• Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
• Krosch [1974] QdR 107
• ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13

Hmm, even I can learn something. Still as we have a secret ballot, those who don't mark the ballot paper will never be found out so, in effect they have only 'attended a polling place and had their name marked off'.


After a bit of further thought and reading on the topic the conservative part of me (that part that favours the staus quo and doesn't like change just for the sake of change) comes down on the side of let's just keep it as it is it doesn't really have much effect one way or the other. The part of me that says 'fixing' things for political reasons ain't the way to go is supported by this from the AEC website:

... in 1915, compulsory voting was introduced in Queensland by the Liberal Government of Digby Denham, apparently concerned that ALP shop stewards were more effective in "getting out the vote", and that compulsory voting would restore a level playing ground (ironically, Denham went on to loose the 1915 election).

 So Mr Kent you have based your arguments on 'nitwit' thinking. It ain't all a socialist plot. It was the conservatives what done it and, although you can't prove it, it seems it is coming back to bite the conservatives in the bum. Go away and do some thinking about and come back with some arguments to abolish compulsory voting that aren't based on a political fix.


So there you have it folks this political tragic has spent much time picking on nitwit thinking and saying nothing interesting when he could have been off smelling the roses and maybe involving himself in a 'real life'. It's been fun tho'

The Opening Gambit

Hi
Welcome to this humble hangout. It is place where I may write about life, the universe and everything oh, and aussie federal politics.You can add you two bobs worth if you wish.

Why is this place called Picking Nits? Well it's a bit of a long story but I will try and keep it short(ish)
Most people know what a Nit Picker is and I have been called many variations of the type with and without abusive descriptors added. A lot of the posts to come (which will be totally random and erratic) will be nit picking and probably pedantic as well but that doesn't explain how I got here or chose the title.
Courtesy of The Free Dictionary some definitions of 'nit' you may (or may not) be aware of:
- a luminance unit equal to 1 candle per square meter measured perpendicular to the rays from the source
- a unit of information equal to 1.44 bits
But the reality is the NITS part comes from my love of acronyms. Acronyms? that doesn't compute!
It's simple really, one day at a blog I have be known to frequent with reckless abandon I asked of the whereabouts and/or health of an on-line persona that I often enjoy discourse with. The reply was 'Nothing Interesting To Say ...'
So there you have it. I have started this blog because I often I have nothing interesting (intelligent?) to say and damn it I am going to say it. If you have nothing interesting or intelligent to say well so be it however if you think what you have to say is even slightly interesting or intelligent then say it here. I guess you can figure that what you say may get picked on. That's just part of life here.
Amongst the hopes I have is that in saying nothing interesting I may shine a tiny bit of light on the subject at hand and possibly provide 1.44 bits of information you may not have been aware of.


House Rules

1. I make the rules, like it or lump it.
2. I will decide when and if the rules have been broken.
3. Have fun with the words used here. Use words as a thing of joy not as weapons.
4. If you disagree with what someone says by all means say so BUT attack the idea or thinking not the on-line persona saying it.
5. Any decisions I make about the rules may well be arbitary but they will be final and correspondence will only accepted by registered post addressed to Santa Claus c/o The North Pole.
6. When in doubt refer to rule 1 if that doesn't clear it up refer to rule 2.

For the moment my audience will be known as 'Gladys' in deference to Phillip Adams and his 'umble radio show because, well, I have delusions of grandeur and hope to have an audience that is as varied and intelligent and big as his. A bloke can dream!!
The door is always open, except when it is closed, please come in but wipe your feet before you enter and, if you are so inclined, you can remove your footwear and leave them on the stoop.