Home > Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL Herman O'HERMITAGE, The EYE-BALL PoliticalZone > EYE-BALL’s Herman on – Democrazy Part X – Offshore Processing and Projecting.

EYE-BALL’s Herman on – Democrazy Part X – Offshore Processing and Projecting.

October 13, 2011
Herman O'Hermitage
Democrazy Part X – Offshore Processing and Projecting.
By: Herman O’Hermitage

Herman O'Hermitage
Believing in sanity is insanity itself. The entire offshore processing debate has now become self interest rather than humanitarian or Australian  or jurisprudent.

On August 9 2011 I wrote about the High Court allowing the Malaysian Solution to be referred to them under the guises of Human Rights, and our obligations to the UNHCR, and our need to protect our borders. Please see https://bleyzie.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/democrazy-the-high-court-of-australia-and-the-police-riots-in-britain/

I was attempting to high light that the High Court was acting out of self interest, as learned figures of history, who changed the world, rather than keepers of jurisprudence. Focus on injustice in all layers of courts and government that occur every day, within Australia. I highlighted examples.

Today the Federal Government Cabinet has scheduled an emergency meeting to consider their amendments to the Immigration Act now that it is understood that the legislation will be defeated on the floor of the House of Reps later today.

The PM should have introduced the bill as a conscience vote, to send a loud and clear message to the High Court that we live in the real world, not a utopian world. One full of different interpretations, different belief and different masters. We can only possibly address what we understand to be jurisprudent. And do exactly that knowing that it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all. What does not kill me only makes me stronger.

In doing so, the elected representatives of the people could have kept the High Court in check.

The power brokers of the ALP can not possibly consider what is beyond short sighted political gain. The same holds for the Opposition. The Opposition see this as a way to force the electorate back to the polls. I believe that Australia is getting ready to throw out this government, but they are just as equally challenged giving the Treasury benches to the Federal Liberal Party, because this issue is not clear cut right and left, or clear cut right and wrong…. it is vexed. Very importantly no election is due for nearly 2 years.

If Onshore Processing is thesis, then Offshore Processing is anti-thesis, then stopping people smuggling is synthesis. A bi-partisan way forward. At the 2007 Federal election, Kevin Rudd presented onshore processing as an alternative to the Howard Government‘s Nauru solution. We cast our individual votes, on a raft of policies, not just one. You can not assume anything about individual voting intentions at that time. There was a change of government, warts and all.

Yesterday we finally had the Carbon Tax legislation passed through the lower house. Anthony Albanese made an interesting point about the debate to achieve this exceeded the debate to commit troops to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The easy response is does that quantity of debate represent all positive, or merely another example of disciples of the Goddess of Size, as compared to efficaciousness. Was every hour of debate truly constructive. It could easily be explained by the proper lack of a clear mandate. Albanese has projected onto the scenario “we are a constructive group, we could be more constructive without the destructive opposition”.

The passage of those bills brought about protest from the gallery in the House of Reps where when the PM attempted to respond to questions in Question Time, parliament was interrupted by chants of “Shameless, Shameless, Shameless” or “No mandate” or “Democracy is Dead”. As I watched this vaudeville, outwardly laughing but internally aghast at the horror, I was deeply considering how the greatest joke of question time is how both sides can ask questions or make statements so wickedly unsubstantiated. “Our
Policies Mr Speaker…. ” “Please explain …. [the unsubstantiated]”.

Every bit of it is Real Politik, as opposed to Government of the people, by the people, for the good of the people.

In this session of parliament we are seeing the government force through much of the most contentious pieces of legislation in a decade. They are doing it with a less than perfect mandate, they are often doing it despite very loud protest and outright opposition, they are doing it despite the opinion polls, and at every aspect it is done from self interest, and overly simplex logic “like the greatest moral dilemma of our time”. The greatest moral dilemma of our time is to act with jurisprudence in all things. To attempt to act with empathy in the allocation of our resources, and to attempt to ensure those outputs are shared equally.

What is most paramount, is that no one acts discouraging the efficiency of the collective, or out of expediency or properly considering the jurisprudence of their actions.

It is hard to see why the Malaysian solution can not be solved using bi-partisan approach. The Greens want onshore processing. The Liberals will happily revert to Nauru and forcing the boats back outside of Australia’s nautical borders. The Labor Party; it is not so clear. They had in 2007 Onshore Processing but now have evolved to the Malaysian solution. The High Court has ruled that the Malaysian solution is at odds to our obligations to UN humanitarian values. Listen to those leaders! Abbott insists the Labor Party endorses their previous Nauru solution, Julia Gillard wants to present only the credentials of the ALP, and diminish any Liberal endorsement.

Therefore she projects her need to prevail upon the opposition. Both are equally guilty.

The entire immigration issues could easily be enhanced. We could give boat people decelerated access to permanent residence visas. They are after all just more UN refugees awaiting relocation. Therefore we could give those who come through proper channels accelerated access to permanent residence. We should replace 457 visas with temporary or conditional visas. We could employ those who claim refugee status work in the remote areas where the mining industry claims their are skill shortages. Because their residency is conditional they would be required to maintain their jobs, in return for a better life, with hope and a future. The mining industry would be forced to re skill those workers, just like we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan by training their own civil forces, overcoming bigotry and hatred. Reinforcing real concepts of egalitarianism.

Bad sadly Democracy is just ideology. The worst part is; those who present as being the keepers of democracy, the politicians, are the greatest charlatans. Simply dopes seeking their individual fame and fortune.


Herman …

  1. October 13, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Well said Herman …

    Your comments are tempered … and your frustrations are evident …

    I did not see yesterdays session – still mixed up over daylight saving time differentials … but the Politics in this debate are as you describe … who holds and is responsible for the welfare of these ‘boat’ refugees … your solution with accelerated and decelerated visa processing is as simple as it is logical … The Minister, Chris Bowen must have considered this if he and his advisors were doing their jobs – so the reason why ‘not’ would be interesting to know.

    Sadly, and to the complete dysfunction of how democracy works in this Nation – ‘Abbott the Rabbit’ and his noxious burrow dwellers framed as Coalition Members – cannot structure any policy on this issue except to use John Howard’s previous NARU solution …

    The ABC’s Q&A discussed this issue at length on Monday nights program – panellists – Journalist Richard Flanagan, and QC Ron Merkel had plenty to offer to this debate – Bill Shorten the ALP Member on the panel had no answer to their constructive alternatives and responses – he drew no credit that favoured the Government with his performance … his responses did show just how stolid the Government is on their Malaysian solution – and how Shorten is forever in Gillard’s debt to have his Ministeral position – he could not have been more sickening in his promotion of the PM. Julie Bishop was also on the panel – and was as equally tongue twisted in trying to respond to the alternatives put forward.

    As you suggest – they are all peacocks posturing in some type of courting dance where both are losers with no real intent to bed one another. The dance is more important to them then the outcome and the help the Government is charged with delivering.

    To be direct – any response that paints Australians as inhumane will come back to haunt the Government of the day … we love our charity profile and this Government’s response to the baiting by the opposition has nothing to do with the mandate they had in 2007 …

    Gillard once again demonstrates how un-Australian she is … she has no barometer that links her with the Australian public or sense of themselves …

    Your post Herman is the tip of the iceberg … please in your next Democracy post – give us your full blast and call the end to DEMOCRACY – the TWO PARTY Government structures and emphasis is not true DEMOCRACY – when any vote in the house is not a conscious vote – and the Party comes before the Members true heart – then DEMOCRACY is already dead.

    Great post …


  2. Herman
    October 14, 2011 at 12:45 am

    You ask me to write a thesis rather than a blog. Two party politics has totally debased democracy.

    At any election you get 40% vote employers rights because of their individual bigotry, and 40% vote for the employees rights because of their individual bigotry. Therefore the 20% who actually vote according to their perception (conscience) create every government. Those 80% who never change their vote are the real problem in entrenching two party politics. It is not apathy, and the word bigotry is very harsh, but can they understand that the entire process comes down to; we only have to wait before the political pendulum swings back our way. That type of attitude creates this vaudeville we call goivernment. Tony Abbott will come up with ridiculing tactics, and even more sadly the government who have the numbers until the issue of the next election writ, simply practice self preservation.

    If voting was not compulsory would this change. Could those 20% who actually change their vote, create new alternatives?

    During the post election period last year when the way forward was unclear, some expressed to me fear because of that uncertainty. Who would be the next PM? Some said go back to the polls. Both are equally nonsense. Today I believe the lack of indepence by the independants is the greatest setback to progression. If Andrew Wilkie was to bring down this parliament, what might occur to him at the next election?

    When you hear from Windsor and Oakeschott they tend to espouse “Australian’s don’t like early elections”. Australians don’t like being manipulated for political purposes. I believe many Australian’s would welcome going back to the polls, where the government is unworkable.

    For now I will dwell on what you have said Eyeball. Rene Descartes, Thomas Jefferson and Oliver Cromwell would never accept what we have as any type of democracy.

    I would outlaw collusion in government, and that includes lobbyists. But simply imagine accusing someone of not voting according to their conscience. Now that is insanity.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: