Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Rudd’s Latest Master Stroke or Latest Brain Fart

Rudd’s Latest Master Stroke or Latest Brain Fart



“they’re calling it a master stroke
Kevvie’s such a lovely bloke
a holiday on PNG
all at cost to you and me”

Our recently re-installed Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has pledged to give asylum-seekers “no chance” of settling in Australia if they arrive by boat, under a dramatic toughening of border protection.

This latest Rudd brain fart is a time bomb in the making. Band-Aid Kevin strikes again. Not only will Australian taxpayers have to stump up the money to pay for asylum seekers to be housed in PNG, taxpayers will also have to pay millions extra in aid to PNG to build the infrastructure required to house the influx of thousands of muslim ‘refugees’.

Rudd is now returning to Howard’s solution of stopping the boats, albeit with massive spending. After ten years of denigrating the Howard government for its refugee policy, Labor is now realising that its own inhumane policies aren’t working.

I wonder if the leftist media will say sorry for denigrating conservatives as ‘racist’ for wanting to stop the boats.

As far as a master stroke is concerned, at the current rate of a hundred boat people a day, it won’t take long to fill up Manus Island and other proposed PNG detention centres.

This is a stop-gap, vote winning ploy and nothing more. It won’t save one cent from the exorbitant cost that Australia has been paying for supposed ‘asylum seekers’ since Labor came to power in 2007 and it won’t stem the flow of ‘country shoppers’.

Once again, will Labor and the Left admit that they got it wrong on refugee policy when they demonised John Howard’s Liberal government?

Probably not.

Another day in Labor, another Labor failure.


  1. deknarf says:

    And the NO Coalition’s unworkable Stop the Boats slogan probably won’t work, still cost heaps, and probably create friction with a near neighbour! Yep! Great solution!

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Well thanks for posting this GD.
    While I agree with your cynicism about Rudd and Labor we can not deny that this may just provide the sort of disincentive that we need to stop the flow of boat arrivals, and in terms of the costs well they could be quite manageable if this is the disincentive is enough to substantially lower the numbers. Further it can replace/ enhance some of the general aid money that already flows to PNG,
    From the PNG point of view they have the chance to have some educated , talented and resourceful immigrants but on the downside many of them are Muslim . one final point about PNG as a disincentive is the centrality of the pig to the economies of their indigenous people which will be bound to play really well to Muslims.

    Assuming that Abbott wins the election this may well be the icing on the “stop the boats” policy that is needed to “freshen it up” for a new election because when it comes down to it even if this does “stop the boats” there will be no escaping the fact that it was Rudd who started them coming with his ill thought out changes early in 2008 and I doubt that voters will forget that in a hurry or that the coalition won’t be reminding them of this FACT very often during the campaign.

    Finally I’ve been watching the coniptions among the far left over at Lavatus Preodo and it has been sending shivers of delight down my spine with quite a few of then declaring that they won’t even preference Labor so that could be an electoral plus to this policy shift as well.

  3. James says:

    Having lived and worked in PNG for a number of years I can tell you this is more than a time bomb this setting up a disaster on our front doorstep that even a person like Rudd who thinks he’s a bright spark can’t even see.

    PNG is a volatile country at the best of times, having said that it is also a strong Christian country and they will have no end of trouble with a mass influx of Islamics whom as we know can’t abide Christian beliefs let alone Christians.

    PNG still has it’s tribal wars, yes we don’t hear a lot about them, but they are on going and violent and this will now introduce a third element of violence into the country.

    What is being set up here is world war Z in PNG and yes Australia will end up in the middle, at a cost of course trying to maintain some sort of peace.

  4. James says:

    Thankyou Ian for allowing me to post on here my thoughts, since writing the above I think I should expand on my post.

    The Rudd boat policy would be good policy IF it stops the boats, good policy if it keeps the flood of these people from landing in Australian communities.

    Bad policy because it’s going to cost billions of dollars ON-GOING and BAD policy because of all the hidden extras which we aren’t and won’t be told about, and BAD policy because it won’t work and is only going to create bigger problems.

    Manus island is north of the PNG mainland, in fact just North of Madang, if it is going to be used as a processing centre and then those there who are accepted as refugees are then going to be sent out into the PNG country side and not allowed into Australia, Australia still has a big if not bigger problem knocking on it’s front door.

    PNG has enough trouble offering employment and other opportunities for it’s own people as it is let alone an influx of people from a totally alien background, so it will be up to Australia to sustain and maintain these people.

    Then there is the fact that PNG is a volatile country at the best of times as I said in my previous post, on a number of fronts. There are inherent tribal differences which result in on going conflicts and daily violence which we don’t hear a lot about here, but believe me it’s a country wide problem. Add to that the criminal or rascal activity which is a daily problem throughout the country, but especially in major population hubs like Port Moresby, Lae, Madang, Mount Hagen because of the lack of opportunity for an already growing population and now you want to add more people who will have little chance of obtaining employment and you are asking for further trouble.

    In addition to this, whilst I’ve stated that the country is volatile at the best of times for a number of reasons it is an overwhelming Christian country and introducing hoards of Muslims, Islamics is going to start a third front for violence. We know that the Islamics have little regard for the Christian faith let alone what they regard as infidels so throwing them into the already chaotic PNG environment with their ‘our way or nothing’ attitude is going to escalate the lawlessness in the country to an all new high.

    Then there is the fact that PNG is only about 30 minutes from Mainland Australia, yes 30 minutes, most people aren’t aware of that. We already have a daily illegal movement of people between Northern Australia and PNG, didn’t know that did you. It’s a problem that is well and truly known to locals in the top end. So what, well the people smugglers will be able to use a new marketing strategy, catch a boat that lands you in PNG, go through the processing, end up in PNG and then grab a row boat and paddle to the Australian mainland and disappear. You think that’s farfetched, sorry but it will be that easy, costly and hard to police. And for people who in the first place spent days on a boat, it’s a piece of cake.

    This is another ill thought out Kevin Rudd/Labor plan, that has been timed simply to try and save some face for the forth coming election. I think with the announcement having only been made about this policy yesterday, yet full page advertising on commercial radio stations in AUSTRALIA and in newspapers around Australia today that is supposed to be aimed at people smugglers shows that this is the fact, it’s electioneering and nothing more. How many smugglers in Indonesia are listening to 2HD Newcastle, 3AW Melbourne etc. etc. or reading the Newcastle morning herald. Labor should be called to task for using Australian tax payers money for a cynical slight of hand electioneering advertising campaign.

    Rudd has conned us again, that’s the bottom line.

  5. Tony says:

    Great insight James, and for me anyway, a chilling read ?

    For me, the important section, in so far as “King KRudd” is concerned, at least credibility wise, is ?

    It is the first vessel to berth at the island, since the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon pledged to give asylum seekers “no chance” of settling in Australia if they arrive by boat, under a dramatic toughening of border protection that is aimed at neutralising one of Labor’s biggest political dangers at the coming election.
    Source : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/first-asylum-boat-arrives-under-rudds-hardline-png-solution/story-fn59niix-1226682289627

    The rhetoric is hard and fast, and about ten years overdue, from either side of the political fence. More like Indonesia has done, hence the reason as to why it is now our problem ? It will be interesting to see what happens, at the source point of this problem ? Will the trips still embark, or will the message finally get through, and they will do what they should have done in the first place ? i.e. Fix the problems in their home lands, diminishing the reason to hit the boats in the first place ?

    The whole thing smacks of political posturing, and we have heard it all before. All the islands in the region have been approached, by Labor, to set up camps there. God, there is simply too many to mention here, and they have all failed, as the places concerned, have simply pocketed the massive amounts of money we have given them. My opinion, is that PNG will be no different here.

    You’re absolutely correct in your assessment of it being another Rudd, (and labor), con job. If he pulls it off though, the whole election will become another issue, and maybe, just maybe, won’t end up being the Liberal walk over that everyone is predicting ?

    May we live in interesting times ?

  6. Tony says:

    thank-you 😉

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    So GD, how is Rudd’s PNG solution any different to Howard’s so-called Pacific solution that you and Abbott lauded as “stopping the boats”? The key element is exactly the same – i.e. it deters asylum seekers from getting on boats in the first place. In Howard’s case it was because they’d end up on Nauru in detention for several years and that’s not a great prospect. Neither is being shunted off to PNG.

    The key difference is this: Those who went to Nauru were eventually admitted to Australia (after 4 or 5 years and under Howard). Those who go to PNG will not be admitted to Australia. And isn’t that what you, GD, actually want? Your criticism of Rudd’s action seems more than a tad hypocritical.

  8. Tony says:

    You’re absolutely correct Ray, but, one cannot but see theh cynicism here ?
    The instances you mentioned are valid, and were also seen to be desperate measures, by either side, facing up to an election at the time ?
    Once perhaps, cannot but wonder, are we all suffering deja vu here ?

    The only way the boat situation will abate, and perhaps stop, is if these smugglers in misery, finally learn, that they will not get to Australia, EVER ! Then perhaps another solution maybe reached, and this form of misery and false promise will cease forever, and put these creeps out of business ?

  9. Richard Ryan says:

    Abbott’s Dream—turn back the boats. Richard Ryan’s dream—-turn back the drones to America—with a little help from Pine Gap. Shalom

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    James, your detailed explanation of how bad a destination PNG would be for refugees actually tells us exactly why Rudd’s plan will work. No asylum seeker will want to go there, ergo no asylum seeker will try to get to Australia by boat. Your suggestion that some might still do it and then try to sneak into Australia across Torres Strait is fanciful in the extreme. The fact is they’d still be illegal, still have no visas and still not be entitled to any welfare or assistance. Where’s the incentive in that? The objective of asylum seekers is to gain permanent residency – not to live a life on the run – so trying to sneak in undetected kind of defeats their objective, doesn’t it? I don’t think you’ll find many (if any) taking that route.

    As for the media ads in Australia, you’re obviously not aware that many people smugglers operate from within Australia and that’s who the ads are aimed at. Of course, they’re also aimed at the electorate to let voters know the government’s new policy and, in that sense, I agree they are also electioneering. But that’s what governments do on both sides of politics – they use paid ads for their own political purposes, always have and always will. Given how much Abbott has bashed the government over asylum seekers did you seriously expect Rudd not to make a big deal about his solution?

  11. James says:

    Ray, my main concern is for the impoverished people of PNG. Have you lived there, have you worked there, it really is an eye opener right on our doorstep.
    PNG can’t handle the problems they have there now, with lack of opportunity for their own let alone arrivals that have no relationship to the type of environment they are proposed to be released into.

    Faniciful, those crossing the Strait, well there are hundreds of PNG nationals that arrive month by month, and not being racist, their skin colour should be a dead giveaway, but they end up beating our system here.

    My entire working life has been in the media, in radio, newspapers and television, both in Australia and overseas and I can smell a mile off an advertising campaign that is suss. Sure I know that there are contacts here in Australia for the people traffickers, BUT, nearly 10 million being spent in AUSTRALIA last weekend with just a fraction of that amount being spent back where the Cruise Line ticket salesmen are, and as a tax payer I have a right to know that my millions are being used in accordance with the laws and to the best advantage. Advertising one of Mr Rudds Brain Farts doesn’t rate with me I’m afraid.

    There are people, particularly in PNG, Government members on both side up there, and others who are now starting to question so many aspects of this so called done deal, many along the lines that I did days ago, so I feel having raised a lot issues prior, should show you that I have more than just a passing knowledge of the country, culture and people of the country and just how little real thought has been put into this by Rudd and Co. apart from a quick election fix.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Well I for one appreciate your insights James

  13. GD says:


    Hypocritical? Not at all.

    The Howard government stopped the boats definitively. Rudd’s ‘arrangement’, because that is all it is, is a flimsy one year ‘handshake’ based on the premise that Australia will trump up millions for infrastructure in PNG in return for PNG hosting a limited number of proven refugees.

    The rest of Rudd’s wet dream is that asylum seekers who aren’t bona fide refugees will be returned to their homeland, good luck with that, or sent to ‘other countries’.

    Other countries will invariably be Australia.

    All hosting of refugees by PNG and other countries will be paid for by Australia in perpetuity. PNG doesn’t exactly have a glut of available jobs, least of all for muslim job asylum seekers who have proven that in Australia they continue to be welfare recipients five years on.

    James’ insights and comments paint an even bleaker picture of the outcome of this ‘arrangement’ with PNG.

    Howard stopped the boat people. He didn’t do it by paying them the dole for the rest of their lives.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    GD & James, a question for both of you:

    How many asylum seekers do you think will get on a boat and head to Australian waters over the next month?

    Take a wild guess.

    (PS: My estimate is pretty close to zero, which should put your ‘concerns’ for the people of PNG to rest, James. What happens beyond the next month depends on who wins the election. If Rudd wins then the zero-per-month figure should continue, but if Abbott wins there’s no way of knowing … because he doesn’t have a policy.)

  15. Iain Hall says:


    If this PNG solution works and Rudd loses the election (as is still likely) the disincentive would remain , and even more so under an Abbot government because to the less than attractive destination of PNG you add TPVs for those already here and discouragement on the high seas. This is an issue that Abbott can’t lose on, no matter what Rudd does he is still trying to fix that which he broke and clearly the Australian people have not forgotten that at all according to the latest Newspoll 😉

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, if the PNG solution works over the next month or so before the election and we see a complete drop off in boat arrivals (which I think we will), the voters will give the credit for that to Rudd. Abbott is already losing support for his ability to “stop the boats” because he does not have a contemporary, workable and thought through alternative.

    And most people won’t judge Rudd on what he did or didn’t do on this issue when he was PM from 2007 to 2010. As I’ve said before, I think you over estimate the importance of this matter in deciding who should form government. It’s the coalition who turned asylum seekers into a political issue but what Rudd has now done is move to neutralise that, leaving Abbott with nowhere to go and no more mileage to be gained by bashing the boat people.

  17. James says:

    Well I have to said Ray you are an optimist. The people Smugglers couldn’t give a toss about Rudd’s plan, all they care about is what goes in their hip pockets and being the honest business people they are will continue to sell their wares like any salesmen with a new twist in the speil.

    Already this morning there was a report out of Indo on the ABC where a smuggler has said as much.

    They will try their dambdest to test this to the hilt. What happens if they plough through 3,000 in the next month, that was suppose to be the cap for PNG, where to then, where are all the cast offs that PNG don’t want, who are these mystery Rudd third countries that are going to take them, don’t see a lot of countries stepping up to the plate.

  18. Ray Dixon says:

    The people smugglers will try but I’d suggest they won’t have that necessary ingredient for a successful sale – being a willing customer. We’ll see – there are a lot of “what ifs” in this issue but at least Rudd is doing something, whereas Abbott just says he’ll “turn back the boats”. That ain’t a plan.

  19. Tony says:

    if the PNG solution works over the next month or so before the election and we see a complete drop off in boat arrivals (which I think we will), the voters will give the credit for that to Rudd

    The main issue that you are forgetting Ray, with respect, is that labor is now trying to fix a problem, that is of their own making.
    Rudd and Co, are running around, saying they have now solved the problem, a problem, that was pretty much solved, under Howard ffs ? The entire problem, is of their own making. The failure to make a hard and fast decision years ago, has led to this latest flood of new arrivals. As James has eloquently stated, PNG has not the resources, physical, and more importantly financial, to deal with this situation inperpetuity. So, what is the difference ? Nothing, the refugees may as well be housed in Australia, as in time, when all the propaganda dies down after the election, is exactly what will happen, when PNG realises that they have been conned by labor run Canberra, and can’t afford to pay for Ruddy’s plan ?

    I wonder what would happen, if, during the upcoming election campaign, a flood of boats arrive, as James suggests ?
    It would be an absolute scream, to see how Rudd and Co would spin it.

  20. GD says:

    If Abbott wins there’s no way of knowing … because he doesn’t have a policy

    Ray, once again, Abbott has the Howard Government’s successful policy to look to. Why would he try to invent another one?

    It worked. TPVs and no family reunion.

    It worked a treat for Howard, it’ll work a treat for Abbott.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    The world has moved on since 2001 and John Howard’s ‘Pacific Solution’. There are more people smugglers and more asylum seekers trying to get here. This is typical Abbott mindset – turn back the clock to old policies that are out of date. He might as well go the whole hog and bring back the White Australia policy. The man’s head is a policy vacuum.

  22. James says:

    RAY, could I point this item out to you from todays news, I think it re-enforces what I was saying several days ago about the tranits from PNG to Australia and the potential for an increase by anyone with a canoe.


  23. Tony says:

    This is typical Abbott mindset – turn back the clock to old policies that are out of date

    The policies may be out of date, but you Ray, as well as any other critic have conveniently forgotten ?

    When you’re on a good thing, stick to it ?

    Yet more boats arrive, and yet more people drown on the journey as was seen yesterday ? Watch Australia get the blame for that ?
    BTW, where is the criticism of Indonesia in all of this ?
    After all, yesterday’s fiasco was entirely their fault.

    What the hell is Australia still doing, sucking up to this corrupt regime. It is time we went to them, with “a bloody big stick”, and stated that they pull their heads in. What are they going to do, attack us with a couple of fifty year old diesel subs, and twenty converted bloody fishing boats ?
    Typical UN again. The gutless cowards !
    I apologise for the tone ! It needs to be said.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    I don’t doubt that some people sneak into Australia from PNG. What I’m saying is that realistically, no one seeking asylum is going to be motivated to enter Australia that way – because it won’t give them residency, assistance or employment. It defeats their whole mission, which is to become an Australian citizen. A legal one.

  25. James says:

    Well Ray, seems it was days ago that I brought this up, and now this morning the papers are carrying the same sort of stories.

    Here’s part of what the Sydney Daily Telegraph has to say;

    Refugees island hop their way back to Australia

    FEARS asylum seekers being resettled in Papua New Guinea could island-hop via the Torres Strait to Australia have been confirmed with up to six refugees carrying contagious diseases already found during the past six months.

    That figure has come from health workers in the region as part of evidence to a Queensland parliamentary hearing which revealed that one of the asylum seekers, a Syrian man, had suspected tuberculosis.

    The confirmation of how porous Australia’s northern borders can be came as the total number of asylum seekers to reach Australia since Kevin Rudd’s PNG solution announcement topped 1200.
    Torres Strait Island Regional Council mayor Fred Gela has demanded a major funding boost to help island communities cope with an expected influx of asylum seekers trying to escape from PNG.

    “When all hell breaks loose, we are going to be the front line,” he said.

    “The Torres Strait is the buffer for all of Australia.

    “There hasn’t been any consideration given to border protection or surveillance.” But Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare’s spokesman said the number of asylum seekers travelling through the region was too small to warrant a permanent facility there to focus on border control.

    These sparsely populated islands are a 10 minute boat ride from PNG and have recently had 26,000 PNG nationals pass through, often seeking treatment for tuberculosis and HIV.

    The most northern Torres Strait island is Saibai Island – just 4km from PNG.

    So how faniciful were my notes from the beginning of the week???

  26. Tony says:

    It will be exactly like the US lads.
    The mexicans allowed across the border, through the gate at 7am, to work at the car factory, and escorted back through the gate, across the border at 5pm ?

    I think you’re correct James. But Ray is partially correct as well.
    These people will be persistent, and they hope, that the old adage of ‘persistance pays off’, will mean that precious green card will be forthcoming eventually ? After all, when, again, have we sent refugees home, once they have arrived ? NEVER ! They not only want residency for themselves, but more importantly, (which neither of you guys have brought up ?), they want residency for their entire families down the track at some point ? To that end, they will play the game, at least until they figure out that Australia is out of their reach, and then watch as they tear PNG apart, and burn it to the ground.

    One point you have to remember James, that upon arrival, these “refugees” are subjected to every health check known to man, as well as inoculated. At least that is one good thing the good ol Aussie taxpayer is funding I guess ? Your problems there, will come from the native islanders, as well as PNG’ers, that don’t attract the same health care, or have the same benefit ?

    It will be interesting for certain, to watch how “the Krudd” gets those dancing shoes of his working, attempting to pull it all off ?

  27. James says:

    Found this just a while ago at New.com. Think it’s a pretty good summation….

    FIJI has attacked Australia’s new hardline asylum seeker policy, warning it could alter the social fabric of the Pacific islands.

    Fiji Foreign Minister Ratu Inoke Kubuabola on Monday launched an acidic broadside against the government’s plan to send all asylum seekers coming by boat to Papua New Guinea for processing and possible resettlement.

    He says Australia used its economic muscle to persuade a Melanesian country to accept thousands of people who are not Pacific Islanders into the region.

    “For an Australian problem, you have proposed a Melanesian solution that threatens to destabilise the already delicate social and economic balances in our societies,” Mr Kubuabola told the 20th Australia-Fiji Business Forum in Brisbane.

    “This deal, and those mooted with Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, clearly threatens our interests by altering the fundamental social fabric of any member country that accepts a deal.

    “We are deeply troubled by the consequent threat to the stability of these countries and the wider Melanesian community by the scale of what is being envisaged.”

    The foreign minister said that while he respected the PNG government’s sovereign right to make the deal, it was done to solve Australia’s domestic political problem for short-term political gain, without proper consideration of the long-term consequences.

    “This was done without any consultation, a sudden and unilateral announcement, which is not the Pacific way and has shocked a great many people in the region,” Mr Kubuabola said.

    “We share the horror of many in the international community at the deaths of more than 1000 asylum seekers trying to reach Australia.

    “But we cannot remain silent when the current Australian government dumps this problem, which is arguably of its own making, on our doorstep.

    “This deal continues a pattern of behaviour on the part of the Australian government that is inconsiderate, prescriptive, high-handed and arrogant.”

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/fiji-attacks-png-asylum-seeker-deal/story-e6frfku9-1226687581386#ixzz2aPWpChuf

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: