Vic Rollison reports on a shocking – and revealing – week for Australia’s alternative prime minister, Tony Abbott.
In hindsight, Tony Abbott probably wishes he took a holiday on Monday and didn’t turn up to work all week. He’s had a shocker, especially on Wednesday and Thursday — as was reported by Barry Cassidy on The Drum.
Some people might choose to see his performance on ABC 7:30 as anomaly in an otherwise successful run as opposition leader. Perhaps Lisa Wilkinson’s interview on Channel 9 was another anomaly?
It could be argued that the historically soft treatment of Abbott by the mainstream media is now causing his downfall. When a politician is challenged on a daily basis, they get stronger, smarter and better at finding the right answer at the right time. Abbott proved, when challenged by Sales and Wilkinson, that he had nothing.
Flustered, defensive and confused. No three-word slogan could hide his ineptitude.
Conversely, Gillard, who has been constantly challenged by the media since becoming Prime Minister, produced a calm, calculated and consistent performance in a marathon press conference on Thursday. And Abbott couldn’t even be bothered watching this conference, or reading the transcript later.
It could also be argued that Abbott’s terrible week was the inevitable outcome of an unintelligent campaign. His strategists have backed themselves into a corner on several policies.
The carbon price was, according to Abbott, meant to wreck the economy. Now that it hasn’t, he surely has to drop this line completely.
The NBN was meant to be a complete waste. But people want faster broadband, and if they don’t get it, it will now be Abbott’s fault.
The mining tax was apparently meant to reduce investment in a booming industry. But the postponed Olympic Dam project Abbott claimed was put off because of the mining tax, is a project exempt from this tax that only includes coal and iron ore. (Coal and iron ore projects continue to grow, bringing record investment).
Craig Thomson or Peter Slipper were meant to bring down the government. But now all anyone is talking about is Kathy Jackson (whose partner, Michael Lawler, is friends with Abbott) and James Ashby, whose sleaze is rubbing off on Brough, Pyne and Abbott.
Gillard was meant to be untrustworthy and a liar. But what has she lied about? Abbott is the one showing himself to be a pathological liar — did he read the report or not?
In my view, both the above points are contributors to Abbott’s woes this week. But he has a much larger problem, one which I don’t think he’s going to be able to fix.
This problem is his conceited belief in his own infallibility.
He genuinely believes he was born to lead. He thinks that because he was born into a privileged life, he has innate advantages over anyone who was born ‘below him’.
You see, this attitude a lot in white men of Abbott’s age, who were born with silver spoons in their mouths, educated at elite schools, given everything in life without learning how to really fight for something, or to compromise to achieve success.
The worst part is, people like Abbott don’t even think of themselves as lucky. They think they’ve somehow ‘earned’ their success, through the quality of their ‘breeding’.
But in my experience, these are exactly the type of people who don’t have what it takes to compete. Abbott never had to be all that intelligent, he never had to have charisma or a likable personality. He says things that he thinks are perfectly normal, which deeply offend large sections of the population.
Most of the commentary around Abbott’s pathetic interview on 7:30 this week has centered around his admission that he didn’t read the BHP report he had been commenting on all day. But there was another question that showed Abbott’s true colours:
LEIGH SALES: Do you – I’m asking you though, not about the Government. I’m asking: do you accept that it’s legal to come to Australia to seek asylum by any means – boat, plane – that it is actually legal to seek asylum?
TONY ABBOTT: I think that people should come to Australia through the front door, not through the back door. If people want a migration outcome, they should go through the migration channels.
LEIGH SALES: That’s an answer to the question if I asked you: how do you think people should seek asylum?, it’s not an answer to the question: is it legal to seek asylum?
TONY ABBOTT: And Leigh, it’s the answer I’m giving you because these people aren’t so much seeking asylum, they’re seeking permanent residency.
It’s language like ‘the back door’, and the suggestion that people arriving by boat are somehow trying to ‘cheat’ the system to get permanent residency, that shows who Abbott really is at his core. He has no empathy with the plight of desperate people who are risking their lives to escape unimaginable terror. He’s never been desperate or scared. He’s never had to make a tough decision — so why would we, as a country, let him make tough decisions on our behalf?
Abbott wants power because it will make him feel good about himself. He’s not a leader. He’s a fraud. With a year until the next election, I hope that more Australians see him for who he really is. His success in life, to use his own phrase, arrived ‘through the back door’. The back door of a petty, privileged, life.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License








51 Comments
But it is Gillard who wrote Australia out of the migration act in an act even more vile than Howards because she has never been challenged over her own racism.
Victoria, she is vile. Why on god’s green earth do you defend her.
“white men” sheesh.
You spoiled an otherwise decent article.
Why on earth some people continue to believe that racism towards ‘whites’ is acceptable is beyond me. I guess all those brown countries must be absolute paragons of enlightenment and equality? How do you explain Indias caste system? For gods sake cut it out. If someone said the same thing about another skin colour they would be flayed, and deservedly so. IA editors, please lift your game on this.
MarilynS >> Is there any truth in the rumour that you were bitten by a dog “allegedly” owned by Julia Gillard seventeen years ago??
MarilynS, you have every right to hate our Prime Minister and to publicise this hatred regularly. But since this article is about Abbott, could you at least acknowledge that if you don’t vote for Gillard, you are voting for Abbott. What do you think about his asylum seeker policy?
Matt, I’m sorry if you were offended at my observation that white, privileged men think they are born to rule. I stand by this though. I am referring to an observation about Australian society, and I don’t think the Indian caste system has anything to do with Australia. It’s funny how any mention of race makes some people scream ‘racism’. Sheesh!
Victoria, what you wrote, gathered from observation or not, is racism by the proper definition of the word. It is stupid and unnecessary. What does India have to with anything? Are you even aware how many Indians are in Australia? How about all the other cultures that make up our society? You see white people seeking power, I see a rainbow. I chose India as a single example of institutionalised bigotry that we do not have anything like in Australia, a country built on ‘white man’ law. Do you realise that in Britain they are taught in school that it is impossible to be racist towards white people? What kind of behaviour do you think this cultivates in children? Bigotry is bigotry, it doesn’t matter what colour it comes from or what colour it is directed at. It is your blinding hypocrisy and selective vision that bothers me far more than any racial insult. For the record, I’m not angry my race was insulted(I have thicker skin than that), rather I am furious that you think it is OK to stir the pot on one side only. Moral relativism does not lead to any kind of harmonious society.
lawriejay >> did the dog have rabies? That might explain a lot.
I was a bit turned off by the ‘white men’ comment too. Although I do get the gist of it, I don’t think that attitude is limited to ‘white men’ in Australia.
Tony Abbott shows yet again, that he crumbles under pressure, & seems only capable of babbling either scripted slogans, or else murky innuendos about the PM. After viewing the linked clip of the interview with Lisa Wilkinson, where Abbott claimed he was hit with a barrage of questions at the time he was asked if he’d read the report, I again viewed the 7.30 interview. He wasn’t at all. The question couldn’t have been clearer. He has been caught out in a blatant lie, yet will there be much media scrutiny of his dishonesty? I doubt it. It was such a refreshing change to see Lee Sales finally asking some genuine questions of him, & not letting him get away with slithering out of answering them. It didn’t go far enough, but at least it is a step in the right direction. I hope it will lead an ongoing scrutiny of the man who will be our PM if opinion polls are correct; rather than just being an anomaly in his otherwise free-ride to the lodge. I wonder if his minders & PR troupes will be allowing him to attend any more interviews.
It was not that long ago that the european empire pretty much controlled the planet and thought of non Europeans as being somehow inferior. Australia of course had a white Australia policy which unfortunately prevails in some parts of Australian culture today. Victoria Rollison You have every right to expose right wing ( or left wing) predjudices, If you exposed Mugabe as a black racist I would also acept that as being fair and accurate.
Bad logic lesmurdieking
Does Australia have a “White Australia” policy today? Of course not. If it did, would this change the ambitions and motivations of those who are not white? Of course not. Unless of course, you are saying, that this is some trait unique to whites, in which case, that would be racist. Success is not an indicator of motivation. While there is undeniably racism in Australia, to somehow think that a born to rule attitude is exclusive to white elites is either naive or bigoted. She did not expose anything people already didn’t know. What of value was added to the article by adding ‘white men’ in there as she did? It is conflating issues, and messily. If one wants to make a point about racism, its much better if they don’t come across as a racist themselves, by making textbook racist statements.
Marilyn anyone who carries a hatred of a person, as you do of the Prime Minister is in Abbotts league. You are a tired boring cranky old lady who should lie down more. You know its true.
Matt I guess we agree to disagree racism is prevelant In most countries, Anders Behring Breivik is of course the extreme example, Its strange how its O.K. for The Media to use the term Muslim extremist, but not allowed to (if they believe is the case) white supremacist. Again I will fully agree with Victoria Rollison’s depiction of Tony Abbot Its definately the way I see him, Sexist and racist. haha you dont have to be white or a man to fit this catagory but again good article Victoria Rollison
Refreshing down to earth article this one.
Not the always lukewarm give with one hand, take with the other, fence sitting, don’t really care, arrogant, self opinionated, aren’t I smart Bernard Keane stuff on Crikey. It really get’s boring over time. I have made it a habit to promote IA material wherever I can.
Some commentary by Crikey posters for example are more interesting than Keane’s often mediocre “hogwash”. Unfortunately trolls and dummies frequently spoil thoughtful contributions. Unavoidable I guess. Free speech and all. Again, keep it up IA, well done!
If you are white and from several generations of privilege (as I am from at least 150 years of middle class professionals)you are streets ahead of others and in particular, people of other colours.
It simply cannot be denied. I live in an area with a sizeable indigenous population. Every now and then I put myself in their place to remind myself that the reason I have felt secure all my life is because of that middle class security I have had in the background.
To come from a white Anglo Saxon background is to be a thousands steps ahead of others. To know that in your lifetime one sector of this country-the original inhabitants were basically legally denied everything I was able to access is a permanent reminder of our racist beginnings.
Most certainly some from that shocking background will rise to the top. But they won’t have had the easy ride I did.
*********
As I watched Tony Abbott on Leigh Sales I re-called how John Howard or Bob Hawke would have easily batted away a curly question and often turn it to their advantage which does not mean they were necessarily better men but certainly better politicians.
I always thought Abbott was a strange choice for the Coalition and a huge risk. He will never be PM.
Oscar, thank you for illustrating how to make a point on racism with eloquence and gravitas. Cheap throw away lines however I feel are counter productive.
Like MarilynS, I find steam coming out my ears when I think about the cowardly bipartisan “deterrence” policy on refugees. Likewise the NT Intervention. If Gillard is not a racist, she seems comfortable using policies that have racist and xenophobic effects. But she’s undeniably a better politician than Abbott. The idea that a moron of his calibre could become PM is profoundly demoralising. I guess I’m backing the smooth-talking hypocrite over the sleazbag used-car-salesman, but only insofar as it’s a two-party race. I’m sure we can do better than either.
Yes I have met and had meetings with and talks with Gillard on a number of occasions Anne, have you?
She was holding meetings for the racist lock ém up on Christmas Island or make them stay home policy for refugees, she was Ruddock’s biggest fan.
Meeting 1. a meeting at the trades and labour council of Adelaide – panel was Jeremy Moore of the Woomera lawyers, David Cox from the ALP seat of Kingston, Ian Hunter ALP secretary of SA, now gay MP unable to marry because of Gillard and a Sabean Mandaean refugee doctor who had become a refugee from Iraq because our own Richard Butler made Saddam Hussein thing he was a weapons doctor instead of a microbiologist testing poo and wee.
His family were trapped in Baghdad, he was sick and exhausted after 11 months in Woomera,couldn’t get a job because of the TPV that the ALP voted for with Ruddock, couldn’t get his family out of Baghdad. She was asked to intervene by this lovely man and refused point blank. When I challenged her loudly about the many human rights instruments we had ratified and rights under the refugee convention she stared blankly at the crowd. That nice doctor took 5 more years to get his wife and kids here, 3.5 of them while we were helping to bomb Iraq to bits.
Meeting 2: a Woomera lawyer confronts here at a meeting with evidence of a young homosexual man’s death by stoning evidence. She flatly refused to intervene because “being stoned to death was not persecution under the convention”. WE pleaded with her for 30 minutes at the end of the meeting and her only response was that refugees should not seek asylum in Australia but should apply at home – which showed her complete ignorance because refugees cannot apply at hoem.
Her colleague in the senate got this man out of detention after 7 years,he is now insane and damaged beyond repair and she could have helped to prevent 4 years of that detention if she had a little less contempt for human rights.
3. On the phone she is giggling like a maniac with the red neck shock jock Jeremy Cordeaux about how wonderful it will be to turn boats back to sea because they should apply at home. Senator Jacinta Collins rang me in hysterics to get the Human rights watch report into what happened to those we had sent illegally back to Indonesia before.
Today her racist ignorant attitude thinks it is OK to exile people to Nauru where they face permanent exile, Japanese encaphalitis, malaria, rabies and deportation to their deaths.
My attitude is not born of the ignorance of people who have never seen or talked to her, she is the coldest person I have ever met and the room turned cold when she walked in the doors.
So yes Anne, do grow up.
The ALP in general make me ill but for Rollison to claim if I don’t vote for Gillard I vote for Abbott shows that Victoria really is a silly little girl.
I can’t vote for either of them but wouldn’t if I could.
I don’t and won’t vote for a major party while they are full of racist spivs.
And Anne, when people and children die of malaria and encephalitis on Nauru or Manus island after the pretext is to stop them drowning will you care or are brown people of all descriptions as far outide your vision as they are hers.
I don”t think 59 is all that old dafid, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Gillard is cruel, pure and simple.
Abuse single mothers, refugees, aborigines and gays. Howard is overtly bigotted drag.
Great article Vic. The basics of the whole thing is do you want Julia Gillard in charge or Tony Abbott? Take your pick but be careful what you wish for. Rememeber the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Some times you have to stand by the best of the worst, at least then you may be able to facilitate som echange in them. I agree Marilyn, Dafid should loose the old bit. I am 49 and quite often self opinionated and myopic in my view but not old from where I’m standing.
Kindest regards.
Kindest regards
Super article Victoria, abbotts arrogance may yet bring him undone. Please keep up the excellent work you are doing.
MarilynS The story is about Abbott a man with a bad bad history towards the female sex shame on you for supporting this tyrant.
Your attack on our brilliant female Prime Minister Gillard is un called for.
I have nothing but support and respect for this kind lady Ms. Gillard.
As for the clown you respect that is Abbott you can have him and glorify him by yourself.
Matt, this article is about the nature of privilege, not race. You’ve missed my point. Good luck with your tangent.
And as I said, the rest of the article would be fine, if not for that lame racist remark that you couldn’t resist and continue to stand by. See Oscars post for tips on how to be effective.
Even Marilyn made a decent post this time, hardly any obligatory abuse. Much more convincing and easier to read than her usual style.
Marilyn, can you please explain how I am a ‘silly little girl’ (charming by the way!) for pointing out that if you don’t vote for Gillard, you’re voting for Abbott? You do understand the preferential voting system don’t you? It doesn’t matter who your first preference goes to. It only matters whether Labor is preferenced above Liberal/Nationals or the other way round. If you submit a donkey vote, you’ve voted for no one- thus supporting Abbott as Gillard loses a vote. Who is the silly one again? With your hatred for Gillard, I would assume you would preference her last. In which case you are voting for Abbott. Have you had a chance to analyse his asylum seeker policy yet or will you worry about that when it happens? Silly Marilyn.
Abbott’s asylum policy is not much worse than Gillards. Both are depraved.
Be nice to each other. Civil discourse. I have and will continue to delete comments containing personal abuse.
Marilyn, you know as well as I do that you are either voting for Abbott or Gillard to lead this country (if they are both leading their parties come the next election) when you vote at the ballot box. To claim otherwise is either delusional or stupid.
Your hatred of Gillard is very personal. Bowen is the Minister for immigration yet he never gets a mention in your hysterical ranting. Your grievances with the government’s assylum seeker policy are one thing, but your personal attacks on Gillard just make you look like an obbsessive hater. Is that your aim?
People would listen to you more, and your comments on this site would be be more credible, if you took your ravings down a notch and tried a bit of listening/thinking before screaming. You could start by reading the articles you’re posting on as you quite obviously haven’t read this one.
I have a technique for dealing with trolls. Firstly, identification. They are often aggressive or abusive in their tone, they say the same things over and over and over, and, their comments are often not related to the article they are commenting on. Sound familiar? Once identified, I simply scroll right past their comments. I would highly recommend this technique, as the hope is that they say their piece once only – which everyone is entitled to do – or go away. BTW the facebook page called “Tony Abbott will never be prime minister” is absolute gold. Worth a look.
Bloody good article Victoria I look forward to the IA articles & The Political Sword to get a good dose of sanity but it does get spoilt by the abusive trolls, I now follow the same technique as critical mass “scroll past them”.
yeah even kosh on sunrise pushed him on a couple of things, and didn’t look convinced with the answers. but now i can’t find the vid to link.
between kosh, wilkinson, sales, faine, grattan… my inner conspiracist is saying that reporters have been given the go ahead to do their proper job on him, which when it comes to abbott spells his end in short order.
we may soon hear new opp’n leader turnbull telling us about how the opposition had lost its way… he wouldn’t be wrong but it’s been lost since shortly after fraser imo.
a coalition gov with turnbull wouldn’t be as hard to take, but still not ideal (ideal would be the greens imo), because who else could he have on his front bench besides mal washer and judy moylan. the rest have well and truly tarred themselves with the mad monk brush.
I knew he would fall but hoped it would be sooner rather than later. I think Abbott has now become an embarrassment to his mates in the Coalition and they are starting to look stupid defending him, with the exception of course of Christopher Pyne who is another schoolyard bully who enjoys his role and couldn’t give it up.
MarilynS…your comments and opinions are as boring and predictable as your hero Abbott’s performances lately.
Try taking the advice of others commenting, including Victoria, and tone down your one eyed crap. You’re really nothing more than a sycophant. You’re real name is not Peta Credlin is it?
It’s people like you that give these blogs a bad name.
Hi Victoria, interesting article and I hope it is okay if I make a point or two. Abbott has lied but you ask the question, ‘What has Julia lied about?’ “There will be no Carbon Tax under the Govt I lead”! Pretty big lie. At least Howard with his GST took it to the vote of the people.
The other point is that, there are legal ways for desperate asylum seekers to get into this country. I would love to know why these desperate people fleeing from extreme and terrible conditions do not want to stay in friendly Indonesia where their belief and culture is supported? Why do they get to Indonesia and feel so unsafe that they have to flee that country? I can’t blame them wanting to come to our magnificant free country were the welfare system is very supportive though.
According to the ABC today, The Financial Review has reported that in a speech to a Westpac forum earlier this month John Howard urged Tony Abbott to return to individual employment contracts which were the key plank in the WorkChoices laws.
The ABC also maintained that Tony Abbott said the Coalition will not go back to the past on industrial relations policy and does not want to revisit the laws which have been blamed in large part for Mr Howard’s defeat.
But in July 2010 Tony Abbot said:
“I mean, Work Choices, it’s dead, it’s buried, it’s cremated now and forever. But obviously I can’t give an absolute guarantee about every single aspect of workplace relations legislation. But Work Choices is gone now and forever.”
Regarding the GST, just prior to the 1998 election John Howard said:
“The fact is that the last election was a referendum on the GST. There is no way we can have it as part of our policy for the next election. Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by the voters last election.”
Double-tongued echoes from two two-faced four-flushers.
You may have been misled workingmum, this article is about abbott,not asylum seekers.
No, not mislead, I was addressing points if you read my comment correctly. Vic brought up about Asylum seekers and I was addressing this point. Also answering a question about that was written in red that by Vic as to ‘what has she lied about?’ Yes John Howard did say there would be no GST, do not deny that but he did have the gumption to take it to the people. Unlike this current govt. Please read what I write correctly before trying to correct me. Regards
You must have missed everyone explaining that seeking asylum is a legal way to enter this country
Richard, you are 100% correct, however it is illegal if they have come from a country ie:Indonesia where they are not faced with persecution. Now we are really off the topic. Just wanted to address Richard. Cheers
No, I am afraid you are again incorrect. It is not illegal to seek asylum under any circumstances, whether or not you come through a third country. In fact, Leigh Sales picked up Tony Abbott in this very point last week on 7.30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXhbg80E2JE
I will write it again real s l o w…… It is not illegal if you are fleeing persecution. However Indonesia is not a country where they are fleeing persecution. If they were coming straight from Afghanistan, then yes they are rightly able to seek Asylum. They have asylum in Indonesia.
Workingmum, if you don’t know your facts, please don’t be arrogant as it makes you look foolish. Once again, you are incorrect, it is NOT illegal to seek asylum in Australia after coming through a third country.
Note:
“Seeking asylum in Australia, or elsewhere, is not illegal. In fact, it is a basic human right. All people are entitled to protection of their human rights, including the right to seek asylum, regardless of how or where they arrive in Australia, or in any other country.”
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html
DD, that quote is from the part titled “What are the Commission’s views about sending asylum seekers to third countries?”
While “illegal” is used in the opening statement, it does not specify the legality of the final statement. It is fair to say, that particular comment may be a “view” and not a “law”. I’d like to see the laws.
No, the law is very clear under the Un Refugees Convention 1951 which Australia is a signatory. http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
Note:
The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2011_RW_ResourceKit_Ch4.pdf
We have, of course, discussed this matter at length before on IA, so it is surprising we are going over this barren ground again.
DD, what bothers me, is that those who argue the law, don’t seem to actually know it. You have not yet quoted any laws.
What bothers me Matt, is that I did quote a law – the 1951 Refugee Convention – a very important international law in which Australia has adopted by being a signatory, and yet you are stilly making silly statements.
workingmum is a liberal troll trying to deflect the stuff-ups of abbott. My advice is to stop feeding her.
I’ll be really brief.
One word and two syllables longer than an Abbott three-word slogan.
“Abbott is a moron”
The law. Anyone want to continue to argue the lies peddled?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20mas
“60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an “unlawful” entrant and an “unlawful non-citizen” that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as “uinlawful non-citizens” because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.
61 The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called “unlawful non-citizens” in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950′s (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are “unlawfully” in the country in which the asylum application is made.
62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”
Now those four paragraphs make the law pretty clear and that was upheld by three more judges in the Full Court of the Federal court in April 2003 after Akram had been deported.
So far so good on the “unlawful” = “illegal” story.
So let’s wander off to the High Court appeal which became Behrooz, Al Kateb and Al Khafaji and have a look at the meaning of “unlawful”.
GUMMOW J: What is the baggage of the word “unlawful”?
MR BENNETT: Your Honour, none. It is a word used in a definition provisihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/456.html?query=behroozon, it is simply a defined phrase. It is not a phrase which necessarily involves the commission of a criminal offence.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/458.html?query=behrooz
“GUMMOW J: What is the force of the word “unlawful”?
MR BENNETT: It is merely a word which is used in a definition section, your Honour.
GLEESON CJ: Does it mean without lawful permission?
MR BENNETT: Yes, that is perhaps the best way of paraphrasing – - –
GUMMOW J: But in the Austinian sense that is meaningless, is it not?
MR BENNETT: Yes, your Honour. The draftsperson of the Act is not necessarily taken to be familiar with the – - –
GUMMOW J: Well, perhaps they ought to be.”
Wow, so the word unlawful is legally meaningless.
Who would have thought. But wait it get’s better.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/37.html?query=al%20kateb
Here is the actual judgement. Paragraph 86 is there for all the world to see.
“From 1901 to 1994, federal law contained offence provisions respecting unlawful entry and presence in Australia, which was punishable by imprisonment as well as by liability to deportation. The legislation gave rise to various questions of construction which reached this Court[90]. The first of these provisions was made by the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) (“the 1901 Act”)[91]. Section 7 thereof stated:
“Every prohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months, and in addition to or substitution for such imprisonment shall be liable pursuant to any order of the Minister to be deported from the Commonwealth.
Provided that the imprisonment shall cease for the purpose of deportation, or if the offender finds two approved sureties each in the sum of Fifty pounds for his leaving the Commonwealth within one month.”
As enacted in 1958, s 27 of the Act continued this pattern. That provision eventually became s 77 of the Act, but this was repealed by s 17 of the Migration Reform Act 1992 (Cth) (“the 1992 Act”). It has not been replaced[92].”
Talking about Abbott, looks like his little plaything Kathy is in a world of trouble.
The amounts listed in the charges made by the union president are extraordinary and her complete lack of regard to the union workers let alone HSU members is truly astounding.
I wonder if the HR Nicholls society will invite her back.
Gee, no more come backs on the actual refugee laws.
What a shock that the ignorant run and hide from facts.
it’s a great article. I didn’t detect any racism in it but then again I am white, so that could be my fault.
Abbot has long been discussed in our house as a not very effective politician. Politicians for as long as I can remember have been very adept at deflecting questions & indeed turning them around to their benefit. Remember his enraged silence at the channel 7 reporter?
Even though I don’t believe he’s very effective as a politician, his spin doctors have given him quite a few pearlers & somehow these seem to resonate in the ears of voters.
‘Illegal immigrants’ & ‘jumping the queue’ are 2 examples of those … workingmum has obviously been listening during a press conference or two. There IS NO SUCH THING as an illegal immigrant, the same as it is not illegal to claim asylum in Australia no matter which country you make your final journey from. There are cases of genuine & non-genuine refugees, but Abbot & co have turned all those PEOPLE into illegals. I emphasised the ‘people’ part because it makes it very easy for Australians to forget they are people. It makes it easier to turn our heads if we’re conned into believing they’re all criminals to begin with. Criminals who have JUMPED THE QUEUE no less. BTW, there is no queue either … but the effectiveness of just those two examples have & will continue to stick in the minds of voters & they repeat them everyday. Have you ever read the comments on the Q&A fb page after an immigration question? It beggars belief, but the majority of people think they have it right … just like workingmum
Apologies to all, I was incorrect. Have a lovely weekend.