Manus settlement: Government and legal system not on Australia’s side


Next time you receive your payslip and see that Pay-as-you-go-withholding line item, spare a thought for the 1900 Manus detainees who have just received a $70 million plus costs settlement from the federal government. These poor blighters are here to culturally enrich our nation and it took a court case for us to realise that we should pay them for the privilege!

Useful idiots.

Even better, law firm (and ambulance chaser satanic spawn) Slater and Gordon were the lawyers for the detainees, and will get to partake in the expected $20 million costs payout.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said “To date, Australian taxpayers have paid more than $13.7 billion to clean up Labor’s loss of control of our borders. Today another $90 million was added to that bill”.

Keep paying your taxes Australia! Remember the government and legal system is (not) on the side of the citizens!

Now would be migrants know that not only does Australia offer a comfy, first world welfare state, but they’ll even pay you if the accommodation and lifestyle that they are somehow obligated to provide you indefinitely (until they cave and let you in), isn’t satisfactory!

Please reflect on this level of suicidal altruism when you’re on a hospital waiting list, transiting via chronically poorly funded infrastructure of our nation, or paying oppressive levels of taxation.

The nation and the West more broadly will not survive if this level of insanity is maintained in policy, we are now just waiting for a restoration or a collapse.

Photo by lovemakesaway

  • Dan Flynn

    Connor, $70m is a drop in the Pacific ocean compared to the billions wasted by the Australian government processing fifty thousand asylum seekers beginning with John Howard’s ‘Pacific solution’ 2001.
    A more humane approach would have saved us a tonne of money which could have been better spend on all those things you mentioned.

    • Bruce Mc

      I think it was actually Paul Keating who started the ball rolling with mandatory detention for boat people back in 1992. So blaming John Howard for starting it is just plain wrong. Yep sure it was big in the media back then with the Tampa affair, but Paul pretty much got away with it and obviously still does to those ignorant of the facts.

      While I am sympathetic to Afghan’s trying to flee the Taliban, the responsibility of the government is to protect it’s borders and to somehow discourage dangerous passages like these. We will never really know how many actually died at sea, I believe the number to be much higher than what is reported, especially by the greens. It makes me sick remembering SHY’s response to the 110 that drown in one trip. So what is the humane response? Let them all come in and then let the floodgates open? If that happens then you are just asking for major trouble… somehow Europe now comes to mind…

      • Dan Flynn

        Hi Bruce, I mentioned since 2001 because there is good data on boat arrivals since then. The reason why Tampa was so big in the media was because of John Howard’s stance on the matter and because 911 had just happened. The media was reporting the ‘stand off’, and as we all know John Howard used the situation to get himself back in power.
        I am not suggesting we have an open border policy, I am pointing out that Australia’s asylum seeker policy has been a debacle. We lock them up indefinitely, subject them to torturous conditions and then pay them compensation. That is retarded beyond words.
        A more humane approach would have been to process them onshore and avoid spending a ridiculous amounts of money essentially bribing Manus Island and Papua New Guinea to act as prisons.

        I am not in favour of just opening the ‘floodgates’ but I am against putting children in prison which is exactly what we have been doing. Imagine if we had spent all those billions on actually trying to address the situation as a humanitarian issue rather than a political issue.

        • Bruce Mc

          Hey Dan,
          So how much are you saying we would save by onshore processing?
          I tend to think not much at all, you still need to find housing, feed them etc….
          There is actually not much wrong with the data going back even to the 80’s.

          The problem with the onshore processing was that people tended to disappear! They were usually the ones that we needed to keep an eye on too… Onshore processing was not a deterrent, that was the problem with it.

          That said I know people who have worked in refugee camps overseas and have also been to Manus and Christmas island and to say they are Prisons is simply not true, they can leave at any time and they know that. “Torturous” is a sensationalist word that is also simply not true of the situation.

          The one thing my friends found is that the refugees we are processing are different to the the ones that they have treated in camps overseas. The real refugees never make it to a boat and couldn’t afford it anyway.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Bruce,
            Obviously i can’t say how much money could be saved from onshore processing, however I can’t help but think the PNG government was paid significant amounts of money to agree to having the detention centres on their land? Also the sheer amount of security staff, doctors, teachers, social workers being constantly flown over there?

            ‘Torturous’ is exactly the right word to use given multiple accounts of doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and teachers who have reported the conditions on Manus. I also personally know people who have worked on Manus and they tell a very different story to the people you know.

            Being able to leave the confines of the detention centre has not been happening for that long, and I’m sure they don’t feel very safe given the fact that they are being attacked by locals.

            The government has been trying to cover this up but there is so much evidence that it is happening. Trying watching ‘Chasing Asylum’. It’s disturbing and illuminating.
            Again, I am not advocating an open border policy but what has occurred in Australia is quite bizarre to me given that the amount of asylum seekers is so low compared with Europe.
            Much to discuss here, not enough time, must get to work
            Cheers Dan

  • Bikinis not Burkas

    Can all the speeding motorists of Australia mount a class action to cet paid for their speeding?
    Can the Federal Government be charged as accessories to people smuggling for admitting the 50,000+ illegal maritime arrivals as they MUST go to the first safe place and they passed many on the way here.
    Unless it is part of the Hijra! Wouldn’t surprise me given the Federal Governments protection of Islam in Australia.
    Muslims are infact being unlawful by coming to Australia!
    As far as emigration for economic reasons is
    concerned, it will be reckoned accordingly. The Prophet (peace and blessings be
    upon him) said: “Actions are judged by intentions and everyone will be judged
    according to his intention. So whoever emigrates for the sake of Allah and His
    Messenger, his hijrah will be reckoned as done for Allah and His
    Messenger. But whoever emigrates for worldly reasons or marrying a woman, his
    hijrah will be reckoned accordingly.”

  • Ray Johnston

    “It’s absolute bullshit. These people came to Australia voluntarily. They could have left voluntarily and they chose not to. They chose detention over going back to where they came from or to other countries and now they’ve ended up being compensated for it. Compensated for what? So you know, it’s nonsense.”