Asylum seekers in 4 Star motel

The Courier Mail reports the Rudd Government have placed 79 illegal boat people in a four star motel in Brisbane. The motel is just down the road from me and it's not my first choice in accommodation as it's too expensive.
The Palms Motel in suburban Brisbane reportedly has been awarded a $1.2 million government contract for at least six months to accommodate the group.
$50,000 a week is good money if you can get it but I can't help feeling that this news will go very well overseas. Just catch a boat, throw away all your papers and the idiotic Aussie will put you up in a four star motel. Of course, they have all been security cleared - haven't they?


  • This Govt has well and truely jumped the shark.

    They are beyond parody.

  • Tonight’s budget will be interesting. Swan has to come up with something that will make the voters think they’ve got a grip on things.
    Can’t see it happening on their performance lately and if he doesn’t stop saying “the Libs are to blame” people will just walk away – they can do the sums as well.

  • Might be 4 star, but I’ve attended two conferences there in the last five years, and it could be best described as aging gracefully.
    The story is a great channel 9 beat-up. Immigrants have been put up in motels since Howard’s day. It’s a lot cheaper and more humane than sticking them behind razor wire in the back of beyond.
    The “We’ll all be murdered in our beds” line is straight out of a goon show script.

    • Except of course for the facts that Howard, for all intents and purposes) stopped the boats coming here, so he didn’t need to put them behind wire or in hotels when he ran out of wire and that immigrants have significantly higher rates of crime than the average.

      You may not be murdered in your bed, but in Melbourne for example, you are far more likely to be stabbed in the street by an immigrant than the average.

      The fact that queue jumpers are in 4 star accomodation (even though it is aging) is a disgrace, the problem was solved, Rudd recreated it and now he is wasting more money trying to hide it rather than admitting that we know exactly how to solve the problem.

      Try dealing in facts rather than ideology.

      • “Try dealing in facts rather than ideology.”

        OK – Some facts.

        “Howard, for all intents and purposes) stopped the boats coming here”.

        *People arriving on boats as unauthorised entry –
        2003 – 53, 2004 – 15, 2005 – 11, 2006 – 60, 2007 – 148.

        Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that a certain John Howard was Prime Minister during these years. So those 287 people don’t count?

        I guess you have a fairly loose interpretation of “stopped”. Either that, or “for all intents and purposes” has a meaning unique to Coalition supporters.

        I understand the “intents and purposes” bit. It obviously refers to the successful wedging tactics employed by the Coalition on this issue since the M.V. Tampa incident.

        Another fact worth noting is that the highest number of arrivals in one year was *5516, more than twice the number that arrived in 2009. I wonder who was PM in 2001.

        * Source – Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976 – Parliament of Australia – Parliamentary Library – Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks – Social Policy Section.

        “so he didn’t need to put them behind wire”

        So, Baxter, Woomera, Port Hedland, Derby, Villawood, Manus Island, Nauru, etc, are all figments of our historical imagination? Are you trying to say that people weren’t behind wire in these places when JWH was PM?

        “you are far more likely to be stabbed in the street by an immigrant than the average”

        Fascinating statement – I’m not sure whether “you” means me personally (it might, given the heinous opinions I hold), or the statement is a generality about the murderous intentions of immigrants. Either way, seeing you are so keen on facts, some statistical data would convert this from bigotry to credibility. Good luck.

        “and now he is wasting more money trying to hide it”

        More money than JWH wasted with his “Pacific Solution”?
        Refer to this extract from “The Pacific Solution or a Pacific Nightmare?: The Difference between Burden Shifting and Responsibility Sharing” – By Dr. Savitri Taylor – ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 6, Issue 1 (Winter 2005) to get an insight into the costs involved –

        “Under the MOU, Nauru agreed to provide accommodation at two sites for a maximum of 1,200 asylum seekers. In return, Australia agreed to meet all the costs associated with the asylum seekers and also promised an additional AUD$10 million in aid measures.”

        It makes the costs quoted (which are journalistic estimates) for the placement of the refugees in the Virginia Palms look like chickenfeed.

        For what it’s worth, both Labor and the Coalition share a shameful record on refugees. What’s even more shameful is the appeal to gutter bigotry exposed in the mainstream media on this issue.

        Yep – you can’t argue with the facts

    • This situation begs the question…..why 4 star ? What is wrong with Budget if we had to go with motels?
      I imagine with a memory as unfailing as yours 17etc that you can remember the accomodation offered to military personnel. I believe that that accomodation was not good enough for people fleeing the threat of death and worse. People who if they stopped along the way at say Malaysia, would be housed in elevated sheds with see through walls surrounded by wire and without access to entertainment facilities etc.
      I can recall in my youth that LEGAL migrants were temporarily housed in nissen huts at a local army camp. Each hut was shared by two families divided in the centre. They ate in a communal hall and conducted their lives from this temporary accomodation, not happily but at least in the knowledge that better was to come. Many were there for years. There was no wire but then they were here legally. Now, entering the country by a means outside the accepted method, people without documents and with unknown origins expect and are given accomodation that many tried and true Australians and non Australians legally here cannot afford.

      It all seems incongruous to me.

  • You are not seriously saying that such tiny arrival figures (compared to before Tampa and once Rudd announced the relaxation of the Howard policies) don’t constitute stopping the boats for all intents and purposes?

    Yes, of course you are, because you are not very bright.

    Try this graph –

    Get the picture yet?

    I notice you seem very keen on quoting dates before the pacific solution was put in place, that was when the solution was put in place. all we need do is put it back in place and the problem will be solved again, even the special kiddies get that, just you and Rudd can’t join the dots but keep pushing the party line.

    Re the various detention centres that were closed once the pacific solution kicked in, once the problem was solved they were closed as no longer required. do try to keep up. now we are putting queue jumpers in motels and reopening the detention centres. winning strategy that.

    Statistical data is that Sudanese (as one quick example) are 4 x more likely to be involved in crime in Victoria than the average. Pacific Islanders figure prominently too.

    From a statement by Christine Nixon – that 316 Sudanese were dealt with for alleged crimes in the latest year of records (in 2008).

    What Nixon fails to add is that with just 6200 Sudanese in Victoria (at the time), this means about one in 19 Sudanese each year gets picked up for alleged crimes – more than four times the one-in-83 rate for all Victorians.

    But we’ve been over this before, you have access to google, use it, it will stop you making an arse of yourself and I’m getting sick of having to spoon feed you reality.

    Re the costs of the Pacific solution, I can only assume that you are willfully stupid. they were effectively ‘one off’ costs – the problem and its associated costs went away when the boats virtually stopped coming. But now the moron Rudd has stuffed it up and it will cost the taxpayers a lot of money before it is fixed again.

    and I agree with you, the record on refugees is shameful. they should be walked from the Navy/Customs boat, straight to a herc and flown home. in restraints if neccessary.

    Funny, the final argument is always that deciding to control ones borders is the act of a bigot. deploying that argument is the act of a fool.

    • “You are not seriously saying that such tiny arrival figures (compared to before Tampa and once Rudd announced the relaxation of the Howard policies) don’t constitute stopping the boats for all intents and purposes?”

      Based on your interpretation of “stop” let me know when you’re driving in Queensland, and I’ll keep off the road.

      And whilst you’re into comparisons, try these figures for size –

      *Between 96 and 99 percent of asylum seekers arrive originally by air.
      *A total of 1637 unauthorised arrivals were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities between September 2001 and February 2008. Most of these – 1153 (70 per cent) were found to be refugees and ultimately resettled to Australia or other destinations including New Zealand.
      So the Pacific Solution stoped the boats? 1637 detained in Nauru and Manus? They must have swum there. And 1153 were resettled – what was the point of all that expenditure? Don’t tell me – let me guess. It made JWH look a bit macho – shame about the people behind the wire.
      And whilst we’re talking about “tiny arrival figures”, consider that in 2009, Australia intercepted about 2750 unauthorised people arriving by boat. Estimates show that in 2006 over 72 000 persons and in 2007 over 51 000 persons arrived by boat on the coasts of Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta alone. We really don’t have a problem. We do have a beat-up.
      You can check these figures if you like by a little research here –
      Try researching some facts on the issue, rather than falling for the mythology created by Howard in 2001, and exploited by Rudd last month. This site is informative, and it is unbiased, simply being a collection of statistics * –
      “Statistical data is that Sudanese (as one quick example) are 4 x more likely to be involved in crime in Victoria than the average. Pacific Islanders figure prominently too.”
      You neglected to cite your source for this “statistical data”. Without citation, it’s worthless. By the way I’m not sure that too many Sudanese and Pacific Islanders come by boat as unauthorised arrivals. The people at the Virginia Palms are neither Sudanese nor Islander. But then if you’re into demonization of a group of people, you can afford to be sloppy about detail. It worked well for Hitler all those years ago. Back then it was the Jews. It took populist politicians here (led by Howard) to resurrect it as a political strategy.

      “even the special kiddies get that”

      I’ve been working with what you call “special kiddies” and their families since 1971. This patronising sneering put-down exemplifies an attitude that continues to be the major barrier to their successful inclusion in the community. Your reference to this group is consistent with your attitude to another marginalised group – that of refugees.

      You owe children with disabilities and their families an apology.

  • “I’ve been working with what you call “special kiddies” and their families since 1971. This patronising sneering put-down exemplifies an attitude that continues to be the major barrier to their successful inclusion in the community. Your reference to this group is consistent with your attitude to another marginalised group – that of refugees.

    You owe children with disabilities and their families an apology.”

    You owe special kiddies and their families an apology for assuming that ‘special’ means disabled you fatuous fool.

    As noted previously I won’t waste more time on you. special kiddies can learn you can’t.

    • Sorry – won’t wash. Unless you defune what you meant by ” special kiddies”, you have two options. One is to apologise, the other to slink away with your tail betwwen your legs. You decide.

  • Oh my, you walked right into it didn’t you.

    You don’t like it when other people play by your rules and make up their own definitions do you?

    First, you can apologise to all on the blog for lying to them about what ‘Cannon Fodder’ means, then I will apologise to the special kiddies and their families for saying that they are smarter than you.

    Or don’t you have the integrity to do that?

    As it stands I am prepared to apologise to a tapeworm for implying that it is only smarter than you. it is setting the bar far too low for even a tapeworm.

  • any kiddie that is special. fun isn’t it?

    now its time for you to apologise for lying.

    • That’s not a definition.
      (the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear or the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.)
      That’s a cop-out. :-)

  • Excellent, the educational process is working.

    You are starting to understand what it is like to argue with you.

    and it is a definition which part do you not understand?

    • Greetings 1735099.

      You wrote: “*Between 96 and 99 percent of asylum seekers arrive originally by air.”

      This puzzles me, as an air ticket Sri Lanka to Perth return is just over USD1000. As I understand it, people smugglers charge a lot more than this per person. So, why doesn’t everone fly, thereby avoiding the seaborne unpleasantness?

      • Good question.
        Various articles and other monographs I’ve read seem to suggest the following. You need two things to fly to Australia – the money for the fare, and the ability to acquire an entry visa.
        Many “boat people” have no ability to acquire the necessary documents to be allowed to board an aircraft. This is often because they are displaced persons who have lost documents when they’ve been forced out of their homes. Sometimes, going to the authorities to acquire such documents makes them vulnerable to persecution or worse, because these same authorities aren’t always noted for their caring attitude towards targeted ethnic groups (e.g. Hazaras)
        This is an extract from Wikipaedia describing some of the recent history of this particular ethnic group – “During the years that followed, Hazaras suffered severe oppression and many large ethnic massacres were carried out by the predominately ethnic Pashtun Taliban and are documented by such groups as the Human Rights Watch.[21] These human rights abuses not only occurred in Hazarajat, but across all areas controlled by the Taliban. Particularly after their capture of Mazar-e Sharif in 1998, where after a massive killing of some 8000 civilians, the Taliban openly declared that the Hazaras would be targeted. Mullah Niazi, the commander of the attack and governor of Mazar after the attack, similar to Abdur Rahman Khan over 100 years ago, declared the Shia Hazara as infidels:
        Hazaras are not Muslim, they are Shi’a. They are kafir [infidels]. The Hazaras killed our force here, and now we have to kill Hazaras… If you do not show your loyalty, we will burn your houses, and we will kill you. You either accept to be Muslims or leave Afghanistan… wherever you go we will catch you. If you go up, we will pull you down by your feet; if you hide below, we will pull you up by your hair.”
        It’s safer to keep a low profile, and take risks with people who don’t demand correct ID on departure (such as people smugglers) if you belong to a targeted ethnic group.
        They prefer to give the money which would buy them an air fare (and then some) to the boat crews to get them to Australia.
        Refugees I’ve spoken to personally maintain that it was so dangerous to stay where they were (threats of death, rape etc) that they simply had to get going ASAP.
        There’s probably a range of reasons, but from the perspective of those caught up in refugee camps, or on the run, they’re good ones.

        • Many “boat people” have no ability to acquire the necessary documents to be allowed to board an aircraft.

          And many “boat people” destroy the ID documents they do have to force the issue in Australia and they also pay a lot of money to the boat Captains for a ticket on the boat.

          And it’s not just a case of boarding an aircraft but they need to be processed by the UN etc through refugee camps set up to help them and in a lot of cases that is scrutiny they do not want

          The question is, which is which.

          They are queue jumpers plain and simple.

        • Kev
          For queues to exist, there must be somewhere for refugees to find the end of the line. If they were in Afghanistan (for example) they’d be looking for UNHCR camps. If they could get to Champtala, which is 30km from the city of Jalalabad and had a capacity in 2008 of 1250, they might find a queue. Given the hundreds of thousands of refugees in that country, it would be a doozy. This is always assuming – if they were ethnic Hazaras – they hadn’t had their throats cut on the way.
          This is interesting –
          Download and read the document – it debunks a few myths.

    • I understand it very well. You have used the word “special” for a start. This term has been criticised roundly by organisations for people with disabilities for very good reasons. It has negative connotations deriving from the time when (predominantly in poorer American schools), the school basements to which these children were relegated almost always had the tag “special” attached. In these areas, the children were “minded” and segregated from their able-bodied peers.

      This extract from Wikipaedia provides a background –

      “Before the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was enacted in 1975, U.S. public schools educated only 1 out of 5 children with disabilities.[18] Approximately 200,000[18] children with disabilities such as deafness or mental retardation lived in state institutions that provided limited or no educational or rehabilitation services,[19] and more than one million children were excluded from school.[18] Another 3.5 million children with disabilities attended school but did not receive the educational services they needed.[18] Many of these children were segregated in special buildings or programs that neither allowed them to interact with non-disabled students nor provided them with even basic academic skills.”

      As a principal of five different “special” schools in Queensland over the years, I am entirely familiar with the offence this word often causes. Some of my colleagues felt so strongly about this, that in response to parental agitation, they had the name of their school changed. The school which I opened in 1987 as “Mundingburra South Special School” was called for a time “Townsville Community Learning Centre”. To get this through the state bureaucracy was no mean feat, although I had nothing personally to do with it, as the name change occurred after I had moved on. In the end, the state bureaucracy resisted it (irrespective of which side of politics was in power) and “special” was reinstituted to the titles of all 46 of these schools through regulation. The parents of my old school put up such a struggle (in a marginal electorate) that an elegant compromise (Townsville Community Learning Centre – a State Special School) was settled upon. The point of all this is that parents of these children have very strong feelings about nomenclature.

      The word is still used and it continues to cause offence.

      Now, let’s look at “kiddies”. On its own, it’s a fairly inoffensive term. However, in the context you used it (connected to the word “special” and intended as an insult or put-down); it takes on a different meaning.

      I doubt that many parents of children with disabilities read this blog, but I’m sure that if they did, they would object to your use of a term describing what could easily be seen as their offspring as a form of insult.

      It’s unfortunate that I have to spell this out in such detail, but on past performances, it seems, in your case, to be necessary.

      Having said that, you’re in good company. When I was teaching at The State School for Spastic Children, New Farm (that’s what it was called) in 1973, we had a visit from Jo Bjelke-Petersen, then National Party Premier of Queensland. My class lined up on the school verandah to be greeted by Jo as he walked past with his entourage. He was clearly uncomfortable in the presence of these students, and as he walked by addressed the following remark to the 16 year old lad in a wheelchair in front of me –

      “Have you been put out in the sun today?”

      This recipient of this query, once he’d recovered from the shock, almost fell out of his chair laughing. He was laughing too much to answer, but it didn’t matter as Jo had moved on very quickly, and he didn’t have time to reply anyway. Given that he was a very successful student who went on to matriculate, and took up a job as an accountant afterwards, he had better things to do than to be sat in the sunshine like a pot plant. Over the years, I’ve detected a strong correlation between ignorance about the quality of lives of marginalised people (in this case those with disabilities) and extreme Right political views. I guess the best example of that was the slaughter in Nazi Germany of many people with intellectual impairments –

      “The ‘Euthanasia Programme’ which Brandt ran killed around 200,000 adults and children designated as ‘lives unworthy of life’ between 1939 and 1941.”

      See –

      I’m sure Jo meant no offence. On the other hand, you did. It’s called “collateral damage”. You’d argue more effectively if you left personal abuse out of your posts.

      • Quoting Wikipedia? don’t waste my time.

        I’ll quote the dictionary that you chose to quote (, none of it supports the nonsense you spout. keep flailing. btw are you getting the point yet?

        spe·cial   /ˈspɛʃəl/ Show Spelled[spesh-uhl] Show IPA
        1.of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.
        2.being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You’d better call the special number.
        3.pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.
        4.having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.
        5.distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.
        6.extraordinary; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial: special importance.
        7.being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued: a special friend.
        8.a special person or thing.
        9.a train used for a particular purpose, occasion, or the like.
        10.a special edition of a newspaper.
        11.Theater. a spotlight reserved for a particular area, property, actor, etc.: Give me the coffin special.
        12.a temporary, arbitrary reduction in the price of regularly stocked goods, esp. food; a particularly worthwhile offer or price: The special this week is on sirloin steaks.
        13.Television. a single program not forming part of a regular series.
        Use special in a Sentence
        See images of special
        Search special on the Web


        1175–1225; ME (adj.) < L speciālis of a given species, equiv. to speci(ēs) species + -ālis -al1; see especial

        —Related forms
        spe·cial·ly, adverb
        in·ter·spe·cial, adjective
        non·spe·cial, adjective, noun
        non·spe·cial·ly, adverb
        su·per·spe·cial, adjective, noun

        —Can be confused: especially, specially, specialty (see synonym note at especially).

        5. singular. Special, particular, specific refer to something pointed out for attention and consideration. Special means given unusual treatment because of being uncommon: a special sense of a word. Particular implies something selected from the others of its kind and set off from them for attention: a particular variety of orchid. Specific implies plain and unambiguous indication of a particular instance, example, etc.: a specific instance of cowardice.

        1. general.

        —Usage note
        In American English the adjective special is overwhelmingly more common than especial in all senses: He will be of special help if you can't understand the documentation. The reverse is true of the adverbs; here especially is by far the more common: He will be of great help, especially if you have trouble understanding the documentation. Only when the sense “specifically” is intended is specially more idiomatic: The machine was specially designed for use by a left-handed operator.

        • What has this to do with anything? Your use of the term was a form of abuse. That was your clear intention – and with that comes the abuse of “special kiddies”, because you meant is as a put-down. If you misuse a tool (whether it be linguistic or otherwise) you damage both the tool and what you use it on. As I said, collateral damage.

  • Utter nonsense, you have the dictionary definition of ‘special’, where is it any form of abuse. even the special kiddies would understand this.

    Still not getting it, are you?

    • Your repeating of nonsense doesn’t make it true – and I’ve better things to do in Morven and Charleville today. Boredom is setting in – have some consideration for the readers. Bless you my son.

  • Excellent. you have now reached the point that we have all reached with you.

    The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate to you how much fun it is to attempt to rationally argue a point with someone who invents their own definitions, moves the goalposts is dishonest in their argument.

    Of course I was insulting disabled kiddies you idiot, but then I chose to use your technique of dishonesty to avoid simply admitting it.

    And you didn’t like it one bit did you?

    The scary part is that this has needed to be explained to you, at no stage did you notice the similarity between my adopted argument technique and your own.

    Oh and as I recall, giving up because the argument isn’t going anywhere is called ‘a tactical withdrawl’. It has been fun, did you learn anything?

  • “Of course I was insulting disabled kiddies”
    That’s the measure of the man…..

  • It was deliberate you fool. the point was to show you exactly how you argue, I hope you learned something about yourself from it.

    BTW don’t get all high and mighty about the disabled kiddies, they have not been hurt one iota by it, so spare me your confected outrage you simpering princess.

  • “…you simpering princess.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *