Originally Posted by the troubadour

Of course being selective of a nationality is racism. Most other accounts will be of the nature of the difficulty to recruit labour to remote locations or do arduous jobs. Hence the stink about Back Packer tax being a disincentive to that group to perform the work, apparently locals are not prepared to do.


Afghans coming often from more of a rural setting are ideal for such locations and work, besides have been shown to be hard workers, polite and sober.
It would be rather hard to find a more suitable migrant for such tasks, I'd suspect.


Not forgetting it has been suggested more refugees be brought in to shore up the fortunes of rural communities as well as Tasmania.


Both parties are playing a particular card. Reffos being an easy group to bash and gain support doing so, while ignoring the latest list of vocations judged in need by Australia, which of course is the real job killer, creating greater competition in the work place and challenging prevailing conditions .

Originally Posted by Beoz

Well you'd be saying the entire British population is racist.

You don't have to go far to hear the British say "oh he's German" or take a poke at the French. All done on "selection" of nationality as you call it.

So we are all racists then .... ok.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Afraid you've lost me. When a minister, even one of diminished ability as Dutton, refers to a specific group by nationality it is racist. Providing he made a reference in the first place of course.

What Joe Blogs says on some Middlesbrough street or pub is hardly here or there.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Really. So they can set up a middle eastern crime squad in Sydney, but if they were to call it a Lebanese crime squad we'd have a problem with racism right?

I think you've lost me in your definition of racism.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Yes really. When a minister directly focuses on a specific national group in order to advance political fortune, it certainly is racism. He did not regionalise after all.
Why demonise one group? One could have of course focused on the contribution refugees have across the board made to Australian life equally or more so but no political gain to be made there.

Originally Posted by Beoz

You are wrong I'm afraid, and changing the boundaries to suit your agenda, compounded by the fact the minister didn't refer to Afghans, the commentator did.

But nice try.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Not wrong I'm afraid, as in an earlier post did mention if commented on Afghans. The agenda is all on the part of the Liberal Party and dodgy politicians on all sides seeking advantage.
You may have noticed Turnbull stepped in the following day after Dutton in his exuberance mentioned immigration within the context of illiterate asylum seekers. Brownie points sought where ever they may be found.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

I read an ABC article that claimed that Tony Abbott didn't know you could have multiple word documents and re-used the same one every time. If an asylum seeker can figure that out, should they be accepted as good enough to take an Australian job? Maybe member for Warringah?

Originally Posted by Beoz

You mean as a template, or by doing a Save As?

I reckon the ones who don't know how to read and write, through no fault of their own, may struggle too. Just a hunch.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

He wrote over the same word document each time he needed a speech because he didn't know he could save as many as he wanted. Makes sense though when you consider how often he uses the same 'gp co-payment' speech.

Of course people who can't read and write will struggle to get or keep employment. You'd also half expect someone who can't figure out basic MS Word skills would struggle in every day life also. But Australia thought he could run the nation. There must be thousands of I unfilled jobs that require word processing skills at a minimum paying minimum wage.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

TA being a good PM is a fairy tale you cannot sell buddy. He was a buffoon and his ludicrous decisions got him sacked.... Eventually.

Originally Posted by Beoz

I'm not really sure basic MS word skills in a pre-requisite for being a PM - I could be wrong though - It might be in the job description somewhere. To be honest, my MS word skills are a bit rubbish. I've defaulted to OneNote these days for any word processing activities so its on my phone and on the desktop when needed.

TA was a good PM, he made some good calls, action-ed them and got them right, but is a buffoon as you said. He stopped the trade of illegal people smuggling and deaths at sea. TA likes to keep referring to that as "stopped the boats" which is why he is such a buffoon. He should be referring to the what it meant to stop the trade of illegal people smuggling and deaths at sea. Even Bill Shorten is on his side with that one.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

TA being a good PM is a fairy tale you cannot sell buddy. He was a buffoon and his ludicrous decisions got him sacked.... Eventually.