A nice toy, portable mortar

As I predicted, Labor is soft on immigration, and getting softer, alarmingly!

Biggest boatload to stretch detention centre

Australia is having increased amounts of arrivals of illegal immigrants and all because Labor abonded TPVs (temporary protection visas) and the Pacific Solution from the Howard Government. When Australian politics encountered the 'children overboard' affair, I knew then that Labor and the Greens (and Democrats which are no longer) would all support an 'open immigration policy' for Australia. They forget those who have come legally and followed due process.
Instead we have lawyers and communists subverting our system (and Government) in order to allow potential terrorists into Australia. These people pay to come here (economic 'refugees'). Now Labor rewards them.
Stop the Labour scourge. Let's have a double dissolution and end this pathetic example of 'leadership' Rudd professes to. Kevin Rudd wants to subjugate Australia to China and the UN.

What a lot of people do not realize is that the huge cost involved of processing these people, using our Patrol Boats to pick them up and ferry them in, and then handing out money to them here. This is not about 'feeling good' because you are taking care of those who can pay to come here illegally, but about the huge cost incurred because of the Government's soft position, and getting softer. Isn't the getting softer policy going to equate to getting expensive? Yes, more will come, and expose us to more costs as the Government votes to remove 'burdens' on those who come here.

Opposition spared embarrassment on asylum bill

Boatload of 190 asylum seekers headed to Australia

Navy picks up suspected illegal boat near Christmas Island



White Paper Released

I haven't really posted much on here since the A330 issue where Kevin Rudd has been tearing up our military. They even knocked the 4th Air Warfare Destroyer on the head and won't build a nuclear powered submarine that could stay under water undetectable to satellite.
But it seems that Labor is going to cut Defence spending by simply forcing Defence to make cuts to 'save' money. Bases will close, and maintenance and equipment will be mothballed. Its the only way, as in the Clinton years, that the military will be able to save money. Kevin Rudd and his Government are very sneaky, saying they will maintain 3% growth in Defence spending, but unfortunately it seems that Defence will have to 'save' money. If I find an article that deals with this funding lie in more detail and explanation than I have I will post it, or let me know.

Smokescreen obscures detail of cuts

Defence Whitepaper Website

Brand Rudd's fantasy Defence White Paper

Experts shoot holes in Kevin Rudd's defence white paper

Kevin Rudd to announce Australia's biggest military build-up since World War II

Labor's RAAF is to have the Air Force become the Government Airline

Wed, 18th June 2008

New VIP aircraft - Questions remain on cost and capability

Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson
Shadow Special Minister of State (to 22 September 2008)

Senator the Hon Nick Minchin
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Shadow Minister for Defence (to 22 September 2008)

Joint Release.

Speculation today regarding the conversion of the RAAF's new tanker aircraft to VIP aircraft raises a number of questions about the cost of this proposal and the impact it will have on our Air Force's capability and Commonwealth budget long term.

News Limited newspapers this morning report that the RAAF will convert two of its five new Airbus A-330 tankers to VIP aircraft.

''This proposal does come as a surprise as it was only two weeks ago in Senate Estimates that the Chief of the Defence Forces denied that any work was underway within Defence to look at alternative options to the current VIP fleet,'' Senator Minchin said.

''Is it political interference from the Prime Minister's office or Defence Minister's office that is driving a decision to convert these two tankers?

''This leads me to fear that the views of the RAAF are being ignored. The Government needs to answer some questions -

What impact will this have on the RAAF's capability? These tankers are being acquired for air-to-air refuelling and for military transport. If two planes are taken off line to become VIPs, how will this affect the RAAF ability to keep our new Super Hornet and JSF fleets in the air?

If the RAAF and the Prime Minister both need the aircraft at a particular time, how will this conflict be resolved - will the RAAF lose out to the Prime Minister every time?

Will the RAAF be forced to absorb the cost of this conversion, and if so, what other military capability will be sacrificed to upgrade transport for politicians and media?''

Senator Ronaldson has also raised a number of concerns about the cost of this proposal.

''Mr Rudd needs to be upfront about all of the costs associated with this proposal before locking taxpayers into an upgrade to the VIP fleet,'' said Senator Ronaldson.

''The current VIP fleet is leased until 2014 - what is the cost of breaking that lease?

''Ian McPhedran's article today estimates that it would cost $50 million to install bedrooms, office, bathrooms, and business class seating in the two planes - is that figure correct, and where would the money come from?

''What cheaper alternative options are available and are they being considered?

''What happened on the trip to Japan? The public has the right to know what has changed in the last 14 days since both the CDF and the Prime Minister said there were no plans to change the VIP fleet?

''Considering that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority estimates the total operating cost an Airbus A-330 at $6,372.73 per hour as against the BBJ 737 at $3,339.69 per hour, what is the increased ongoing cost to Australian taxpayers?

''Mr Rudd likes to wax lyrical about reducing carbon emissions. What is the carbon footprint of the Airbus A-330 as compared to the BBJ 737 and how does that reconcile with Mr Rudd's frequently stated position on reducing carbon emissions?'' Senator Ronaldson concluded.

http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=1107

WA Tourism Under Threat by WA's State Government

I will let the following letter speak for itself.

Hon. Sheila McHale MLABA., Dip. Soc. Sci. JP

Minister for Disability Services; Tourism; Culture and Arts; Consumer Protection.



Dear Minister



Below are some serious concerns that I wish to bring to your attention on the fisheries minister’s new rules for amateur fishing,



If the rules are implemented as proposed, it will be a disaster for tourism on the south west coast. I have already advertised my boat for work in the oil industry, and know the other operators in Kalbarri are looking for work elsewhere. This doesn't only mean an end to fishing charters in Kalbarri but also to Whale Watching and scenic Ocean cruising. As you will be aware the Kalbarri coastal cliffs are spectacular, especially when viewed from the ocean and are a major draw card for visitors to Kalbarri.



There is no way we can survive with this closure!!



I don't claim to have a detailed knowledge of fishing south of Geraldton, but believe my 30 years experience skippering fishing boats out of Kalbarri, and a background as a tackle shop owner, gives me an invaluable insight into the fisheries off Kalbarri.



The fishing within 40 kilometres of Kalbarri has never been better which raises the question as to the depletion of stocks as claimed by the Minister for Fisheries!



The Department of Fisheries advised the minister that the fishing south of Port Gregory needed help. There was no mention of fishing north of Port Gregory. In fact I will guarantee that this department has never undertaken any research on fish stocks around Kalbarri.



My major concerns with the new regulations cover two main areas: the adverse impact they will have on fish stocks and the impact on tourism.



The Department of Fisheries’ own research indicates that between 70% and 90% of fish released into deep water (over 25 metres) die. My own experience gleaned from 30 years as a skipper fishing out of Kalbarri, is that the mortality rate is far closer to 90% than 70%. We have an Oceanarium showcasing local fish species, and have experimented with bringing fish into our tanks from deep water and have found almost a 100% mortality rate for fish caught in deep water.



The complete thrust of Minister Ford’s conservation policy is the return of fish caught out of deep water.



My greatest concern is that these conservation measures will in fact have an adverse affect and result in more fish deaths.



The increase in legal size for snapper will in fact kill more fish. While a fisher attempts to catch his quota of bigger snapper, it is very likely that he will have to release many smaller snapper before he gets his two bigger fish, killing at least 70% of the snapper returned to the ocean (the 70 % figure is according to Fisheries’ own research but closer to 90% as I have already stated.).



The attempt to restrict the ‘endangered 5’ will also negatively affect fish stocks. As fishers have no control over which fish is biting at their bait, they cannot avoid catching and landing species of the endangered 5. By adhering to the new regulations they will simply throw these fish overboard to die (as mentioned above bringing up fish from deep waters kills them). As they are unable to keep the fish they’ll continue fishing for more species, killing more in the process.



I am all for fish conservation, my business depends on it, and have for many years suggested that the bag limits for amateurs too high. The minister reduced the bag limits for charter boats from 7 category one fish to 4 category 1 fish in May this year, a move we all supported. Now, before giving any time to see the result of the reduced bag limits, he is further reducing the bag to 2 category 1 fish.



Fisheries’ own data tells us that the charter boat industry takes less than 5% of the catch. The charter boat operators perform a very important part of the education of amateur fishers by educating them on the rules, (most have no idea of the fishing rules) and strictly enforcing both size limits and bag limits.



In my opinion most charter customers justify the $210 fare by saying that at least they may catch a few fish to offset the cost. Now I can see very few spending $210 to catch a bag limit of only 2 fish.



To stop us from catching the "endangered 5" fish for 3 months a year, is in fact stopping us from operating at all, as 90% of our catch is from the so called endangered 5 fish.



On top of the damage the minister is going to cause to charter boat operators, the overall loss to coastal tourist communities will be extreme. Boaties will just travel north to Shark Bay or Ningaloo and bypass us altogether on their fishing holiday.



Further more as an added blow to tourist destinations such as Kalbarri, fishing for the "endangered 5" is completely banned for the Xmas school holidays from 2009 onwards.



The minister is trying to soften up his new regulations by saying we can all still go fishing as long as we don't catch fish from the "endangered 5" group, the reality however is that almost our entire catch and that of all armatures is made up of fish from the "endangered 5" group of fish.



The bottom line is fishing becomes a vicious circle with us killing fish from the "endangered 5" species in our endeavours to catch fish from the allowed species.



Lastly I am concerned that this is being treated by government as purely a "fishing" issue with no connection to tourism. The reality is that charter boat fishing is tourism and the impacts will be far reaching.



Minister I would urge you to seriously consider the implications of these impending regulations on not just the tourism industry but also the flawed rationale behind the Department of Fisheries management of our fish stocks.







Regards,



Bob Mitchell - Kalbarri Explorer,



POB 264
Kalbarri 6536



Phone 0899372027



Web www.kalbarriexplorer.com.au









So why is the Western Australian Government over-regulating the fishing industry as well as banning fishing by recreational fishers in peak times?

Rudd placing RAAF in Danger Already!

The 5 new A330 tankers meant to be part of the solution to retire the F111s for the RAAF are now being divided up for Political use, rather than Defence use. The tankers are Air Force inventory meant to refuel the small range F18 Hornets which can fly about half the distance of the F111s.
With an AIr Force without an F111 what will Australia do? Nothing, simply, which will be a repeat of World War II where our so called Air Force was blown out of the sky by Japanese Zero fighters. Are we as short sighted now as we were then? Yes, I can believe that.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23881629-662,00.html

THE RAAF will convert two of its five new Airbus A-330 tanker planes to VIP aircraft.

The move follows the crash of a Garuda jet in Indonesia last year, in which two Australian officials, two police officers and a journalist died.

They were forced on to the flight because the RAAF VIP aircraft carrying then foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer was too small.

The A-330, twin-engine, long-range jets will receive a VIP makeover, allowing the Prime Minister and senior ministers to travel with staff, officials and the media.

Kevin Rudd's Stunning Nuclear Disarmament Announcement!

I was right. I knew we would see Whitlamesque Bullcrap like this.

From Andrew Bolt:

Kevin Rudd’s latest big idea:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced the creation of a new international body that will push for nuclear disarmament.

Er, like the bionic eye that Rudd said should be invented, here’s yet another Rudd idea that’s already been invented. In fact, Australia is already a member of the United Nations’ Conference on Disarmament whose aims are identical to the ones Rudd has in mind:

The terms of reference of the CD include practically all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems. Currently the CD primarily focuses its attention on the following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament...

But of course the Conference on Disarmament suffers from one fatal weakness - it wasn’t Rudd’s idea.

(Thanks to reader Dylan.)

My own quote: "I feel safer already, Kevin Rudd is doing his bit for 'world security'!" More
like a bankteller trying to tell the robber that putting his gun down is going to make everyone
feel nice. Wow I wish I could meet Mr Rudd, he would make me feel warm all over!

?If having and using a nuclear weapon ended the World’s most devastating war ever, are we to
believe that nuclear disarmament will make the world a ‘safer’ place? The biggest question
here is, what is the logic of Kevin Rudd’s move to ‘push’ nuclear disarmament? In the case of a
nuclear weapon, having and using the device, actually ceased hostilities and saved millions of
lives(that is Japanese lives!), won’t disarmament actually empower the dictators that Kevin
Rudd actually ignores to build, harbour and use nuclear weapons? After World War One,
disarmament was a major theme for preventing another world war on a massively devastating
scale. And those anti-nuclear advocates take note, World War Two, before Hiroshima, caused
casualties on the biggest scales before two nuclear weapons were detonated in Japan. In
retrospect, had the bombs been used against Hitler 5 years before, it would have either crushed
him totally thus ending the war, or causing a total surrender of Germany and Hitler suiciding
like he did in 1945. In addition and most importantly the people killed by the Nagasaki and
Hiroshima blasts pale in comparison to the vast numbers that perished throughout the war from
1939-1945.
This is what Mr Rudd doesn’t want to know, a victim of the Sixties feel good culture where the
nuclear disarmament cycle began and during the most dark time of the cold war. And when
Ronald Reagan massively expanded his nuclear stockpiles in the 1980's, what happened? He
strategically defeated the Soviet Union by bankrupting them with the huge expansion in nuclear
weapons, something the Soviets feared, and clever counter espionage.
The only way Kennedy (although he did complete a backdoor deal with the Soviets) managed
to compel the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear weapons from Cuba was confrontation, not
disarmament. Kennedy could have said ‘disarmament’ but it wouldn’t have phased the Soviets
one bit.
While Iran has the 2nd largest oil reserves (and President Bush didn’t invade Iran, did he?) in
the world, and they are mostly untouched due to a backward religious Government focused on
buying the people rather than allowing development of the oil fields, it is not going to back off
building its nukes, even if Mr Rudd tries to ‘scare’ them, which he won’t. Mr Rudd will carry
on with his silly little meetings of elites and making themselves feel good through having
excellent meetings and setting up more commissions and treaties.
Basically nuclear disarmament is a philosophy used by the elites that think it would lead to a
non-nuclear world. Unfortunately for the elites, that will never happen.