First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Back from the dead: Turnbull’s TPVs
|
There wasn’t much detail in Malcolm Turnbull’s launch of his asylum seeker policy this morning (“we will announce further details of our border protection policy closer to the election”), except that Temporary Protection Visas would be back under a Coalition Government. It doesn’t quite solve the problem of those “but what would you do, Mr Turnbull?” questions, but gives them something to talk about for the time being. Putting aside their humanitarian impact, a dispassionate look at TPVs suggests their main problem is they don’t work in preventing boat arrivals. In fact, they might encourage them. And as last week’s events in the Indian Ocean demonstrate, preventing boat arrivals is a worthy policy goal, regardless of how you feel about asylum seekers. The first point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with temporary protection, and it has been used effectively by Australia in the past to give shelter to people facing violence and dislocation. Some conflicts and humanitarian crises are semi-permanent, but others are of limited duration. Most of the more than 4,000 Kosovans into Australia in 1999 returned to their homeland once Serbian forces had been expelled, and large numbers of East Timorese people fleeing the brutality of Indonesian-backed militias also found temporary refuge here. However, the Kosovans and the East Timorese were temporarily placed here under a special “Safe Haven Visa” category, not TPVs. The TPV, introduced in 1999, was not about offering a temporary sanctuary, but about punishing people who applied for asylum in Australia, or who had spent more than a short period in another country, and thereby discouraging them. Asylum seekers who applied from outside Australia — i.e., in the language of the Howard Government, who didn’t “jump the queue” — received permanent protection visas. It is unclear which type of visa the Liberals are planning to reintroduce. This morning, Turnbull said he would re-introduce a “non-permanent visa for asylum seekers who arrive without authorization” but also referred to it as a “safe haven visa” which would end if a holder’s source country was deemed safe, or convert to a permanent visa. The Howard Government’s TPVs were distinguished from permanent protection visas not merely because of their limited duration — usually three years, with the possibility of renewal at the end of that period – but because holders could access fewer services and had fewer rights than permanent visa holders. TPV holders could only access a very limited number of social security benefits, were not eligible for Department of Immigration support services or language training, and couldn’t leave the country without losing their visa. Refugee advocates argued that the temporary nature of the visa and the consequent uncertainty also caused psychological harm to holders. Most of all, TPV holders had no right to family reunion which, coupled with a ban on international travel (if a TPV holder left the country, he or she couldn’t return), meant TPV holders were effectively barred from seeing their families again if they were overseas. Turnbull indicated this morning that his TPV category would similarly not permit family reunion. This is the basis for the argument that the TPV regime encouraged families of TPV holders to attempt to reach Australia by boat, because there was otherwise no legal way to see their family member again unless they were later granted a permanent protection visa. That is why there were so many women and children aboard SIEV X, on which 288 women and children perished, along with 65 men, in October 2001. And that is why the ALP committed to abolish the TPV before the 2007 election, and did so last year. The ALP, when Julia Gillard was shadow minister for Immigration, had initially supported TPVs. Apart from encouraging TPV holders’ families, the TPV regime, which in terms of incentives should have discouraged asylum seekers from seeking to reach Australia, appeared not to work: there was a significant increase in boat arrivals after the introduction of the TPV in 1999, with boat arrivals nearly 50% higher in 2001. Clearly the TPV regime did not create a sufficiently harsh deterrent for those determined to make the dangerous journey by boat. This was subsequently reinforced by the fact that the great majority — nearly 90% — of TPV holders were eventually given permanent protection visas. Asylum seekers — or the people smugglers who transported them — may have correctly guessed that once in Australia, even temporarily, they would be well-placed to secure permanent residency, despite the notional benefit of applying for the same from off-shore. The visa proposed by Turnbull appears to accept this logic — it seems it would initially be temporary, but then convert to a permanent visa at its expiry if the holder’s country of origin was not deemed safe. That approach is sensible, and will minimise the harm caused to holders by uncertainty, but in doing so, it undermines any deterrent value of the TPV. It will be clear from the outset to asylum seekers and people smugglers that there’s still a secure path to a permanent visa through coming to Australia before applying for asylum. All the evidence is that TPVs don’t do what they’re intended to do — encourage asylum seekers to apply from offshore — and may even encourage more boat arrivals of TPV holders’ families. Turnbull appears — much like the Government — to be caught between maintaining the rhetoric of a hardline against the boats and finding a humane policy that might actually accomplish that. |
|
|
59 Comments
Simple fact - TPVs didn’t work on any measure. Boat arrivals increased, numbers of chuildren travelling increased, human damage and trauma increase, resettlement ability impaired.
What possible reason could there be to bring back a policy which all the evidence shows didn’t work?
By the way, Labor first supported TPVs when they were brought in 1999 - which was when Con Sciacca was shadow immigration minister (although I’m not sure he personally thought they were a good idea, but a majority obviously thought otherwise for either political or policy reasons.
Does anyone believe that Turnbull believes in TPVs?
It is sad to see his political philosophy degenerate from genuine small ‘l’ liberalism into mediocre phony populism.
I accept that temporary protection visas ‘don’t work’ in affecting the behaviour of asylum seekers, but the policy may be very effective politically in demonstrating to the Australian electorate that the Coalition is tougher on asylum seekers than Labor.
Well I remember the excitement in the room as Labor 4 Refugees waited for the new Shadow Minister for Immigration, Julia Gillard, to visit us on her nationwide opinion seeking tour on asylum seeker policy. We will put her right we said, but , alas our hopes were dashed, Julia did not want to listen at all, she already knew everything. Instead she waxed lyrical about her recent visit to the newly completed Baxter Detention centre and how good the facilities were, and ,most importantly, how secure. We were so gobsmacked that a hush fell on the room, none of us could actually believe that this was a “Labor” (with all that that used to imply about humanity) politician speaking.
The one regret of all of the people in that awful room that awful day, was that we actually allowed her to leave the room alive. In the light of subsequent events, history would certainly have forgiven us if we had torn her limb from limb.
Why in god’s name do so many in the media go along with the delusion that “smugglers” have a clue about the minutaie of Australia’s refugee policy? Or if they are so evil they would actually give a damn?
And why the hell do we maunder on and on about people arriving on boats after “dangerous trips” without actually considering the dangers they have left?
Now again into the fray. Giving refugees a ride is not considered criminal smuggling under the refugee convention and nor should it be.
We even ratified a protocol in 2004 which makes clear that giving refugees transport is not a criminal offence and nor must it ever be.
The absurd notion that it is smuggling and trading just because refugees can’t go and get a passport and leave nice and safely is driving me nuts because the alternative is to leave the people to die.
Sort of the reverse samaritan effect.
Now about 1.3 million Iraqis have been slaughtered, millions are maimed, millions have been made homeless, hundreds of thousands of Afghans have died of hunger, poppy addicitions, bombings and disease. Millions are refugees and Afghanistan is more dangerous now than it was 8 years ago.
But what does Australia whine about - catching transport. The only bit of the trip for refugees from Afghanistan and Iraqi that is on a boat is the last 150 km to Ashmore Islands to find the authorities.
And that is not people smuggling. No one is traded or sold, which is what the smuggling of migrants protocol is concerned with.
It’s like talking to babies. Every day I point out the bleeding obvious and every day the first thing people talk about is people smuggling.
Where none exists.
BernardK: It sounds as if a Safe Haven Visa would be ideal, and should suit everyone. But it wont will it?
I don’t see why the Government couldn’t grant these people all the services that are available to ordinary visa holders. If the electorate’s money can be thrown at all the parasitic Churches who freely bot on the State, I don’t see why deserving refugees can’t be helped.
If the citizens of this country start to protest that supporting refugees is hideously expensive, I dare say the Government can stop supporting the Churches. Ha! there would be Buckley’s chance of that happening with the Prime Minister’s religious beliefs. Good God, he hasn’t even attempted to bring in the Republic which he promised to do when he got into power. To paraphrase a sentence from the Magic Pudding; a politicians promises are like a pie-crust. Made to be broken.
I’m not convinced Safe Haven Visas worked terribly well for some Bosnians either. They still had their futures in the hands of the government, which caused a lot of stress for some who didn’t believe it was safe to return. It’s hard to see what harm there is to Australia in allowing people who are already rediing here to decide for themselves whether they wish to return or not. Some refugees have always done that over time and still do.
The safe haven visas were dreadful. Many of the Kosovars were locked up and treated like criminals if they didn’t want to go back to the hell they had left. Then they were bribed to go home in the middle of winter to a ruined country, no homes, no jobs and no means of survival with $3,000.
The East Timorese were treated even worse and forced home with a groundsheet and a bag of rice.
The Ambonese lived in limbo for 12 years or more.
Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries.
Full stop. End. Nothing in the refugee convention allows for that right to be over ruled by anything else on earth. Not policy, not petty politics.
Nothing, nada and zip is allowed to over ride the right to seek asylum.
Marilyn as you seem to have more of an understanding of these matters than many who decorate these pages, myself included, please enlighten me as to the difference between ” giving refugees a ride”, I presume you mean non payingand those who actually pay big bucks to ‘get’ a ride. I see a difference.
And Michael I know what you mean about Gillard. When she put out her new policy which was a mirror of Ruddock’s policy I listened to her giggling like a maniac with Adelaide’s biggest redneck about pushing boats back.
Disgusting creature. She has about as much heart as a block of granite.
Raymond, it doesn’t matter if refugees pay does it? It is their choice. ‘PLane” people have to pay an airline to come here.
Pashtun truck drivers are the ones who usually help Hazaras escape the Taliban who are also Pashtuns, so the truckie puts himself in considerable danger. Why shouldn’t he be paid a bit for his efforts. Bearing in mind it is usually not much. Hazaras are not registered in Afghanistan, in fact last year Afghans started registering their births for the first time since 1973 so almost no-one in Afghanistan has any proof they exist.
The person in Pakistan or Iran who makes false documents puts himself at risk of being caught helping the Hazara who are not welcome nor wanted in either country, in Pakistan they are killed as much as in Afghanistan. Learn a bit of history. So if he makes papers, buys plane tickets to a safer place and gets the hazara through customs is he a criminal? We wouldn’t know because we never bother to really find out.
The reason people move on then from Indonesia or Malaysia is because they simply cannot be protected from persecution and are likely to be persecuted just as much or more or deported back to Afghanistan.
So the boat trip. Until the government started interfering in 1999 no-one was in danger, no-one was ever charged with bringing refugees here and today we only jail the Indonesia fishermen for not people smuggling.
I have written that about 4 million times. Why don’t people read?
Thanks for the ill mannered lecture Marilyn, in response to what I considered a polite respectful question. And you have the cheek to label Gillard as hard as granite!!!!!!!!!! As Frank Burns in MASH would say “oh fiddle faddle”.
That is not an ill-mannered lecture. I answered the question, if you don’t like the truth that is not my fault.
And I have experience with Gillard that is most unpleasant.
In one case an Iraqi doctor who was turned over to Saddam Hussein by Richard Butler was locked up in Woomera for 11 months after fleeing for his life. He had nothing at all to do with any weapons, he was simply a humble microbiologist who could have stayed in England with his family after his training but went home to try and help Iraqis. He is a good and decent man who was then separated from his family for 7 years because Gillard supported the TPV’s. I used to write to his son in Baghdad during the worst of the shock and awe, on the days they could get power. And please don’t get into the “he’s a disgrace for not bringing his family” - he came in 1999 and believed he would be allowed to sponsor his family as happens in every other country on earth.
The second occasion she was asked by a young lawyer to intervene on behalf of a young gay man from Iran who Ruddock wanted to deport knowing very well he faced being stoned to death. She refused.
It took former Senator Kirk to work with Amanda Vanstone to have him released from Baxter in a state of utter emotional decay after 6 years fighting not to be sent back to be killed.
He was taken in by Senator Kirk’s senior staffers’ father to heal him. Many of the refugees locked up for years are now suing for the disastrous mess we made of them.
Why we still insist on locking up innocent people because they don’t want to leave is beyond me, why we want to be cruel to them is beyond me.
We did that in 1938 and the consequences were catastrophic to say the least.
SHEPHERD MARILYN; [Edit - please address the issues raised and not the commenter who raises them]
Well from one point of view, some sort of temporary asylum short of full citizenship is allowed within the Convention, and can be done without violating basic liberties, unlike mandatory punitive detention.
However, Howard’s TPV system actively sought to separate families as an expressedly punitive measure, so arguably does not withstand tests of basic liberties. That doesn’t necessarily preclude other models of temporary protection.
According to Sue Hoffman:
“The introduction of Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) in October 1999 saw an increase in the numbers of women and children attempting the dangerous ocean voyage from Indonesia to Australia, and was the primary reason there were so many women and children on SIEVX.
“Most TPV holders were men, and unlike other refugees, were not allowed to bring their families to join them in Australia. They were not permitted to leave this country and return. And their family members overseas could not visit them here, as tourist visas are not generally issued to people from refugee-generating countries.
“TPVs created a new market for people smugglers - women and children living overseas, desperate to be with husbands and fathers in Australia but with no legitimate means of reuniting as a family.
“In the words of one Iraqi refugee:
‘If they allowed us to bring our families this would not have happened… I had lost hope of seeing my children because of the cruel condition of TPV. There was no other way but the sea to bring my wife and four children.’ “
Oh, and I left out the other important point: Sue Hoffman’s reasearch on TPVs showed that they failed to slow down people smuggling.
James it is not people smuggling. Jesus bloody weeping. People smuggling is the buying and selling of human beings for exploitation and profit.
Giving refugees a ride and being paid for it is getting refugees away from danger and is not to be confused with the smuggling of migrants.
Migrants make the choice to leave their country of safety and go to another country of safety, sometimes they make the choice to go illegally to another country and work but in both cases they are safe.
Refugees pay “smugglers” because they have no choice.
A third common feature of the Rudd Government’s present actions and the earlier Pacific Solution is the persistent distortion of the law to serve blatantly political ends. Just as Philip Ruddock and John Howard wrongly argued that Australia had the right to force refugees away from its territorial waters at will despite having undertaken international protection obligations to all refugees under its jurisdiction, we now see the Prime Minister confidently asserting that he will make “no apology whatsoever in terms of the series of hardline measures that [the government is] taking in relation to people smuggling and in relation to illegal immigration”.
Rudd is absolutely wrong to suggest that he is entitled to force refugee claimants into detention in Indonesia on the grounds either that they are travelling with aid of people smugglers, or because they are “illegal” immigrants.
Refugees use smugglers – and sometimes, regrettably, traffickers as well – precisely because there is no other way quickly, and with even a modicum of reliability, to get out of dangerous places and to a country in which they can seek recognition of their protected status. Australia, like most other rich countries, has erected a myriad of physical and legal barriers – carrier sanctions, visa controls, and the like – that prevents genuine refugees from coming to us legally. Even if a refugee could somehow safely reach and walk into an Australia embassy abroad, we would not issue a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum here. Travel without pre-authorisation is, for the truly desperate, usually the only real option.
Professor James Hathaway,
What you mean is it did not stop refugees paying someone to help them escape.
I really do wish people would separate the two things once and for all.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=3ae6b3428&page=search
See Article 19
IV. Final provisions
Article 19
Saving clause
1. Nothing in this Protocol shall affect the other rights,
obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international
law, including international humanitarian law and international human
rights law and, in particular, where applicable, the 1951 Convention and the
1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the principle of nonrefoulement
as contained therein.
SHEPHERDMARILYN - Thank you! I think you live inside my head, or perhaps you’ve heard me yelling at the radio and TV in absolute frustration for too many years. In fact, I’m in grave danger of going totally bonkers if I hear, see or read any more references to “people smugglers”.
I find it incredible, that people can read about what’s going on in any of the countries these traumatized people flee from, and yet they’d rather depict them as only wanting to enter this country for ‘economic’ reasons, or incorrectly refer to them as people here via “people smugglers”. As you and others have correctly stated, TPV’s didn’t deter one person from fleeing persecution.
We are signatories to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Rights of the Child. I find it totally frustrating, that people can be outraged over the abuse of a child who’s designated as ‘Australian’ but ignore the treatment of children and babies by the Immigration Dept and warders etc in detention centres. These Declarations are available on the net, and we have to reaffirm our guarantees to abide by them in both cases - we do that regularly, Why??
How then do we end up with proposed laws like the one Turnbull is going back to, and the incessant chant of ‘toughness’ by the PM and others? It’s beyond despicable! They’re the real traffickers, like the govt before them - they use and abuse the trauma of people for political ends.
There are children on both those boats in Indonesia. I understand that there’s at least one woman who is pregnant. Today, we heard the appeal from the relevant Minister, for mothers to breastfeed their babies longer, and yet we allow this travesty to take place in our name re these children, their mothers and perhaps at least one pregnant woman. It’s beyond disgusting!
I’ve read lots of articles, books and other educational material. I’ve also read “Following them Home” - which tells the awful stories of what happens to people after they’ve been forcibly removed from this country. If I can read them, so can others! A good start is David Marr and Marianne Wilkinson’s ‘Dark Victory’ about the TAMPA. There are websites like A Just Australia; Australians for Refugees and articles by Julian Burnside QC - a most compassionate and learned man, who defended those on the TAMPA. He’s represented many asylum seekers pro bono, and always reaffirms the legal reality, that it is LEGAL for people to seek asylum - and it must be added, regardless of how they arrive? By air or sea, and regardless of cost?
Other countries who’ve seen increases of over 100% where people from war torn countries have been ‘knocking on their doors’? They must get really disgusted with us for carrying on over a handful by comparison. It’s beyond stupid!
Boenhoffer, Schindler & Wallender were people smugglers.
TPV = Turnbull Policy Vacuum.
SHEPHERD MARILYN: The Save Haven Visa in a fine concept yet you dismiss it out of hand. On the basis that many Kosovars were ill-treated. Yet you do not wish to can democracy on the basis that millions have been killed in it’s name?
[Edit]
Editor: Why don’t you moderate her?
Liz, I despair. I talk to journalists, I send them the protocols and Australian law. They practically pat me on the head and say the same stupid thing the next day.
We are the only country who calls seeking asylum “people smuggling”, the only country who locks up people for not people smuggling and so on.
I am friends with Julian, he helped us get the Bakhtiyari kids out of Baxter but even he doesn’t get the difference between the sale of migrants into servitude and refugees paying for a ride.
Yet we give aid to the corrupt Karzai regime, we prop up the corrupt and brutal Maliki regime, we are paying Sri Lanka to keep the Tamils locked up just in case some come here and we smuggle people out of the country on a regular basis and dump them in foreign countries.
The notion that we would consider it a crime to give an Hazara a ride away from the Taliban, then lock up the Hazara anyway is so totally delusional I scream at the radio, politicians, journalists and everyone who will listen and they still don’t get it.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20masri
“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 “unlawful 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”.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/456.html?query=behrooz
GUMMOW J: What is the baggage of the word “unlawful”?
MR BENNETT: Your Honour, none. It is a word used in a definition provision, 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.
Labors plan is now clear.
People smugglers will decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances in which they come.
http://www.france24.com/en/20090819-afghanistan-refugees-asylum-seekers-indonesia-immigration-australia-violence-islam#comment-form
What I want to know is why Stephen Fitzpatrick had this in France but not here.
[Edit - Please refrain from abusing other commenters]
Every single refugee who cannot get papers in this world has to pay to cross borders and hide.
Do you want to make it criminal for 16 million people to escape hell?
[Edit - Please refrain from abusing other commenters]
And as only1880 refugees have come here by sea, and nearly 800 of them have sailed themselves straight from Sri Lanka in the last 2 years I guess not too many people smugglers like Australia either do they?
[Edit - Please refrain from abusing other commenters]
Hey Venise, at least you’re getting comments from the editor. It sure beats the silent delete treatment.
Can I just say that as an Australian citizen of Tamil Sri Lankan origin myself, I am appalled at the weakness demonstrated by Rudd and our government in protecting our borders. People cry racist at the slightest suggestion of Australia reserving the right to protect its cultural heritage and determine who can and cannot enter this country. As a result, Australians, and perhaps Anglo-Australians moreso, feel guilty for demanding this right, lest they be labeled “racist”.
I suggest that before Australia sets out on a dangerous course, rewarding this kind of behaviour and opening up the floodgates, she takes a lesson in history from Britain and looks at the kind of issues they are now facing, thanks to years of lax immigration policies (some elucidating comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7226&edition=2&ttl=20091113004540).
Multiculturalism in its purest form is a beautiful thing, but the way it is promoted at the moment, it does no encourage any sort of Australian identity at all. We as Australians have a right to demand that people who come to this country integrate into Australian society, as much as they are entitled to enrich our society with their own cultural heritage.
As an immigrant and as a proud Australian, I want anyone reading this comment to know that:
1. We have a right to control immigration and protect our borders.
2. We have an international responsibility toward refugees, but we also have a right to determine who is actually a refugee, how many refugees we are willing to take, and on what grounds they will enter this country. We must not allow our international responsibility toward refugees to undermine our current immigration policy.
To show weakness in these matters and to allow ourselves to be manipulated by those asking for our help will only lead to the destruction of what it means to be Australian.
TTH: I suppose overseas travel agents selling education scams have nothing to do with deciding who comes to Australia and the circumstances in which they come
MM
Posted Friday, 13 November 2009 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
This is a joke, right? The only ‘true’ Australians are the First Australians. That doesn’t include you or I. What are you suggesting, that now you’re here we take up the drawbridge and not allow anyone else to come here. What are your circumstances? The other day it was a white bloke from Zimbabwe who acted just like you! Damned cheek!
As I understand it, there were 23 people on the First Fleet. We’ve had Afghans (over in the west) many different nationalities of people built the Snowy River Scheme; 25% of Australians were born overseas - it’s 40% in NSW I believe! So who are the ‘real’ Australians, and who do we need to protect our culture from? What is our culture by the way?
If we don’t intend to abide by International Laws that we boast about, and refer to our humanity, sense of fair play etc, then we should refuse to pledge that we’ll abide by what we’ve committed to - that at least would be more honest than what we’re doing now. We pledge to process people and not reject those who claim asylum, at least until they’re processed. 92% of children from Iran were recognised as genuine asylum seekers; 98% from Iraq were also. I’d safely assume, that their parents were too!
The fact is, that TPV’s didn’t prevent asylum seekers from coming here. In fact, it was the TPV’s that caused so many women and kids to drown on SIEV X - because with the TPV’s the men couldn’t apply to have their families join them. Howard’s intention was to separate families! I suggest that you go and do some serious reading, and then come back and chat some more. You’re only showing your ignorance. 96% of people who apply for asylum arrive by plane, but nobody is suggesting that backpacker hostels around the country be raided on a regular basis. No, those people are rarely locked up, and have more access to the legal processes than those who arrive by boat - they usually speak English and are white!!!No, surely not a racist thread, I hear you ask??Of course not!
Hi Kerry, I guess so!
Cheers Venise
MM, that’s fine. It’s not uncommon for new Australians to want to close the gate behind them. A bit like people building a home in a nice street before trying to get the rest of the street heritage listed.
If you’re concerned about a “floodgate”, might I suggest a glance at the general immigration quotas (170,000 this year) and particularly visa fraud (scores of thousands), before wasting time on the paltry few thousand coming here by boat.
It’s a curious thing that the current annual immigration quota of 170,000 is actually higher than the immigration rate straight after the Vietnam war, in fact it’s even higher than the peak immigration following World War 2. So when you talk about “floodgates”, there’s a bit of a realism gap.
Oh and one other thing. Australia is not Britain. Quite a geographically different destination really.
Marilyn and Liz, thank you for being on this earth. Thank you. did I say thank you.
mike
Raymond, Marilyn has her own style, and I learn somewhat more information from her than I do from you. So go and earn the space you take up on disk, and then give us your opinions on everyone you don’t like including yours truly.
thanks for the information Shepherd, you are very passionate on this issue.
Whilst I 100% agree with you, I am afraid that it will take alot of work to convince the public of Australia otherwise. I struggle to remember one poll which contradicts the overwhelming false insecurity that we have with ‘boat peope’. Worse still, if you have ever happened to read any ‘boat people’ items on news.com and then the subsequent comments by the readers, there is alot of really scary hatred out there.
With circa 80% of the worlds annual population growth coming from 3rd world countries, we need to get our immigration policies right once and for all, asylum seekers are only going to increase. With Australias population not even accounting for half a percent, we should be a world leader on this issue.
I often ponder what it would be like to be born in a war torn or poverty stricken (usually closely related) country. People forget how lucky they are to be born in a western society. Shepherd is 100% right and I’d like to see what % of people even have formal birth documentation from 3rd world countries. Worse still, the procedure they need to go through to obtain this documentaion.
I do live in London and invite anyone to walk through the likes of Brixton or South Wimbledon to see how boroughs end up after having muddled immigration policies. I wonder if an all encompassing central body of immigration would work rather than having the government take ownership? clearly they don’t get it.
Whilst I initially liked Rudd, he is starting to turn out to be about as useful as a wet paper bag and is very disappointing.
It’s official - we have been ‘spooked’ by blokes in boats. The catastrophisation subtext of those tired old words so familiar to us - ‘floodgates’, ‘strong message’,’weakness’ and so on - shows that we are stuck in this rut of insecurity and fear. This is a tenth order issue but it presses our hottest buttons.
THE DUKE - I agree with you about the Australian people. We are a country that has a very nasty racist undercurrent, that on certain topics such as aboriginal issues and asylum seekers, those nasty, ugly mouthed people show themselves. I’ve ‘listened’ to them on a variety of websites, and their hatred borne of ignorance is chilling.
Like you I liked Rudd too, and was filled with hope for a real change, but the media, the rednecks and who knows, has got to him - or perhaps he was always a cold hearted fish who’ll do or say anything to get and remain elected. He had an ideal opportunity about a month ago, to make an Address to the Nation on this issue; to explain to the Australian people what the 1951 Convention on Migration means, what our responsibilities are; what happened under Howard; the misery and damage caused to already traumatized people by further detention etc, and what his government was going to do. He could’ve shown what the relevant commitments to human rights we’ve given our allegiance to etc. Instead, he acted like a gutless wonder, using miserable people to gain or keep the votes of rednecks - professional racist haters!
People who are concerned about border protection, show by their comments, that they’re ignorant of just what is taking place re border security. What’s going on re these two groups of asylum seekers, has nothing to do with ‘protecting our borders’ because if it did, Howard would not have reduced security operations around the country. I haven’t heard that air and sea surveilance has been increased in the top end! Does anyone know what the level of security is? I live near the main port in NSW where cars are now brought here from overseas(then trucks use our not so good highways and byways to take them back to Sydney - more danger re accidents, plus damage to the roads) - I’m not reassured by the reality, that surveillance around this port is protecting us. I’m more concerned about drugs and weapons coming into the country than traumatized people from Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. It’s not as if we think we’re going to be invaded by a foreign military is it?
Remember the public servant who was charged with the equivalent of releasing govt secrets or whatever, because he’s alleged to have passed on proof to the media, that surveilance at the major Australian airports was at best inadequate. I think he’s still fighting his conviction. Rudd carrying on about securing our borders is just using hype - and too many idiots like the disgraceful media, perpetuate his rubbish. Very scary! The role of the Australian media fills me with anger and sadness. They’re pathetic - on everything - I’m frequently screaming questions at them too - I include the ABC & SBS - I avoid the rest, as they’re just not worth the effort! Like Howard they all just carry the White House line on foreign affairs, and worse - they prop up the dictatorships that have caused these people to flee; Milaki, Iraq; Karzai, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka - we help train their military and sell them weapons? We pay and give assistance to Burma by ‘training’ its police etc??Then, they turn around and use words like “humane”???
I thought I’d better clarify my position.
By no means am I advocating “closing the gates”. What I am suggesting is that immigration needs to be managed. Immigration, when managed, can make a country strong.
Let me ask you this:
Why have nation states at all? Why not just let people roam the earth as they see fit? Nation states serve multiple purposes, but a basic level they a group of people who believe that they have more in common as individuals with each other than they do with neighbouring nations. So they live together, agree to a common set of laws, and work towards making their nation great. When nations find they have more in common with other nations, than surround regions, we have groupings, such as the United States, the Federation of Australia, and perhaps if they can iron out their issues, a European superstate. When a country has sections that find they have less in common with the larger society, they push for autonomy or complete separation. A gross generalisation, but hopefully, not inherently wrong.
So why have immigration policy at all? Why not just let people enter freely to find a better life than in their country of origin? People are born and die every minute. As a country, we use immigration to make our country stronger (for example, economically, but also in other ways). By limiting immigration through quotas of skilled English speaking migrants, we try and bring in the best people we can to make Australia stronger, while maximising the chance that they will join Australia as Australians, and within one or two generations, become indistinguishable from any other Australian. It’s a competitive world. Immigration as a whole is not about charity.
Analogies would be job applications or university entrance. In both these cases we want the best people for the job. To have an application pool where our policy is based on letting anyone have the position in the hope that hard work and perseverance, will allow them to integrate into the company and meet its needs, would be foolish. In both these cases, for every person we hire or let in, we are preventing a better skilled/more appropriate person from having the position. Affirmative action and hiring people based on quotas are edge cases, which serve some other good, much like refugees.
Britain, regardless of its geographic differences, provides a fantastic example of a country where immigration was mismanaged. Their resultant problems today (a tragic example of which was “homegrown terrorism”) and their struggle to integrate migrants is testimony to this failure to adequately manage immigration. The problem is when migrants primary cultural and perhaps national identification is to their subcommunity, rather than Australia as a whole. Some young people today identify themselves with a non-national “emo” subculture, but they most likely still identify as Australians. To use a frivolous example, it is quite possible to be a woman, and an Australia. I am and always will be, an Australian of Sri Lankan heritage. Our immigration policies and national policies should be designed to balance the needs of existing Australians with the strength than migrants can bring to the country, while minimising the risks associated with bringing in those from a different background. Uninitegrated subcommunities is exactly what we don’t want.
So where do refugees fit into all this? Refugees are a charitable edge case. We have international obligations towards refugees as set forth by the UNHCR, which should abide by. But we cannot allow people to use these obligations to undermine our immigration policy. Balancing these obligations with the goals of immigration is a difficult issue. It is handled by (1) how we define and determine who is a refugee, (2) what status we give them, and (3) how we handle the situation in the first place, within the confines of international law.
The actions of the Rudd government have shown indecisiveness and weakness at different stages, including allowing themselves to be blackmailed. The fact that at the moment, boat people represent a small fraction of possible illegal immigration, doesn’t change how we should deal with the issue with our overall purpose and legal guidelines in mind.
MM, “Why have nation states at all? Why not just let people roam the earth as they see fit?”
Reminds me of something I read about the opening up of the CIS (formerly USSR) borders after years of running it like a gigantic maximum-security prison. A massive surge of citizens requested passports and poured out of the country. Between three and six months later, the same massive surge of people came back in. After all those years of treating people who wanted to leave as enemies of the state, either sentencing them to long terms in the gulags or shooting them at the frontier, it turned out most of those people just wanted to have a bit of a look at the world and then come home again.
What a great irony. 70 years of incarcerating hundreds of millions of people, the vast majority of whom loved their country more than they hated their government, and who had proved it beyond all doubt in 1941-45. The lesson is, a state must be very careful not to wield power just because it can, based on some imaginary idea that people are going to threaten your way of life.
One more point I want to make, about your wish for the state to pick winners in its choice of citizens, micro-managing the composition of our body politic according to some minister’s idea of who Australians should be. Given the large numbers involved, and the increasing shift from reproduction to immigration to maintain the young population, I see this as an extremely dangerous opportunity for governments to gerrymander the electorate, under cover of maintaining a skilled workforce. How hard do you think it is for an visa application to ask a few questions about attitudes, which correlate closely with a given voting pattern, hmm? Think about it.
(re my sentence “How hard … for a visa application to ask a few questions about attitudes …”
It doesn’t even need to ask directly about attitudes. Questions about background and occupation, which we already have on the visa application forms — including the asylum application — already offer enough detail for predicting political leanings.)
MM, there’s a big difference between an immigration policy, and complying with our responsiblities re asylum seekers. The International laws governing our rights and responsiblities are just that - laws! Why not include these people as part of the numbers of new settlers in this country. I believe, that there are professionally qualified people out of the 75. Who else? Electricians, plumbers? Tried to get one or both in a hurry? We have problems with many trades - most of it caused by Howard’s reduction in monies for apprenticeships etc. We all can see the problems caused by doctor shortages. Don’t get sick in my area, as you’ll possibly have to wait a couple of days to see a doctor! We’re also giving money to these countries, that are causing many of the people to flee in terror. Why are we selling arms to Sri Lanka, or training their police or military? Or in Burma either?
We all hear the chant of “jobs, jobs, jobs” We can’t afford jobs for those who are here, and yet we take in hundreds of thousands of hand selected people from overseas - not because they’re in danger of death or persecution, but for employment purposes. It makes no sense, because demand puts up housing prices and there’s 500,000 without jobs, and how many thousands under employed? Yet, we’re quibbling about 250 on one boat, and 78 on another? What a load of rubbish! And, blackmailing our neighbours into taking over our responsibilities. Why don’t we encourage both Indonesia and Malaysia to embrace the 1951 Migration Act, and get them to act in a calm and humane manner. I don’t have much faith in the police or military in Indonesia; their track record on upholding human rights is appalling to date! Ask the people of East Timor?
The people of this country took you in - now you want to deny refuge to others? I find that alarmingly unjust. What happened to the ‘do unto others’ idea?
If we think these small numbers of asylum seekers are a problem now, what’s going to happen when countries in the Pacific are forced to flee the rising oceans - when their homes disappear overnight? What are we doing about this problem - it’s started already! The numbers will make the situation in Indonesia look like a stroll in the park. Are we going to let them all die? Walk into the ocean at the point of a gun perhaps?
There could be up to 250,000 of Australians affected by global warming in coming years - those who live closest to the ocean - the Gold Coast is a good example! Look at an aerial photograph - those buildings should never have been allowed so close to the ocean - thank Bjelke Petersen for that!
MM: Somewhere in the your texts are some challenging concepts. At first was I was tempted to apply some well-known labels but then I remembered that using those words mean I instantly lose the debate.
You are a “proud Australian”; maybe I am too, but I always think that I am a “lucky Australian”. The problem with “proud” is that “pride” is at the head of a snake at 97 on my Snakes ‘n Ladders board, with the tail ending at 5.
I wonder if you would qualify to be an Australian if the rules you infer were in place and strongly managed at the relevant time.
I wonder what you would do with the descendants of refugees/migrants that fail your proposed standards. Would we test them at 6th grade and deport the failures?
I also have a problem with your goal of great nationhood. Thinking of all the great nations that have existed in my life-time, I might want to prefer to be in a not-so-great one that does not want to conquer others militarily, economically nor culturally.
I manage to avoid knowing too many like-minded people because we would have nothing to talk about. Do like-minded people in the MM parallel universe have to live in a single party government state?
MM, where do you position Australian political families whose members hold opposing views about our culture, our law, our treatment of refugees when those families congregate around the dinner table or the family barbeque?
A migration policy restricted to “skilled English speaking migrants” might have excluded some of our outstanding business leaders. Is that your intention?
So back to “strong”. You say that the man trying to run the country and handle all these issues is not strong. What are the strong processes you want and how will they achieve your desired strong outcomes?
MM: [Edit - address the issues without the insults please]
Why on earth should you wish us to look at England’s problems? The most recent one being the re-birth of the Nazi party. I can’t think of the name of the Party, but some evil racist who wants to cleanse the land of anyone whose opinions and colour don’t happen to agree with him who has just popped up from the outer reaches of the rabid-right.
[Edit]
PS. * Does the Eric Butler’s League of Rights still exist, anyone?
Yes, and where do you stand MM on the question of the First Australians? What do you think of the Intervention and occupation of aboriginal communities in the NT? Do you stand beside the people who are protesting against the removal of the Racial Discrimination Act, or the blackmail re housing being tied into their need for housing? Or having their land claimed for five years? Why five years? If that happened in Balmain or Adelaide or wherever, would you think it was an obscenity? Do you even know about it? Do you care? These are the people who it can be argued, are the real and legitimate citizens of the country. What are your views about them?
What if they’d turned the boats around in 1788? Or even a few years after that? Or perhaps when the invaders started raping women and executing men when they killed a cow or a sheep, because they were hungry(after their land was stolen and they were forced to flee, that is). Neither you nor I would be having this discussion if that had taken place. When did god hand this land over to any state, territory or commonwealth govt? Aboriginal people never acquiesed their rights over their land, language or culture - it was stolen, and a bloody war took place, and lasted at least 100 yrs, with the deaths of at least 20,000 aboriginal people! If you’re consistent in your view, you’d be supporting them now, do you?
Editor: All I said was I could hear chants of Zieg Heil and the shuffling of thousands of feet as people were being marched to Dachau, Belsen and Auschwitz, what was insulting about that?
Also I said I thought he was joking, and I questioned the wisdom of the immigration department allowing someone of the far right wing to get into the country. Could the editor/s perhaps, see far more into my comments than really exists?
Well that’s a bit rough on MM, Venise. MM appears to have a genuine desire to improve this country by selecting quality immigrants. If he fails to understand where this inevitably leads in government efforts at making people better, he wouldn’t be the first one. It takes a bit of history to see that.
I’d argue that the British/Commonwealth have NEVER mastered immigration or integration.
Take a walk in the western suburbs of Adelaide or the northern suburbs of Melbourne to see how poor we are at it. Schools of somali and other african born children roam the streets in gangs, causing mischief. We have a habit of letting immigrants come into this country and thats it, no formal (or maybe some half ass’ed) integration program - its just “there ya go, now find a job”.
As for the poor old aboriginals…? don’t forget that the British actually eradicated a whole race of aboriginals in Tasmania. Our handling of the aboriginals, since the early 1770’s until now even, would have to be one of the worst examples of racism in human existance. We are fundamentally flawed at immigration and no government has ever mastered it.
The only politician that I can think of that had a pure and honest desire to help the aboriginals was Mal Brough. Aboriginals only get noticed every 3 years at election time. Sad.
Again, Rudd had big promises but still refuses to shout a round of beers. Whilst I initially liked Rudd, notwithstanding I did not vote for him, I think he has performed one of the biggest con jobs in the history of Australia.
Duke, maybe the harder government tries to micromanage these multiculturalism issues, the worse they get.
We have anti-discrimination laws. Enforcing those properly is a big enough task for government, without inventing more busywork for itself.
A bit more letting things happen their own way, and government just might find that people can sort out most of their own problems, thank you very much.
THE DUKE: Having been battered senseless by moderation, I’m at my last gasp. However, I have just enough energy left to ask you to be a little more even-handed on the Western and Northern Suburbs ghettos.
On the one hand I’m in total agreement with you that Oz governments know bugger all about that part of immigration. In that they come to Oz only to find no infrastructure and no help. (which is but one of the reasons we need to throttle back-hard on immigration. So huge has the influx of immigration and so huge are the numbers of babies being born we are quite literally running out of space) Also parents are working-both parents-leaving kids in the hands of other people not so able to help.
And, on the other hand there is the old age human habit of wanting to live with people who speak your own language and share your own customs. It is a feeling which I was born without, for some strange reason, it has allowed me to settle down in any part of the world without too many problems. Perhaps I am some form of human snail and carry my space on my back. But I do understand this is the way most people think.
Refugees are not immigrants, they are refugees pushed out of their own countries when countries like ours blow them into little bits.
now our dirty deal with the murderous thugs in Indonesia have seen refugees shot at our expense.
And let’s not pretend it is not our responsibility.
Australia continues to argue that it is safe and secure in Indonesia and we have to stop the non-existent people smuggling.
Refugees have an absolute right to enter and leave any country so long as they break no laws and they are not allowed to stay in Indonesia.
How many ranters really want to see 17 year old kids shot because Rudd demands it? There was the pious little prick last week in Afghanistan cuddling a bloody dog, then he has kids jailed and shot.
I am so glad there is not a snowballs chance in hell I would ever vote for labor or liberal or illegal and illogical in this country.
Not since the sell out of East Timor.
Venise, we gave safe haven to the Kosovars but I guess you don’t know that when hundreds of them were too terrified to go home we turned their haven into a jail and dismissed them as illegal immigrants. Ruddock turned his stony soul on them and told them he simply did not care.
The East Timorese were treated worse than criminals and were locked up from the start - they were forced back with a bag of rice and a ground sheet to a nation that was totally demolished.
Safe haven sounds so nice doesn’t it? But our safe haven idea is to lock up the victims of abuse then give the abusers the only key.
i agree Shepherd but as I have said before, I think you are unfortunately a minority in this country. For some reason, we dont seem to give a sh*t about refugees but are happy to glorify our fundraising efforts for bushfires etc
Well minority or not Duke, the reality is that thousands of “refugees” come here every year. Last year 6,900 or so were flown here from Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma and Somalia while another 2378 were granted protection after arriving here - 2107 of them flew here.
So whether I am a minority who gives a sh’t or not, makes not a jot of difference.
Marilyn, I didn’t know that! Why isn’t that made public? Yes, I know, silly me, the media wouldn’t carry that story. Now today, we hear of more boats; one with people from Afghanistan. According to Pamela Curr’s statement of events(as opposed to the immigration dept or the govts - I’d believe Pamela first) they were threatened with a gun and 2 were shot. It’s just getting worse. The reason is simple - Rudd didn’t take control of it in a decent manner in the first place. His ‘messages’, particularly the unspoken ones have been to support the hard line, and now it’s included violence! Great stuff?
As a teen-ager who, in 1947, witnessed the mass migration betwen India and what is now Pakistan I am sympathetic to the plight of genuine refugees. Over the years the line between the status refugees and economic migrants has become increasingly blurred. Whilst I applaud the stirling work of members of the UNHCR the whole refugee problem requires a complete re-think on a global scale. Here are some thoughts on the matter >
1. All member states in the UN should be required to accept refugees
2. During processing refugees should be asked why they wish to be re-settled in a country of their choice
3. Genuine refugees should be re-habilitated primarily on the basis of language and culture
4. People smugglers should be tried by international law and,if proven guilty, should be made to serve a 20 year prison sentence (without parole) in the country in which they are nationals
All that is needed is a global resolve.
As a seventy-niner I am still hopeful!!!
HAVERJARZ - May I suggest you read some earlier posts, particularly those by SHEPHERDMARILYN who explains the lie behind the term “people smugglers”. Nowhere in the law does it refer to the alleged criminal activity of providing transport for those seeking asylum, whether they come in a rickety boat or via
(Sorry, I pressed the wrong key!)
QANTAS.
96% of people who are here without the necessary papers(visa run out?) arrive by plane. Only 4% of people seeking asylum arrive by boat. There’s nothing in the 1951 Migration Act or relevant refugee laws that even refer to “people smugglers”? Were those who rescued Jews referred to as “people smugglers”? No, of course not. Too many of those appearing in this country are fleeing dangers as bad as that - death!
Like Marilyn, I’m getting very impatient with the lies that are allowed to keep on circulating via politicians, shock jocks and the media!
Where would you suggest Sri Lankans go? India? Don’t they have problems feeding their own people? This is a rich country. Why don’t we count these people as part of our immigration program, while seeking permanent solutions - such as, Why can’t we work behind the scenes and so help avoid people having to flee; not invade sovereign countries, and thus causing horrific death tolls and misery, and be very careful who we sell/give weapons and military training to(Sri Lanka, Burna)!
If you think this is bad, wait until global warming starts flooding countries in our vacinity? This aint nothin’ by comparison. What will we do then? Send them into the sea with machine guns? Starve them to death?
Liz45 When did you last visit India?
What on earth does that have to do with the main subject - asylum seekers?
We have obligations, legal ones under the Migration Act 1951, under the Declaration of Human Rights; the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, the Anti-Discrimination Act, to name just a few.
My son visited India in the last couple of years and said it made him feel depressed. the poverty was awful, with people living in the streets etc. He wouldn’t take his kids there as he’d be fearful for their health. I also know, that there’s huge wealth as well. Fancy that, the two extremes??I have not been out of the country, but I educate myself and seek information of other countries via internet. I’ve never been ‘outer space’ either, but I know it’s a waste of resources when a child dies every 30secs from preventable starvation???
If we have no intention of keeping to our commitments, then we should have the guts to say so. Making people who’ve probably already experienced horrors that we can only imagine - (and then be far off the mark) is just horrific and inhumane. It has no resemblance to our boasting of “a fair go” etc. In short it’s BS. There are people now who are suing the Immigration Dept(probably under Howard/Ruddock etc) for being kept in cruel and demeaning environments - like Baxter etc. Don’t we ever learn? Some people were born in detention - some were there for years, the longest a young man for about 7 years. This is the same length of time a person could face for some crimes of violence, kidnapping, armed robbery etc. Men who kill their wives/partners frequently get less than this???These asylum seekers have not committed any crimes. Seeking asylum is legal, regardless of the mode of transport they use - resort to!
I’m getting really weary with this current situation. It’s bloody stupid, immature and making us look like a bunch of hypocrites. We say ‘sorry’ to traumatized people one day, and force human horrors before and after? Look at indigenous people in this country! BS and nonsense the lot of it!
We allow several hundred thousand people to come here under our immigration program each year!. Why not use the numbers who seek asylum, and if they’re deemed to be in need of protection, use them as part of the program. Then, we’d not have this ridiculous situation that is happening now.
Did you read the other posts? There are lots of books on this sugject;
Dark Victory - David Marr and Marian Wilkinson
Asylum - Stories behind the razor wire - Heather Tyler
From Nothing to Zero - accounts by children in detention, with an introduction by Julian Burnside QC - who was the Barrister for those on the Tampa
One by Father Frank Brennan - title escapes me.
Following them Home - about what happens to those who’ve been forcibly removed from Australia in recent years.
A Last Resort - Inquiry into the effects of detention on children. This study revealed, that 98% of Iraqi children, and 92% of Iranian children were deemed to be in need of protection - one assumes, that the logic dictates, that their parents were too!
there’s heaps of information on Amnesty Internation, Rural Australians for Refugees, the Catholic church - Edmond Rice - Peace & Justice Committee has done research etc.
Then, there’s Asylum Seekers - the facts in figures - this is on Crikey website - compiled by Sophie Black and Crikey intern Elly Keating.