One of my all time favourite arguments against allowing asylum seekers into this country is ‘this is a Christian nation.’ To which I say, What Would Jesus Do my Christian friend?

Nicholson in The Australian in the year 2000…just as valid today

As the full scope of Australia’s fear and loathing is on display after Indonesian authorities opened fire on a boat full of Afghan asylum seekers and Courier Mail readers responded with applause, I think it’s time we reflect on what was done to asylum seekers in our name in the years between 2000 and 2008.

I doubt this will have any effect whatsoever on those who cheer the shooting of Afghans who have fled the tyranny in their homelands, but that’s because there are two types of people in this world - those on the side of human rights and those who would pick up a gun against their fellow humans and carry out acts of cruelty.

If Australia was anything like Afghanistan, those who congratulate Indonesian authorities for their corruption and cruelty would no doubt be on the side of the Taliban and warlords.

Now, let’s take a little trip back in time. Labor introduced the system of mandatory detention in 1992. However, it was the Howard Government who abused this system and took it to its most extreme.

The report from the People’s Inquiry into Detention, published under the title Human Rights Overboard, contains probably the most holistic view of the cruelty unleashed on asylum seekers by the Howard Government.

Around 200 people testified to the inquiry, including ex-detainees, nurses, psychiatrists, doctors, refugee advocates, immigration staff and others employed by the companies contracted to run the detention centres.

Deaths in detention increased by 1700 per cent under the Howard Government. A lot of those were due to inadequate medical care.

The report states: “Between the introduction of mandatory detention (in 1992) and 1999 only one death occurred in detention. On 10 May 1998, an American who had been in Australia for one day died of liver disease in Villawood. Between 2000 and 2008, 18 people died under the care of the Immigration Department, a 1700 percent increase.”

Malcolm Turnbull’s recycled policy plank of reintroducing Temporary Protection Visas is backward looking and counterproductive. Under the Howard Government there was a huge increase in women and children taking the dangerous boat journey to Australia after the introduction of TPVs in 1999.

The father of a family used to take the trip alone and after being granted protection, his family would often follow legally. However, under the TPV system there was no family reunion program and a TPV holder was not allowed to leave the country. This means families were separated indefinitely unless the family followed the father across the sea.

Between 1997 and October 1999, when TPVs were introduced, the proportion of children who were passengers on boats was about eight per cent. That doubled in November and December of ‘99 and got up to 20 per cent during 2000 and 2001. In October of 2001, a boat dubbed the SIEV X sunk killing 146 children, 142 women and 65 men. TPVs did nothing but create a new market for people smugglers.

Violence was regularly committed against detainees, both children and adults, in the centres. A migration agent who visited Woomera told the inquiry, “On one occasion I was stunned to see a tall young female guard kick a small boy aged about four because he was having fun near the compound gate.”

A nurse who witnessed a riot told a public meeting:

The riot of August 2000 was a horror I never expected to see in my country. Water cannons and guards with body armour, burning buildings, smoke and stones. The day after I watched the shell-shocked families come wandering out of the rubble, their children skirting around the debris, the tears … and the guards’ recriminations started … I watched in disbelief as a loud roar shook the earth and an air force bomber flew low over the camp, practising manoeuvres, terrifying those war shattered people. I could have been anywhere except Australia.

Another nurse Mark Huxstep told HREOC:

During rioting at the centre I was in the company of an ACM officer when he was told by one of his superiors that minister Ruddock had authorised the use of firearms if detainees breached the perimeter of the centre. The guard … subsequently said, ‘We’ll shoot over their head to scare them should they breach the perimeter, but we’ll aim very low’.

The report also details the use of solitary confinement without any form of judicial review, redress or regulation, the splitting up of families, where people were found to be refugees but other members of their immediate families were not and thus deported, the use of interpreters who spoke a completely different language to the asylum seekers in question and the resulting immigration department claims that their stories had changed.

One man was placed in solitary confinement and his seven year old daughter was deported to Iran without his knowledge. Centre management told him they were going to take her shopping for the day.

A good indication of the type of people asylum seekers are - which category of human they fall into - despite all the adversity they faced before and after coming to Australia, in January of 2004 detainees of Baxter detention centre raised $2895 in donations to the Red Cross to assist victims of the earthquake in the city of Bam, Iran.

They also donated money to victims of the 2004 tsunami by converting their ‘points’ (a system of reward for labour in the centre) to dollars for the tsunami appeal.

Which category do you fall in to?

67 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      07:15am | 19/11/09

      Boo Hoo, sick to death of bloody bleeding hearts. I fall into the category that most of us fall under. I am in the majority. You are in the minority. Get over it! I am sick of us trying to save the world. Great to see the hijackers have now left our boat. Should have been forced off at gun point but for some reason people are so scared of upsetting the minorities.

    • Rachel says:

      07:41am | 19/11/09

      Wayne, you can only speak for yourself. The majority of people I know do not agree with you. Don’t speak for the “majority” of Australians - because unless you’ve managed to survery every single person, you have no idea about whether a “majority” agrees with you.

    • Dan says:

      07:50am | 19/11/09

      Nice Wayne. Thankfully, there are plenty of people who do NOT share the views of Wayne Hutchins.

      I just want to make one comment; this is NOT a Christian nation. Yes, the majority of people are Christian (or at least nominally) but that is completely different and that it not mean that Australia is a Christian nation. The majority of people in the next census could identify themselves as Jedi, but that doesn’t make Australia a Jedi nation either.

    • Toddzilla says:

      07:56am | 19/11/09

      It is misleading to refer to the people coming by boat as asylum seekers. They are illegal immigrants. Under international law they must seek asylum from the safest close country to their own. By bypassing several countries on their way to Australia the people are in defiance of international law and are therefore illegal immigrants. This should be the framework for the debate.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:57am | 19/11/09

      The simple fact is that being “soft” on refugees is an election losing strategy (despite the fact that much more illegal immigration comes by aeroplane and disappear off a tourist visa) The Liberals understood this very well. In the same way Workchoices violated australia’s sense of fairness, queue jumpers also violate that sense of fairness. Or a cynic might say, that australians are selfish and anything that might be adverse to their lifestyle or quality of life will be met with disapproval. Whichever way you look at it the refugee advocates are a definite minority these days.

    • Leandra Ford says:

      08:05am | 19/11/09

      Wayne Hutchins and other people who share his attitude make me feel ashamed to be an Australian. Most Australians have never endured anywhere near the hardship or mistreatment that refugees have experienced. Most of us don’t live in daily fear for our lives or the lives of our families. Our ancestors, unless they were convicts, came to Australia for a better life. Why are some people so opposed to anyone else doing the same? Why are they so filled with hatred for their fellow human beings?

    • iansand says:

      08:23am | 19/11/09

      Use the Atticus Finch test.  Imagine walking the proverbial mile in their shoes.

      It is an interesting exercise.  In fact it is an interesting exercise for any civil liberties/human rights issue.

    • give me a break says:

      08:23am | 19/11/09

      @ Wayne Hutchins

      you think you’re in the majority? Can you hear that strange echoey sound of noone being anywhere near you (cue crickets in the backdrop)

      These are people, they deserve to be treated as people. Maybe we should lock rednecks on a boat for three weeks and see what happens

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      08:30am | 19/11/09

      Your right Anna, I’m convinced, let’s opent the doors and give them all your address and you can keep an eye on them!

      It may come as a surprise to you that there are people in the world who may seek to take advantage of people’s good intentions and there needs to be a system to prioritise and assess. Breakdowns in management of detention centres does not mean policy failure, just incompetence in delivery. Being humane does not mean open slather. This issue is a little more complex than a playground game of tag and “whose side are you on”, to think otherwide is nieve, which unfortunately my dear, you are.

    • Oldie says:

      08:30am | 19/11/09

      Gosh Wayne your lack of compassion for others is one of the reasons the world is in such a state, you and others like you who can’t put themselves in the shoes of others.

    • Voxpop says:

      08:37am | 19/11/09

      Anna this is a great article - while I was reading I thought why isn’t this kind of thing presented in main stream media instead of the divisive attacks fed through from the opposition and picked up by shock jocks.  And then I read Wayne Hutchins’ response - sad really because I believe these ugly comments come from people who have been ‘educated’ by all of the hate filled media and heated political debate of the previous 8 years.

      A bit off topic but I’ve been reading a bit about East Timor from 1975 to current - Indonesia was brutal, displaying many human rights abuses and systematic genocide.  I certainly wouldn’t trust them to give much protection to asylum seekers knowing how they treated the East Timor refugees.

    • jindivik says:

      08:38am | 19/11/09

      Don’t be rude about all the illegal immigrants, Wayne Hutchins.

      Every one of them is a solid gold (not just “rolled gold”) ALP voter.

    • Tully says:

      08:38am | 19/11/09

      Really? I fall into the category that most of us fall under - someone who cares about other people. I am in the majority. Everybody agrees with me. I believe in many things, but first and foremost I believe that we shouldn’t feed the troll.

    • AFR says:

      08:42am | 19/11/09

      Wayne, what makes you so sure you’re in the majority? Becuase most of the comments on “The Punch” tell you so? like people that listen to your beloved Alan Jones. I’m in no way interested in going back to the embarrassing JWH era of “we will decide who comes here”.

    • alteria says:

      09:28am | 19/11/09

      Wayne Hutchins - after reading your climate change denial views on another thread here, it’s not surprising to find you following the right wing guide to political views on this thread too.

    • Amy says:

      09:33am | 19/11/09

      Wayne Hutchins you are NOT the majority! You just have the loudest voice. I would much rather have refugees, who have fled terrible fates in their homelands (and in the case of Afganistan have feld terrible fates in part caused by OUR COUNTRY bombing their people), than arrogant, aggressive people like you.
      It was by simple chance that you were born here and were lucky enough to have the benefits of the safety and prosperity offered by this country yet you think somehow that you deserve that life more than other people. Well guess what - you don’t. Get over yourself.

    • COF says:

      09:34am | 19/11/09

      Wayne Hutchins’ response says it all. This issue has nothing to do with racism, although it doesn’t seem to be such a massive issue with the two primary sources of illegal immigrants (UK and NZ, both by plane).
      In essence, as Wayne has demonstrated, this anti asylum seeker movement is headlined by a plethora of infantile little Veruca Salts who have a serious problem with sharing. They have no honour, no empathy, no convictions other than the ones that are in their own interest. Can you imagine these people defending your country if we were actually at war?
      I would gladly replace a grateful asylum seeker for one of you selfish lot.

    • Joe Stephens says:

      09:37am | 19/11/09

      I fall into majority category too… which means I get scared easily by news headlines

    • Chris says:

      09:51am | 19/11/09

      Sorry you poor bleeding hearts just dont get it. The more you let in, the more that will come. Its as simple as that. Surely you have the common sense to accept that Australia can only except a finite amount of refugees? If you accept that you should be able to understand that it would be inhumane of you to want visas granted to those with the financial means to get here over those most deserving.
      I think most Australians would be fine with an increased refugee intake as long as it went to the most deserving cases not que jumpers. Plenty of more deserving refugee cases(see East Africa)  than Alex the call centre guy who got deported from Canada for being a trouble maker no?

    • SM says:

      10:18am | 19/11/09

      “...but that’s because there are two types of people in this world - those on the side of human rights and those who would pick up a gun against their fellow humans and carry out acts of cruelty.”

      Things are rarely that black and white Anna.  There’s a few other types of people too.  Those that fall somewhere in between the two extremes you’ve so arbitrarily decided must encapsulate everyone. The fact that somebody doesn’t subscribe to your open arms approach doesn’t by default put them into the “those who would pick up a gun against their fellow humans and carry out acts of cruelty” category, and you do your argument no favours by ignorantly asserting otherwise

    • Darin says:

      10:42am | 19/11/09

      Nice to start with a wonderful straw man, and then follow it up by a false dichotomy. But the rest of your piece merely confirms that asylum seekers should be discouraged from attempting to reach Australia by boat because of the inherent dangers involved. 

      Between 1998 and 2002 an extraordinary number of asylum seekers attempted to reach Australia by boat, far greater than any numbers that appeared previously or since. The Government of the day responded with the intent of curtailing this trend, and despite some questionable policies and sad and traumatic unintended consequences, succeeded.

      Your article seems to fail to make any real point, other than rehashing claims made in a book by refugee advocates, not a government report as I think you seem imply, to vilify the previous Government and to accuse Australians of being full of “fear and loathing”.

      If abuses were made by those in charge of detention centres, or injustices were committed by departmental officials, then I would support an inquiry to hold them to account. But, I do not support attempts to use such cases to twist public policy by means of guilt to encourage people to risk their lives to reach Australia by boat.

      I support increasing our annual refugee intake, and increasing aid to refugee camps and facilities around the world, and to improve Australia’s own processes. But I do not support short-sighted advocacy that fails to take account of reality.

      People have a right to seek asylum if they are in danger in their homeland, but they do not have a right to choose which country they are ultimately accepted by. With so many people seeking refuge around the world, sympathisers in Australia should not be encouraging some to risk their lives to take a shortcut to get here, or to encourage people to bypass existing asylum procedures and thereby increase the waiting times for those who do the right thing. That is the real, unrecognised tragedy that people such as yourself fail to acknowledge.

      There are two types of refugee advocates: the first is the kind that vilifies their country and encourages desperate people to unnecessarily risk their lives, and there are those who accept that there is a responsible way to deal with difficult choices. Which category do you fall into?

    • Zeta says:

      10:43am | 19/11/09

      It’s telling that most of the people who call them queue jumpers can’t spell queue. Queue is a French word, taken from the latin Cauda, meaning tail. It’s one of those strange English mangled phrases, since one can’t really be said to jump a queue, or a cauda for that matter.

      It’s one of those ghoulish obsceneties that we expect people running for their lives to line up. It’s the ultimate expression of bureaucratic inhumanity.

      That these people might have skipped ahead in some arbitrary queue for salvation should not be a determining factor in their worthiness as refugees.

      Ask yourself, if you knew a Government death squad were coming for your family, or that they might, or that on a time period of only a few years, your chances of survival in a country ravaged by war would approach zero, thus requiring you to take your meagre savings, your family, and run for your life, would you respect a theoretical line in which you were expected to wait? Or would you try everything in your power to escape, including getting on a rickety, leaky boat, run by illiterate, criminal fishermen, and try to make it to the one bastion of civilisation in the Indian Ocean?

      That’s what we are. Australia, shining light of democracy and decency, ringed by totalitarian regimes and failed states on our West, corrupt theocrats to our North… and New Zealand to the East (seriously, who wants to go there?) The rest of the civilised world is a long way away. Our nearest democratic neighbours as the crow flies are India (barely), South Korea and Japan.

      If you’re fleeing oppresion in our neck of the woods, Australia is the only safe haven. We have a moral obligation to provide safe harbour. If we want to abandon that obligation, then to maintain the moral highground as members of the developed international community, we should directly intervene in the affairs of the failed states these people are fleeing from.

      I whole heartedly beleive we should start sending Iraqi and Afghani refugees home as soon as their country’s are stabilised. But Sri Lanka remains anything but stable. Tamils will remain a persecuted minority, even after the LTTE’s defeat. They need a safe place to run too, and we’re the closest.

      Australians should suck it up, act like good international citizens, and ask themselves… if the Government death squads came to your doors, where would you run too? Because the boats carrying these refugees wouldn’t get you to New Zealand.

    • Adam says:

      10:42am | 19/11/09

      I think those commenting were best summed up by Denis Leary, “I’m an arsehole and I’m proud of it”.

    • Anna Greer says:

      10:46am | 19/11/09

      Hi Chris,

      Actually refugee numbers have stayed pretty consistent over the past few decades. There has been lulls, such as in the period between 2003 and 2006. And this year we are still well short of the 20-year high in 2001, when there was over 12,000 applications for asylum in Australia. That spike was seen worldwide, as were the subsequent drops in numbers. Five years after the 2001 peak asylum numbers dropped 50 per cent worldwide. We’re now seeing a bit of a resurgence as conflicts drive people out of their home countries (which they would prefer to live safely in than come to Australia no doubt). This will drop again as the conflicts ease but as this year has only seen 2200 people arrive by boats, things aren’t as dire as some would have us believe.

      Regards,

      Anna

    • N says:

      10:49am | 19/11/09

      Wow, an extreme left wing article if ever I saw one with such inflammatory sentences like:” Deaths in detention increased by 1700 per cent under the Howard Government”. I guess saying 18 people died in detention over 8 years just didn’t have the same impact for this bleeding heart piece did it Anna?

      Saying that there are two types of people in this world is totally ludicrous. There are 6.6 billion types of people in the world. Each has there own priorities and agenda, which is why this debate is not such an open and shut case, even in your fleeting attempt to make it one. Of course I’m sure at your socialist party rallies, the mass conformity often blurs the idea that everyone is unique.

      As a side note, I enjoyed the cartoon in this article. I’m sure most Australians would be happy to open the land around Woomera to Asylum Seekers, seeing as how it’s a nuclear waste land….

    • AT says:

      11:10am | 19/11/09

      In 50 years time there’ll be a moving ceremony where the government apologises to the Human Rights Overboard Generation. The PM will be lauded for finally showing the courage to acknowledge the abuse and the vows that it will never happen again. The opposition leader is moved to tears describing the cruelty endured by men, women and children at the hands of government authorities.

      Many Australians are also moved to tears watching the sombre but boisterous observance. They shake their heads at the callousness of the turn of the century politicians and struggle to understand how their forebears could be so heartless, uncaring and wilfully ignorant.

      But overall, it’s a redemptive and soothing event. Having conceded and apologised for the wrongdoings of their parents and grandparents, Australians feel they can stand a little taller, breath a little easier, for surely those were darkest of dark days of a rapidly receding past. Australians revel in a renewed sense of guileless confidence and brashness, for they are secure in the knowledge that such obscenities couldn’t possibly still be happening today…

    • Jade says:

      11:16am | 19/11/09

      I agree with Wayne on this one.  They are not asylum seekers, they are mearly coming here for the health care system and our handouts.  They had plenty of other countries they could of claimed “asylum” in before they reached Australia.  They should of been forced off of the boat back into there own country.  It is crazy that they will all be settled here (if thats what is still happening) imagin all the boats that will be on there way now that they know how to get soft aussies to cave in and give them what they want.

      These people never intergrate into out society and the create there own little communities.

      Australia needs to harden up.

    • Chris says:

      11:27am | 19/11/09

      Zeta plenty of people waiting patiently in queues (I hope I spelt it correct as I am trying to work at the same time) in SAFE UN camps alot more closer to Sri lanka, Afghanistan etc. Sometimes waiting many years longer than they should so why should someone possibly less deserving get infront of them because they have the finances to get here?
      Like I stated increase refugee intake, sure no problem but the places still should go to those most deserving. Anything else is inhumane. Rewarding those that risk life coming in dodgy boats only serves as an incentive to others to risk life and is inhumane.
      Just because someone travels by boat does not make them the most deserving. Alex the call centre guy made the biggest mockery of that idea.

    • Anna Greer says:

      11:30am | 19/11/09

      Bear with me as I expound a bit on my little theory of the humane vs the inhumane. Australia is a peaceful nation so I believe we haven’t truly been tested when it comes to how we would react if violence was an overwhelming force in our environment. Issues such as these give us a little bit of insight into human nature, however, when we have people cheering the shooting of Afghans on a boat, purely because they incorrectly fear a couple of thousand boat people will contribute to the diffusing of their privilege and power in our society.

      When I say some would pick up guns and commit acts of cruelty and some would steadfastly adhere to human rights ideals- whilst there is rarely only black and white - and I admit there is always a grey area (those who stay silent for self-preservation for example), this is something we can see in conflicts throughout our modern history. In all conflicts there is tyrrany and there are those who resist becoming violent and push for human rights. I’m not saying one side of a conflict is always good and one side is always evil. In the case of Afghanistan, they are copping it from their ‘liberators’ and their countrymen, but in spite of all that there is people who undertake daily acts of humanity to counteract the inhumanity- teaching girls in underground schools in areas of control by the Taliban, is one example.

    • Lexi says:

      11:52am | 19/11/09

      You know psychological researchers have done a number of studies into how humans can become so cruel to each other - in particular I’m referring to the Stanford Experiment, where students were allocated to roles of prisoner or prison guard by the toss of a coin.  People in such experiments will have no past experience with the other individuals, and yet those wielding the power can very easily become overwhelmingly cruel.  They become so possibly because they witness others being cruel and that normalises and escalates the cruelty.

      What we can have in Australia is this normalisation of seeing refugees as somehow less human.  They are creatures who, rather than coming to “share’ our lifestyle (like “nice” white immigrants who come via plane), they come to take what we have and instead give us what they failed to leave in their homeland - oppressive religion, third world conditions etc.

      We are a very wealthy nation.  We can argue whether our governments spend wisely, but on the whole we have very good standards of living - with the exception of remote settlements.  This is our national shame.

      We don’t want to be seen encouraging boatloads of refugees, not because we’ll be “flooded” and can’t accommodate them, but because they are at the mercy of people trafficking human misery and putting lives at risk on leaky, ramshackle boats.  Our Customs and Navy people risk their lives saving them.  There are scores of people waiting patiently for the UN to process their refugee applications and our refugee intake per year is fixed - so those waiting must wait even longer.

      Our response needs to be more considered, more humane.  I don’t have the answers, but I know that being cruel isn’t the answer… when it comes to our approach to “border protection” I’d like to reference Dr Phil: “how’s that workin’ for you?”

    • Chase Stevens says:

      11:56am | 19/11/09

      I question the notion that aboard these dangerous boats there are those merely here to exploit us. Why would someone who is not fleeing a corrupt and tyrannous government get aboard when there are perfectly legitimate methods for coming to this country? It seems as though the ‘anti-asylum’ people are jealously guarding there own interests without any consideration for the people more unfortunate than themselves.

    • SM says:

      11:59am | 19/11/09

      @Anna Greer - you still seem unable to accept that your way is not the only “humane” way.  You’re down one end of the spectrum.  Those who applaud the shooting of Afghans on a boat, are at the opposite end. 

      Somewhere in between is a group of people who simply want to temper their own “humane” approach with a little more caution and a little less unquestioned faith than you do.  And that’s an approach that’s at least as valid as your own

    • Gman says:

      12:24pm | 19/11/09

      What is a refugee, a refugee is escaping from turmoil and fear. Once free and safe in another country they are not refugees anymore. Or are they, they think, ‘nope we don’t like this country so lets to move to another country and say ‘were refugees let us in’  are they a refugee now?  It is a terrible abuse of the system of the refugees who need our help.

      A true refugee is a person who gets out of fear and settles some place new.

      Don’t get fixated on people on boats they are not refugees but illegal immigrants, the true refugee is those who can not escape because they do not have anything of their own, except life.

      It is disgraceful we allow and accept boat people are refugees. They may have a need but is that need any greater than a child, a female or a male beaten, raped, tortured, victimised of murdered as many still are in camps on borders of trouble zones. check out… http://millionsoulsaware.org/ and see the real refugees.

      Or is it easy to say these ones made it here so to cover ourselves in a warm glow we call them refugees and that makes us forget the rest?

    • Anna Greer says:

      12:35pm | 19/11/09

      SM,

      The Government assesses each asylum application. Though not foolproof and still in need of improvement, there is a system in place that could and should deal with the issue of asylum seekers in a humane way. When people look upon the Howard years as the glory days of border protection we have a problem. I am not saying we should or could house the 8 million refugees there are in this world, however, I would like to see a day when asylum seekers aren’t sacrificed at the alter of public opinion and immigration policies are based around questions of practicality, humanity and a commitment to do our part in the global refugee phenomenon instead of using it as the basis for political point-scoring.

    • AdamC says:

      12:57pm | 19/11/09

      I had just been thinking how there wasn’t enough moral sanctimony in this debate. Thanks, Anna, for your contribution.

      And I am not sure that your quotations, which make reference to some clearly very nasty riots, make the asylum-seekers for whom you are advocating look particularly flash. As your nurse says, such scenes are not familiar to Australians.

    • Anna Greer says:

      01:28pm | 19/11/09

      Thanks AdamC, I do what I can.

      Woomera saw a lot of riots because conditions there were so appalling. Temperatures out there can reach close to 50 degrees C in summer. Refugees were kept in dongas without working air conditioning a lot of the time. If they were sick they were given panadol and a glass of water and told to go away. Staff in the centres were fired, reported or ostracised if they were too kind to detainees. People were denied contact with their lawyers. Parents could do nothing as they saw their children being irreversibly damaged from the environment they were in. Of course riots were going to happen. It was a pressure-cooker.

    • Bleeding heart Al says:

      01:35pm | 19/11/09

      I think this is quite a well written article that brought up some issues and ideas I hadn’t thought of before. It is also a great foil for what most of mainstream media is reporting out there, let alone the shock jocks whose job it is to be upset about something.

      I find it intriguing on many levels that we still have such a vitriolic view on Asylum seekers. I think the recent incident with our northern neighbors was a horrid case of using human lives for political gain. You may argue that we have the right to protect our borders, which we do, and that “we decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come”, but surely it is not wrong to show some compassion to these people once they arrive. As is the case, if it turns out they are not genuine in their claims, they are deported back to their homeland, but the vast majority of the “illegals” so far have been found to have genuine refugee or asylum claims.

      I remember growing up where it was all about Asian gangs and particularly the Vietnamese that where taking over and not assimilating. Then it was Muslims and there beliefs that where going to over run our country, now it has returned to boat people, albeit from another part of the globe. It is interesting how we say they don’t assimilate, yet we give them little opportunity to. Of course you will choose to live in and around the areas that have the facilities you deem as important to you, such as schools and religious institutions aligned with your faith. If we want people to assimilate, we need to be more accepting of having prayer halls, churches, synagogues, temples and mosques in our local area.

      It has been seen that the majority of migrants and particularly asylum seekers and refugees become employed in the lower end jobs - cleaners, box packers etc - the types of jobs that most Australians consider beneath them, or at the other end, where they in turn employ many other people to work for them. Both of these are incredibly important for our economy and our nation as a whole. They contribute to the tax system and will be needed in the very near future to help prop up our aging population. It is not that we are about to have a lot of retirees to look after and fund, it is that the taxes they have paid over the last 40-60 years is about to be lost. If you think our hospitals are underfunded and overstretched now, just watch what happens over the next 5-15 years as more people leave the workforce. Migration is essential to keep our economy afloat. Who would be a more loyal worker than someone who risked their life on a rickety old boat to get out here for the chance at a new, better, safer life?

    • Cuppa says:

      02:23pm | 19/11/09

      Sorry Dan, but Australia IS a christian nation & it WAS built on christian values(thank god).Australians have every right to decide who enters this country, as they have seen the great failed multicultural experiment of the last twenty years or so eat away at the fabric of the things that made Australia great.Every person i know is tired of pandering to minorities & offering them all the benefits under the sun(eg, this latest load of asylum seekers) when our own old age pensioners are struggling to make ends meet.We should be helping our own first.They deserve it.

    • Ricky says:

      02:27pm | 19/11/09

      Wayne Hutchins well said.And you do speak for the majority.Everyone i know would agree with you.If the bleeding hearts are so keen to open our borders to everyone, why dont all the asylum seekers just stay with them.They wouldnt mind would they…?

    • stu says:

      04:15pm | 19/11/09

      Funny, but it seems that Wayne Hutchins is the one doing all the boo-hooing. Ah well, best to let bogans be bogans.

    • AFR says:

      04:21pm | 19/11/09

      Ricky, considering Howard was smashed out of office 2 years ago, I don’t think Wayne’s 2GB/Baranby Joyce view of the world is any longer in the “majority”.

    • SM says:

      04:35pm | 19/11/09

      Anna, you might want to read Adam C@12.57 again, before you start thanking him.  Unless of course your thanks is sarcastic too

    • stephen says:

      04:38pm | 19/11/09

      We’re not bleeding hearts. This country has allways been open-hearted generous and brave. To do or believe otherwise is to usurp our tradition. So to all you radical stingers out there, get over it !

    • Thomas says:

      04:45pm | 19/11/09

      Cuppa: “Sorry Dan, but Australia IS a christian nation & it WAS built on christian values(thank god). ...We should be helping our own first”

      Jesus: “Religion that our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after widows and orphans in distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world ... I tell you the truth, whatever you did for the least of these my brothers, you did for me.”

      You better get your theology right before you dare invoke “Christian values” to justify your xenophobia.

    • The Realist says:

      05:31pm | 19/11/09

      Yeah let them in if they want to live in Woomera.

    • M Cooke says:

      06:43pm | 19/11/09

      BRING BACK JOHN WINSTON HOWARD, THE BEST PRIME MINISTER AUSTRALIA EVER HAD.

    • M Cooke says:

      06:49pm | 19/11/09

      Good cartoon, I nearly P*ssed my self laughing, that is a seriously funny cartoon, some one has got a good sense of humour .

    • Cuppa says:

      06:51pm | 19/11/09

      Touchy, touchy Thomas.And i agree with your little bible quote.We should be helping AUSTRALIAS widows & orphans(god knows they need it) before these illegal immigrants.If you are such a crusader ace, then i am sure you have room at your house for a few shri lankans & their familys.You goose.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      07:39pm | 19/11/09

      Thomas… you’re out of your (god given) mind.

      Theologically, you can find a bible quote to support anything.

      However, Australia is most certainly NOT a Christian Nation. I defy you to find one single reference to us as a Christian Nation in any law passed in any parliament in the history of Australia.

      A majority of Australians (just) identify themselves as Christian. A Vast majority don’t go to Church except for weddings and funerals. We do not have Christian Law anymore than we have Islamic law. We aren’t in a holy land of Christian significance, and we’ve never fought a war on Religious grounds.

      This weekend I am delighted to participate in the Christening of my (to be) Godson. I sincerely hope to raise him as an enlightened Christian. I am not some lefty anti-religious kook, nor a Stalinist crusader. But the statement that Australia is a Christian nation such an incorrect one that you almost think it is willfully misleading.

      Just because you say something does not make it true.

    • stephen says:

      07:58pm | 19/11/09

      Only Labour Party voters, then, can call on the tradition of full Humanness : that of good economics, associated with our International responsibilities. If we play this right, (and I don’t mean only out of self-interest)  the benefit to us will that of Economics.

    • stephen says:

      08:03pm | 19/11/09

      PS ...and get out of town.

    • Matthew says:

      08:27pm | 19/11/09

      Asylum seekers (if married) receive approx. $56,000 in benefits each and every year + rent assistance + job assistance.  To most, this offers them a much better lifestyle than they had and means no incentive for them to go out and find work and add to this amazing country.  Just look around.  Asians hang out with Asians, Indians with Indians, Muslims with Muslims and Aussies just try to get along with our lives reminiscing what this country used to be like before the overcrowded trains, roads, stage 3/4 water restrictions, brown outs, watering our lawns.  The number of recent immigrants who integrate is pityfully low.  But for me to suggest the above makes me a racist right ... I mean, it’s my fault people come here only to continue on with their way of lives instead of integrating into ours right…..

    • Jan says:

      08:33pm | 19/11/09

      I do wish some of the people posting here would be a little less intolerant of views different to their own.  There’s a lot of grey in between the black and white.

      Many people who are against boat arrivals are not necessarily rabid, gun-toting, racist bigots.  Some, like myself, are quite reasonable, rational human beings, who have a lot of empathy and concern for those less fortunate than ourselves.  I have no problems with refugees of any race or religion coming here, but I do believe in a fair go for ALL the refugees.

      The boat people may be genuine refugees or or they may be illegal economic migrants, that’s for the UN to decide.  What is inarguable is that they are queue jumpers.  For every boat person who pays to get here, another equally or more deserving refugee is left waiting patiently in often horrendous conditions in a UN queue.  This is not a fair go.

    • Anna Greer says:

      08:58pm | 19/11/09

      SM, I indeed understood what AdamC was saying. Thank you for your concern.

    • Vicki PS says:

      12:02am | 20/11/09

      This debate proves that we need another corollary to Godwin’s Law.  Use of the term “bleeding heart” immediately terminates the dissussion, and the user loses.

    • davido says:

      12:23am | 20/11/09

      What about INDIA taking these refugees from Sri Lanka?

      If this lot of Sri Lankan con-artists were political refugees they would seek refuge in Tamil Nadu where the Tamil language is spoken and the Tamil culture is alive and well. Tamil Nadu in India is only some 100 km away. Ferries and flights go several times a day.

      The reason they come to Australia is simple. MONEY!

      Some people need to wake up and smell the coffee. The level of naivety in Australia is extraordinary. Unlike most of the so-called experts whinging here, I have been to Sri Lanka and I live in India. And unlike Australia the rest of the world has no problems ‘playing’ on the generosity and fairness of Australia.

    • Rebecca says:

      01:21am | 20/11/09

      @ Anna - so, the conditions in Woomera weren’t ideal.  So - they were getting the first level care the rest of us take.  Hang on just a second… Are the conditions better, or worse than where they left?

      I don’t believe that a family who can afford the asking price of some of those boats are genuine.  I also don’t like the fact that a lot don’t bother to carry any form of identification.  Some might use the ‘oh, I have to get out tonight’ excuse - well, hang on - do you go out driving without your licence?  If you knew you were going to have to leave, wouldn’t you make sure you had SOMETHING to say who you are?

      I don’t care what colour/race, religion, political views any of these asylum seekers (read - illegal immigrants) are.  I have no issue with any of them.  What I am concerned about, is that they are genuine refugees, and not risking the lives of themselves, and their families in the hopes of a new life based on handouts.  I don’t care what method of travel they take - if they fly here, overstay their ‘holiday’ visa, then apply for refugee status - they’re equal - though I will admit I’m unimpressed with the parents that would put their kids through a voyage like the trip from around the middle east to oz.  I would think they would be better served getting to the nearest safe point (considerably less time, and hardship) THEN applying for refugee status…

      Before you get all high and mighty on me - I have no problem with people wanting to improve the standard of their lives, migrating to a place with better education, quality of life, etc - what I do have the issue with is that they get all that, with no real outlay of their own - and when people who have contributed all their lives, through taxes, and producing taxpayers - don’t have the equivalent quality of life a ‘refugee’ gets.  Considerable education incentives, ‘handouts’ that a pensioner could only dream of - I’m not sure thats entirely appropriate.

      If they’re after a better life, and they’re willing to become a productive, INCLUSIVE member of Australian society (that means law-abiding, respect for others, etc) then apply for immigration.

      If they’re a refugee, by all means, apply for refugee status.  If you’re fleeing war-torn countries, then apply for it, and be sent home once the conflict has stabilised.  If you can’t ever go back, apply for permanent residency, and NEVER GO BACK.  You can’t on one hand say its too dangerous to go back to your country, and then fly back for a holiday.

      If you’re fleeing true hardship and horror, then truly anywhere should be better than where you’re from.  In reality, some of the refugees WOULD be better served by being placed in another nation.  Some people can’t integrate into a multicultural society, or won’t - and these people should be placed in an environment (country) that would better suit their needs.

      Australia should not be the first point of call for many of these refugees - and the support provided to them should be recognised, and ultimately, a return should be received back.  If an australian can’t get training for a trade for nothing (if anyone knows how one can, I’d love to find out) - neither should someone staying temporarily - and if they’re staying permanently, they should be placed on a HECS type plan - where once they’re earning from their provided training, they begin to pay it back. 

      Oh - and just like certain batches of Aussies - there needs to be enough incentive to go out and find work - even if its ‘beneath’ them.  It would be nice to LOVE your job, and yes, that is the ultimate goal - but sometimes you have to take a job you don’t like, in order to get by until you’re either qualified, or simply GET that job.

      Sorry if my words class me as a redneck.

    • Dan says:

      06:21am | 20/11/09

      Cuppa, Australia is NOT a Christian country and is NOT based on Christian values (thank god.) It is certainly not based on Christian values, if Christian values means being racist and xenophobic, which is what you are.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      06:22am | 20/11/09

      And Wayne still says BOO HOO! Attack me and my views all you like but in the real world things are a little different. It is amazing reading some of the dribble that some of you spew fourth. I just love reading through this stuff.
      If I am in the minority how would that explain opinion polls that show clearly otherwise? The majority of people do exactly what most of you have done here. You say nice things so you have that nice warm glow when you lay your self down at night, safe in the knowledge that you at least typed something to save the refugees. If you feel strong enough about it DO something other than say nice things. I’m a realist. Come in via the front door, thats fine! I’ll check you out and if I like I will let you in. Come via the back and there is a good chance I will sick my dog on you. Bleeding hearts cost lives!!!!

    • Anna Greer says:

      07:40am | 20/11/09

      Rebecca, I don’t think your words class you as a redneck just someone who seems to base her views on the “news” A Current Affair or Today Tonight serves up. Please provide the evidence for your claims that refugees who get protection in Australia all become unemployed dole bludgers and then we’ll talk. (maybe watch this first: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2724620.htm )

      “What I am concerned about, is that they are genuine refugees, and not risking the lives of themselves, and their families in the hopes of a new life based on handouts”

      You’re onto something here. I don’t think people would do this. A lot of these people’s status has already been resolved by the UN in Indonesia, but there they have waited for years to no avail. Less than one per cent of the world’s refugees end up finding a host country with the UN. Conditions in Indonesia are also appalling and in some centres people are beaten regularly and their children are not safe. Many feel taking a boat to Australia is their only hope.

    • Anna Greer says:

      08:43am | 20/11/09

      What I’m getting at with my dichotomy of the humane versus the inhumane is, in this debate, no matter what your thoughts on asylum seekers and how fair it is they are allowed to settle in Australia, you either think the above treatment of refugees is morally justifiable in some sense or you think it’s inexcusable. Should anyone be treated like this? If you think it is somehow morally justifiable then how do you justify it? The way refugees were treated by the Australian government is probably the most criminal and unjust thing about the whole Howard Government and if we are talking morals and what is right and wrong, what was done to them is off the charts compared to anything you think they may have done to “deserve” it. Our immigration policies and laws shouldn’t be used as punishment for a perceived moral wrong and that is how they were used for near on a decade.

    • Thomas says:

      10:24am | 20/11/09

      Hi Cuppa, Andrew Goff,

      Firstly, Andrew, I agree that Australia is neither a Christian nor explicitly based on Christian principles - and I’m glad it is so. Our constitution mentions God once in the first article, and that is all. I was merely seeking to expose Cuppa’s ridiculous hypocrisy in using “christian values” to support what is clearly a xenophobic stance.

      Cuppa - Firstly, asylum seekers are NOT illegal immigrants. See 1951 UN refugee convention. Is is a horrid and commonly-accepted blatant untruth that it is illegal to land on Australia and apply for asylum. Secondly, looking after widows and orphans (and others) is far from a zero-sum game.

      I might not have room at my house for any Tamil refugees, but I certainly have room in my tax payments for a tiny percentage to be allocated towards relieving the victims of a horrible civil war.

      I can see, though, that nothing I can write to you in this comment board is going to make “shri lankans” worthy of any of your compassion, so I’m going to leave you right alone. Should you ever decide to revisit the notion of “christian values” (and I would encourage you to), perhaps you should read the parable of the Good Samaritan and realise that Jesus explicitly advocated compassion for those of different races and cultures.

    • Bethany says:

      01:02pm | 23/11/09

      “...there are two types of people in this world - those on the side of human rights and those who would pick up a gun against their fellow humans and carry out acts of cruelty.”
      Really, Anna, only two types. Doesn’t leave much room for anyone wanting a reasoned debate on the issues, does it?

    • Sam says:

      05:44pm | 23/11/09

      Rebecca, thanks for an excellent post! I totally agree.

    • Lisa says:

      08:53pm | 23/11/09

      This fear of asylum seeker is a perfect example of Australia’s racism.
      there is one world. There is one human race, the boundaries between countries are man-made and mean nothing. Anyone should be allowed to go anywhere they want on the earth. We all live here, and if someone needs to re-locate and start over (which can not be easy) more power to them. Pull your heads in and stop thinking that White, English speaking Australians are more worthy of a good life than others. The calls to shoot, drown send back and sink the boats of asylum seekers that I have heard in the last while smack of white supremacy. Obviously there needs to be a system to sort through all the refugees, Make sure they can get jobs etc. Australians are some of the most racist people I have ever known. multiculturalism is a good thing, stop being afraid of it.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

The factory where they make Boeing aeroplanes is the world's largest building #Todaysrandomfact.

Lucy Kippist

Can you wear skinny jeans when you're old enough to get a hip replacement? You bet: http://t.co/14b6UGnY

tory_maguire

@jessmcguire I can't decide if that's the best thing ever or really troubling!

tory_maguire

Best news pic of the day - the rescue of Busta the goat in Londonderry, Sydney, last night http://t.co/miMqk1fX

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Hipsters with hip replacements

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day

La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day

Your task is simple. Here is $115.50. It must last one week. You have no savings, no assets, but thankfully…

Those greedy ATMs gobble up more than your card

Those greedy ATMs gobble up more than your card

We’ve been talking a lot about interest rates this week. And the 30 per cent of us who have mortgages…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

151 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter