The Senate has passed sweeping changes to Australia’s immigration laws, including the re-introduction of temporary protection visas (TPV), representing a much-needed legislative win for the Abbott Government.
Senators sat until the early hours of the morning debating the legislation, which eventually passed with the support of the two Palmer United Party senators, Family First senator Bob Day, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm and a clearly anguished Ricky Muir from the Motoring Enthusiast Party.
Senator Muir told the Chamber the Immigration Minister had made it clear that tens of thousands of asylum seekers would be left in limbo unless the legislation was passed.
“I am forced into a corner to decide between a bad decision and a worse decision; a position I do not wish upon my enemies,” he said.
“A decision that involves human beings, children, mothers, fathers, lives of people who have had to endure unthinkable hardship; people pushed to the point where they go to any lengths to seek asylum.”
Senator Muir told the chamber he had received a letter from asylum seekers.
“They state that if a TPV was the only option this Government was going to offer, accept it because the mental anguish and pain can’t go on,” he said.
Top Comments
I'm on the fence with this issue, on the one hand I don't wish to see people suffering, but on the other hand I do believe that if things were made much easier lots more people would try to come here, because there are so many poor and war torn countries and I don't think we have the room to take everyone, and if it was easier a lot more people would come. As for genuineness I am sure they all have a genuine need to be here, because the majority of people don't leave their country out of choice, but as far as being able to ascertain whether they are the UN definition of refugees, I find it strange when people say the majority have been found to be genuine refugees, because for many of these people you are relying on their own words, for instance if someone says they need refugee status because they are of the wrong religion etc how can this effectively be checked that they are making this up? I say this because an iranian told me that he knew of a number of Iranians who pretended to be Christians so they can come here, because they can claim refugee status as being of a persecuted religion, he says they then dutifully attend church every Sunday for two years then when they get residency they say to the church, in his words, "bye bye". Of course these people probably are desperate to leave iran , because he said many people are miserable there due to the mix of a repressive govt and a bad economy, but as he says they are economic refugees but because that isn't an acceptable category they pretended to be religious refugees.
Also if you think of every afghani woman in terms of a humane definition of refugee, surely they would fit it, but the persecution of women isn't considered an appropriate category for refugee, and of course the reason for that is the UN knows if they included the persecution of woman in their definition of refugee then a quarter or more of the planet would be claiming refugee status!
So the point I'm making is the UN definition of refugees anyway is narrow minded because why should a religiously persecuted person have a right to refugee status when a woman who is persecuted due to her sex, or a person who can't put food on the table due to their country's poor economy, be deemed in eligible.
I have sympathy for all these people but I do have concerns that if things are made easier than more and more people would come , it is not about the percentage of people now, it may or may not be small, the point is make it easy for them and many more would then decide to come, and how many people can we afford to let in.
And there can also be the problem of clashing cultures, some people do come from countries where their value system is very different from the average Australian, for instance some cultures do not have a high regard for women, so you can't expect someone to suddenly change their attitude the minute they arrive here if it has been ingrained in them since birth that women are inferior.
The problem is if anyone makes any of these statements that I have made they are instantly called racist, but I feel these are issues that we must consider.
I would like to help everyone in the world that has a genuine need to be here but I do have I believe valid concerns as to how much room we have to do this and to how we can do this and we can do this without our own culture being overcome by some refugees sexist attitudes.
It's one thing the way the govt treats asylum seekers, but to then say that they want to stop people dying at sea is laughable.
Why is it laughable?, can you give an example of this governments indifference to people drowning at sea please.