Is Australia’s humanitarian intake enough?
My latest survey is on Australia’s humanitarian migrant intake. I’m interested in hearing from everyone, although I will take particular note of the responses from the Fraser electorate (given that they’re the people I have the honour to represent). You can fill in the survey below:
Australia’s humanitarium intake is so small in comparison to so many other countries it’s laughable! We need to get over the head space of “illegal immigrants” “Queue Jumpers” and become sensitive to desperate people fleeing awful plights. Forget Abbott’s option of turning the boats back. We need a bigger population to be economically viable in the upcoming decades, lets go to Malaysia & Indonesia with Navy vessels, pick up loads of known true immigrants from these massive process centres, stop the drownings, bring them home and get real. Process them within weeks and spend money integrating them instead of jailing them for months/years. The cost of dealing with the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome of innocents subjected to hell that will be an ongoing cost for decades could be stopped with altruism. Is it really that hard? Really?
You claim is false and baseless, Australian humanitarian intake is second only to US. Get your fact right and get real. True immigrants in Malaysian and Indonesia are not true refugees, they are illegal economical immigrants by all definitions, and even though most of them come from countries with appalling economical conditions, it is not a reason to accept them. There is no other justification to refugee intake besides moral obligations, they are uneducated, often illiterate and with no English language skills, as such they have to stay on government support for years, often till next generations. Therefore any increase in humanitarian intake should be planned for many years ahead, and should consider most in need, i.e. desperate people living in horrible conditions in camps around the world and no money to pay to people smugglers. Accepting boat invaders at expense of these people is immoral, inhumane and irresponsible.
Growing a bigger population funded by the depletion of finite resources is a recipe for economic, environmental and hence social disaster. Australia cannot support a bigger population in the medium/long term due to energy/water/food security issues. We must stabilise now. We already have a very generous refugee intake – the highest per capita resettlement of refugees in the worlkd. It should not be increased. We need to deal with the root cause of forced migration – overpopulation driving resource sacrcity and subsequent conflict – through targeted aid. Help the 220 million + women around the world who cannot properly control their fertility to gain reproductive health services including contraception.
Hi liam,
May I start with a respectful thanks for a grown up chat. I love a decent quantative conversation without angst and I thank you for the opportunity!
As for the larger population, we are in desperate need for it, now and in the decades to come. It will not be funded by depleting resources as our global population is finite…. as is our population. Ask India if we cannot cope with a resources boom. Look in your backyard and acknowledge the need to deal with “medium/long term due to energy/water/food security issues”. Honestly, generous refugee intake? Highest per capita? You have pulled data from god knows where but it couldn’t be more wrong! I was about to suggest Google until I read that suddenly women cannot control their fertility. Let’s fix it by dealing with the root cause of forced migration. I’ll stop now, but you really need to support women positively…. (and acknowledge they had no control to begin with)
Australia already accepts enough refugees. The best approach is to increase foreign aid funding so that refugees can return to and build up their own countries. We are not helping the millions around the world by allowing 15-20,000 to come to Australia.
Our population has grown too fast, and it’s too high. Migration and domestic growth are feeding the demands by big business for growth, while we build de-salination plants because we don’t have enough water. We import food from China while we build suburbs over scarce farming land. Many people, especially single people, are now priced out of the housing market… if you’re not breeding, you don’t rate it seems. Our roads and public transport are groaning under the load of people congesting them. Cities are angry, crowded places.
I’d support reducing the so-called “skilled” migration program and taking more asylum seekers and refugees… but the current levels of immigration are way too high.
This whole question needs to be considered inside larger arguments.
Firstly we are in desperate need of a population policy. Once this has been decided then we can decide where how population is made up. ,the environmental, ecological and social disaster that we are heading for with larger human populations will be th worst the world has ever seen. This is not an anti human argument it is about humans having the decent life which we have become able through evolution to have. True respect for each and every human being demands at no one is left to live the kind of useless, powerless, demeaning and undignified lives we see in overcrowded countries.
Secondly everyone deserves to live a peaceful and productive life in the country of their birth. All our humanitarian efforts must go to enabling this to happen, preventing the need for the misery of having to leave family and loved ones, culture and country behind.
So in conclusion; if we up the refugee intake we must lower population growth in other areas- scrapping the baby bonus (yes it does actually cause babies, unbelievable I know), and lowering the economic migrant intake (supporting training and development for unemployed people here ). Either way we must also be using our influence to end the need to flee.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment
KC
Australia’s growing population is destroying our natural heritage and reducing liveability of our cities. I would support increased humanitarian immigration if other immigration was massively reduced. Almost all of our environmental indicators are pointing downwards, and many of these are directly or indirectly caused by increasing population and the associated expansion of infrastructure and increasing demand on natural areas.
Australia must stabilize its population. In the long term the ‘bigger Australia’ promoted by those with short term commercial interests is a suicidal strategy. Thus the total migrant intake should have the primary aim of stabilizing the population, and should then be optimized to fulfill secondary issues, such as humanitarian and skills needs.
Other than obvious environment damage, if we were not so overpopulated we would not have water problems during drought, young people could afford to buy houses with decent sized backyards, and we would not have the massive congestion problems we have. Other than our having access to cheap gadgets our standard of living has plummeted since the early 80’s.
The parents of baby boomers were grossly immoral for having so many kids and allowing such a huge migrant intake; so let’s not pass the problem onto the next generation. We should ensure our population does not increase by abolishing the baby bonus, by not increasing the refugee intake and by ceasing all other forms of migration.
The most immoral aspect of our current migration program is our taking skilled migrants from Third World countries, such as doctors. These countries have struggled to educate these people and they are in desperate need of their skills. How many people would have died in African countries because the doctors they had are now working in Australia?
Our population is growing unsustainably – a problem that’s been studiously ignored by the big business focussed ALP and Coalition parties. It’s time that Australia had a serious population policy that put our environmental, economic and social sustainability front and centre.
I support increasing Australia’s refugee quota but I would like the total intake of immigrants to be reduced. At some stage we will reach an optimal population for Australia at which time we should have zero population growth. For the planet as a whole that point was reached decades ago.
I have no difficulty in principle with the idea of increasing our humanitarian intake, as long as there is also recognition of the overriding problem; Australia’s population is already growing at levels that are ecologically unsustainable. The evidence for this is there for all with eyes to see in State of the Environment reports, in the pressures on our water resources, and in myriad other indicators.
Accordingly, it would be highly irresponsible to increase the humanitarian intake unless it is more than offset by significant reductions in the overall migrant intake. Present rates of population growth, in which net migration is a major component, are driving Australia towards ecological overload and environmental catastrophe.
As an aside, I hope you are not suggesting that if the majority of respondents in the electorate of Fraser support a position, you will automatically represent that in your position on this issue?
Some of us (including me) elect a representative to exercise the judgement we perceive in them, knowing that they will make a decision informed not only by their constituency, but also by relevant facts, foreseeable consequences and most importantly, ethics.
Well put, Moira. Like you, I’m a believer in representative democracy, not direct democracy. But I find these exercises useful to ‘take the pulse’ of what some of my electors are thinking.
I strongly support raising Australia’s humanitarian intake – but not at the cost of restoring off-shore processing. This is a race to the bottom. Mark Latham lost one election. Julia Gillard is in the process of losing a generation for Labor – the best of them, too.
What is wrong with direct democracy? Do you consider your electors not smart enough to make important decisions? I am a strong supporter of citizen’s initiated referenda. At the moment we have government driven by highly paid lobbyists. The ordinary person is left out of the political process.
Taking the pulse of this survey is that we can’t take more refugees unless we reduce skilled migration. We must take into account our future sustainability.
To Corrie:
Australia’s refugee intake is the highest per capita intake in the world and the third highest total amount in the world. In total number surpassed only by the US (population of 305 million) and Canada (population of 35 million).
Please check your facts.