An Australian Family of Man?

In the early post-war era, the Anglo-Australians received a terrible shock. Their government brought into the country a large number of non-English speaking European workers (the then ‘wogs’), and many war-displaced European refugees (the then ‘reffos’). I have personally known a number of the latter, because the influx of educated, English-speaking youth from the former (some current) British territories in Asia also began in the same period. My life was thus enriched; but I am unsure of that of mainstream Australians.

Kind Anglo-Australians assisted many of the Europeans to adapt to Australian mores through the Good Neighbour Council. The government then spent millions of taxpayer money per year in providing migrants (and refugees) with hostel accommodation with full board, English language classes, and a variety of other settlement services. These included, from the 1970s, paying for the employment of social workers by ethnic communities. Our message was adaptation, mutual tolerance, and (eventually) acceptance, since the way we live is almost identical, except for the way we relate to God (and then the process is the same).

The greater the diversity of the newcomers, the more important it was for our message to be accepted. This was more so when Asians were admitted. It was the role of the teachers in schools which set the true multicultural outlook flowering (the odd yobbo and bully excepted).

My third book in this series, ‘Hidden Footprints of Unity,’ extolled my ambition: for Australia to join the Family of Man. I examined inter-community relations, as well as our shared search for God, through a quick run-through of the history of Australia’s intake of ‘ethnics’, and a few related issues. Prominent pre-publication support from notable people, which included the Religious Affairs Editor of ‘The Australian,’ as well as a most favourable appraisal by a book reviewer, led to publication. An ebook version is now available at US$2.99 at Smashwords and Amazon Kindle Direct.

As long as the inflow of immigrants continues, and with the increasing diversity of ethnic cultures in the land, the quality of inter-ethnic relations and a much-needed societal integration are of paramount importance. The experiences of certain European countries should be noted. There should be no place for ethno-religious superiority anywhere.


The refugee racket -Part 2

My previous post dealt with the issues of morality and legality in the processing of asylum seekers, against the background of protecting Australia’s national borders. Shouting ‘Open sesame’ at the door of Australia’s cave of welfare ‘goodies’ is equivalent to an unlawful boat arrival saying ‘You don’t know who or what I am, but I am a refugee. If you do not give me what I want as quickly as possible, I will sue you.’

The third issue here is fairness. The vociferous Anglo-Australian supporters of unlawful arrivals, all of whom may not be as materially disinterested as they profess, claim that all asylum seekers (whom they had never met) satisfy the UN Convention. How do they know this? They are certainly very generous with the hard-earned taxes paid by fellow citizens. As it is, billions of dollars are spent in dealing with the asylum seekers.

Unwarranted compassion by some politicians for very large numbers of potentially unemployable persons, against the background of a slowing economy and increasing unemployment, is just irresponsible. Examine the data: eg. after 5 years, Afghans accepted as refugees, reportedly have an unemployment rate of 91% (see The Australian). What sort of work will unskilled arrivals find available in a country with an extremely low need for such workers?

Should not these supporters, especially the politicians, provide the nation with the costs (the dole, other welfare, public housing, Medicare, legal representation, court fees, interpreters, phone calls, etc.) arising from their policy, year by year, especially after allowing for family reunion? Fairness to their nation requires that.

The policy of granting only a 3-year temporary protection visa was foolishly discarded a few years ago. That policy permitted the repatriation of asylum seekers when conditions had improved in their country of nationality. Economic migrants should, of course, be required to follow the established path of due process, by seeking selection by authorised officials.

Australians who had been selected as immigrants or as refugees on the basis of their capacity for making a net contribution to Australia and to integrate easily into Australian society, would not support the entry of self-selected boat arrivals. These are important issues for the health of any nation. Even refugees need to be assessed in terms of their ability to integrate. When it is not possible to identify an asylum seeker (through a lack of necessary documentation), how could an assessment be made about his/her capacity to integrate into the nation? Will this person be able to adapt to the institutional framework and the social values of modern, egalitarian, non-sectarian Australia?