Asylum seekers week 2

For another week asylum seekers who arrive by boat have been front and centre of the political talk this week.

The more I read and engage with the issues, the more complex and difficult it seems. The intricacy of the "problem" (for want of a better word) actually makes me dislike our main media news outlets even more as they seem to paint the problem as black and white. The propaganda is quite unbearable.

Thanks to a friend who works in international policy, I see there are three main issues working in tension that make the "problem" of boat people hard.
1) The need to deter human traffickers;
2) The need to maintain border security; and
3) The need to have compassion for people desperate enough to try to come to Australia by boat.

The stories from the people on these boats are heart breaking. As a mother particularly, I find the stories about the children and the babies drowning just plain awful. Yet, the solution is not to just let everyone come to Australia if they want. This article opened my eyes to see the current asylum seeker policy in a positive light. I still do not think it's ideal but it is trying to find a happy medium between the three tensions that pull at this issue.

Any solution that has a strong emphasis on compassion for the boat people needs to also appeal to the residents in Australia and (selfishly or sadly) needs to appear as a benefit to Australia (not a negative). Stories like this are heart-warming and exciting but we need larger figures of the benefits of increase immigration (including asylum seekers that come by boat).

One piece of writing that challenged me this week is this article about the "why" of Australian's aversion to boat people particularly (not asylum seekers in general). It is easy to use the compassion card to get away from racism but to be challenged about why we need to "defend" our lifestyle when we have actually not done much to deserve it is confronting in a good way. It aligns with how I feel that as Australians we have a life and a lifestyle that is the envy of probably at least 75% of the world's 7 billion population. Us lucky 20 million who live in the land down under.

Lucky Country, Austinmer Jan 2013

A funny

The news this week has continued to be about asylum seekers who come to Australia via boat. I have not had a chance to read enough articles to recommend, but I did see this come through my FB newsfeed and had to share.

Greens are GO!

(Hobart, February 2009)

For those of you who are wondering if there is another option than Liberal and Labour, the most obvious candidate for "the other guy" are the Greens. And (thanks to The Man), they have listed out the policies that they will be pushing in a rather clear way.

http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/greens-plan-australias-future

I realise that the 2 major parties may not be able to spell out their policy-points this clearly, but it would be awesome if they did!

My favourite bit:

"To secure the innovative industries of the future, Australia must stop spending billions subsidising the fossil fuel sector and redirect money to science, research, education and innovation," Mr Bandt said.

The part I am most cynical about:

"Every policy announced by the Australian Greens this election will be fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and we will collect the revenue to pay for every single one of our policies.

Asylum seekers - Asylum seekers - Asylum seekers

(Looking at boats October 2012)

In the news this week, if you missed it (which may not be surprising if you are anything like me and between work, kids, cooking and cleaning are lucky to catch the news of the day let alone read an article) has been about ASYLUM SEEKERS, or the term used by the media BOAT PEOPLE.

At the beginning this blog I raised one of the key policies I was interested in was Australia's treatment of refugees. In my naivety, I thought that onshore detention was better than offshore. I confess I am still trying to get my head about all the issues involved with asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat. The most common sense, human feeling is to think that people who are so desperate to flee their own country to come to us via a dingy boat must need help. So, when Labour released their Refugee policy this week, and brought this to the forefront, it has provided a lot of fodder for me (honestly, maybe too much).

I haven't worked out what I think yet, but this is what I am thinking at the moment:
* Separating child from family should not be allowed, no matter how the child arrived in Australia;
* Mandatory detention seems wrong. Should this not be on a case by case basis?
* Not allowing asylum seekers to work reduces their existence even further.
* What happened to the the words in the Australia anthem that says "From those who come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share"? (Yes, I have seen the memes.)

Here are some articles that some of you might be interested. Please let me know how they make you think:

Highly informative and huge article (ie, need time to read this) http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html

Poignant, first hand, personal challenge point of view: http://christinemead.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/so-you-think-its-a-good-idea-to-welcome-refugees-excuse-me-while-i-burst-your-bubble/

A Christan take on things: http://markrglanville.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/australian-refugee-policy-for-dummies-1-disingenuous-rhetoric/

Slightly sad/realistic viewpoint: http://theimmigrationblog.com/2013/07/19/so-what-should-we-think-of-the-rra/#more-430

Let me know your thoughts!!

Wanna a man?

Firstly, apologies for such a big gap in posts. I will strive to blog weekly but please forgive me when this doesn't happen. Life (work, kids, family, cleaning etc etc) gets in between me and the computer often! :)

(stolen from SMH March 10, 2010)

I am going to blog today about something that deviates a little from my previous discussions on the policies. I want to raise the issue of the actual PERSON we are voting for as Prime Minister. Even though our democratic system doesn't allow us to actually vote for the prime minister (unless you live in the seats of Manly or Griffith), our culture is so celebrity/character driven that the MAN who is PM counts a lot. So - which MAN should I (we) vote for?

I am not aligned to any political party. I have no like/dislike for K.Rudd other than I am impressed he can speak Mandarin. He receives no sympathy points from me in regards to the Julia Gillard backstab/betrayal.  I do confess however that I have a personal dislike for T.Abbott. Why? I don't think it's his appearance or his party. I think it is his language. It is the way that he uses a lot of negative language in the public sphere that he walks in and which I feel isn't helpful for us voters as we try to look for policies instead of slogans. His speech are sometimes just a string of slogans. I listened to him talk about the recent boat-people crisis and actually found his use of the word "mugs" offensive.

But I want to and am willing to put aside that personal opinion of T.Abbott, if the man and his price/policy is right.  I really want to look beyond my own preferences to see what sort of character he is and also K.Rudd.

So I read this article about T.Abbott:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbott-the-thinking-persons-prime-minister-20130619-2oj68.html

I also recall this article about Mike Baird who says some equally glowing accounts of T.Abbott:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-son-rises-20121023-282ga.html

And then read this one about K.Rudd to provide some balance:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-son-rises-20121023-282ga.html


All articles are bias. Some are just more obvious than others. All of the above are extremely bias. But I would like to hear what other people think. I confess, after reading the first article (and being slightly scared by the image that is in the article) I nearly fell off my seat laughing at the concluding line that T.Abbott was a "thinking woman's Prime Minister". (Down, prejudice, down!). It wasn't a convincing article for me.

Open to more though! So, please send me through articles to help me get a clearer picture of what MAN I want (to vote for).

Day 2 - 2 comments (woohoo!) - 2 articles - 2 thoughts

Day 2 of blog and though it is less than 24 hours old, I am thinking this might be a good thing.

Thanks for the comments on my first post. Keep them coming!! I confess I feel a nerdy-love when people comment. Yes, a strange sense of affirmation.

I have two articles for you today. One can be considered more serious than the other.

First is this, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/tastes-the-same-defrosted--not-to-liking-of-all-20130627-2p04t.html sent to me by The Man. It is an interesting take on KRudd.  I can already feel Abbott getting more and more frustrated with every minute he has to look at Kevin's ever smiley face.

The second article is more informative and related to what this blog is really about. A friend sent me this article through my FB and clearly sets out the various policies of each party about paid parental leave and childcare. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-10/federal-election-parental-leave-childcare-policy/4671954

My two thoughts:
1) I am unsure which of the parental leave schemes I think is the best. They are quite complicated. I have two different experiences with paid parental leave. The first, when Peppa was born, was when there was no government paid leave. But my employer provided 14 weeks paid leave. I thought that was pretty generous and a great way of showing that they wanted to retain me. My second experience, when George was born, was with the government's paid parental leave. My employer actually provided 18 weeks paid leave on top of the government's paid leave which was simply amazing and generous. (And no, there is no requirement for me to return the money if I did not return). I see the way that my employer has taken the initiative as their point of difference from the competition. If they had to do this (as under Liberal policies) maybe it would not be as great? (Still thinking that through)
2) The main reason I think government paid parental leave is excellent is for people who do not work for large corporate organisations (like me) who provide paid leave. It just provides that help at a great time of change. A lot of women I know can get quite worried about going back to work and how their "career" or "work skills" may become devalued when they have a child. I think the paid parental leave takes the financial pressure off having a child and therefore the mother to return to work.

I also have some thoughts on childcare and glad that the major parties are thinking of reforming this. But I will leave that for another post.

Your thoughts?

(Paid parental leave experience #1 & #2)

Learning the ropes

Though I have toyed with blogs in the past, and this one is only 24 hours old, I have just started to learn a few things about blogging. I need to spell out some guidelines to help everyone (especially me).

A big thank you to those who have already sent me some articles to read and for your helpful comments. I have allowed people to write comments anonymously because I want anyone to comment. However, it is a little hard for me to respond (ie. Hi Anonymous #1, or Anonymous #2) so if you don't mind even making up a name when you comment, that would help. If you wish to remain anonymous, then the numbering will start from the oldest to the newest comment.

Also, I will try to blog often but I cannot commit to a daily post. Sorry. I hope that doesn't annoy people too much! I didn't realise a blog could be so much work (a little bit like that shock when you realise how much work being a mum is!). However, I will try to publish/veto comments daily.

Lastly, all the images on this blog will be my own photos (both from a copyright point of view and also, as a bit of a showcase for my pictures. What else would I do with them?)

Enjoy!!

(from Vivid Sydney 2013 - LET'S GET GOING!!)