WOGS WELCOME

11th June 1990

I'm not sure I see the problems we have with immigration in the right light or not.

There is presently a debate being had, on levels of qualification.

This seems to infer a slightly elitist attitude against the lower class, lesser qualified members of the Human Race.

In 1988 I rode up the centre of this broad Australian land. Quite a feat on a BMX bike. Fortunately I went on a Yamaha 650. All the while, whilst travelling through, I was struck continually with the feeling that I was "in", as in a part of, a creation of Eternal Beauty.

After a wee while, I began to see it as the planet's most precious, most valuable resource. Land!

Go-the-agents!

Since that short runaway, I"ve had a chance to be involved with the opposite of that central Australian sparseness, through volunteer work at the Salvation Army St Kilda Crisis-Centre, Melbourne, assisting the homeless, addicted, and destitute through their crises.

Now, dare I attempt to combine these two extreme opposites, to forge them together in an attempt to solve the problems that all crisis centres are, on a dramatically increasing scale, struggling to address?

Considering the criticism I would be bound to face, I think I should at least approach with caution.

Sooner or later, our Nation is going to have to decide what place it has in the global problem of aiding the world's refugees.

It seems to me that a place like the United Kingdom is a stupid place to send any number of refugees, if only because of it's high density of population, let alone it's economic woes.

In fact, it seems to me, that most first world nations are about as crowded as they really need to be.

But not Australia.

I have listened to the various arguments and objections on immigration, and have a feeling that those who oppose any increase in migrant numbers to Australia, are basing their "beliefs" (for that is all they are) on fallacious data.

Nevertheless, there seems to be an overcomplicating of things in regard to "What to do?" with any serious amount of migrant/refugees.

Looking at where they have emigrated or escaped from, one sees that in-the-main, they were accustomed to a very low income. Certainly too many, if not all, were far, far below the average world poverty line, and should be given every equitable opportunity to rise above a life, previous to seeking refuge, of all-round uncertainty and squaller.

How rational is it that these people, should they gain entry into Australia, be dumped straight in or around our fairly fragile major cities, especially when these cities are overloaded with our own refugees? You know? The ones fallen below the socially acceptable minimum income, or are weighed heavily by a traumatic childhood, broken family, tragic incident, genetic malady, karma or just rotten luck, who already every day and night, overload every welfare agency in the land.

In light of all these sad facts, I put the question;
"How many of the Boat-People or other (and perhaps more genuine) international refugees would be against being given the chance to relocate with their families in some of Australia's more remote, and so less decadent terrain?"
How many of them would reject the idea of using their manual labour, in modern and safe conditions, to construct a rail-web to supply these outer-reaches of un-used land?

How many of them would baulk at the prospect of building a township, creating an agricultural oasis, adapting gradually to their new climate of a better life?

Indeed, perhaps the question should first be put to all Australians, be they white, yellow, brown or black, of "How many of the destitute youth, Australian youth of our cities and the bush, might consider partaking in such a diverse, probably more disciplined but definitely more wholesome way of life?"
I've no doubt many middle-aged and even elderly Australians, Aborigines and migrant-refugees might jump at the opportunity in such a constructive, accommodating and Humane series of projects.

What if our ever generous government were to offer these people five years of free accommodation, with meals for all, whilst they laboured to construct the infrastructure for the fourth quarter of this vast Terra Australis?

How many Australians would be interested in providing language, agricultural, mechanical, thrift and financial/business instruction, for the same full board for themselves and their families, for as long as they might choose above three months?

How much would it cost to feed the refugees? More than than their nation's aristocracy spent on them, that's for sure!

Would I get as many purported "correctly informed and evidentially justified objections" as there are lives at stake?

In Australia, "Guaranteed!"

How many of these objectors would be already living in concordance, in accord with the way the Human Race should be living?

What does the word "future" mean to those smug, self-righteous supporters of a white-Australia policy?

How much a day do they need to "live"? And how much dirt?

I've not met a person, or heard a politician, clergyman or economist who knows what the future has in store for Human Beings. Probably because they're so factionalised around their (not unimportant but) less significant portfolios, to focus on the Big Picture of World Peace.

What do the claimants in the Land Rights debate, the Australian Aborigines, have to say on such an idea?

Oh! And what do those chardonnay socialists, chardonnay environmentalists, and purported Humanitarians have to say?

"Hello? Oh, they've all disappeared?!"