The government does not listen

even to their own.

It is a well known fact around our nation's capital that the national "public service" has a great many employees who tend to support the left side of politics.  That means that the current government generally has nothing to worry about when it comes to implementing government policies. It also means the rest of us do have something to worry about, especially if there are problems with those policies. There is no balance there. Balance can be good. It can help to develop policies which will work for the benefit of everyone.

Anyone who lives in Downunder will be aware of "temporary protection visas" - those documents which allow people from places where there is upheaval, persecution, war, a natural disaster and more to seek temporary protection here.  TPV's as they are commonly known are a very useful tool. They can provide much needed short term protection.

But they also need to be controlled. They were never intended to last, as some have, for twenty years or more. They were really only intended to last for two or, at most, three years. Like many other things they have become something else.

They were also supposed to be a disincentive to people entering the country illegally. Yes, it is possible for a genuine refugee to enter another country illegally. Strictly a  refugee is supposed to seek shelter in the first country in which it is possible to seek safe haven. That does not mean anyone can pick and choose a country of their choice. 

And of course this does mean that some countries will get more refugees than others. It is a system which was designed long ago. It was designed with the idea that if people ended up in neighbouring countries pressure would be applied to deal with the problems. 

Of course it has not worked that way. Now the current Downunder government is attempting to do away with TPV's for about 20,000 holders. They also want to provide a range of benefits for these people. It sounds humane. It sounds good. Many people who support refugees will support the idea. It's a "vote winner".

But there is a question which needs to be asked, "Do we give people who have broken international law and our laws the right to remain? Do we give them the right to remain even when they have been offered asylum in a third country?"

At least one person seeking asylum here has refused to be resettled in three other countries, New Zealand, Canada and America all offered asylum. It was rejected.  There are others who have refused resettlement in other countries. Rather like those who keep trying to cross the Channel only one country will do.

Refugees I know, and I know more than a few, are generally grateful just to be somewhere safer than before. Our national public service knows that too but they are still giving in to the pressures being applied by people who can see there is political gain in the situation.  They have been warned that people smugglers will try even harder than before. They know people will lose their lives at sea. They know that the majority who come this way are young men. Do they ever wonder why this is so?

I wonder whether it really does not worry them. Do they still believe they will be seen as more compassionate, more caring?  

The government has been advised against this move. Why aren't they listening?