It well makes the point that multiculturalism, the so called bête noir of our times is really of little account. This reflects a lunch-time conversation from which I have just emerged, where a bunch of us good-solid-British-heritage-stocked fourth-and-fifth generationists were comparing our ancestries and remarking how much more mottled our lines were than we realised. The makeup of this country has been thus varied for the last 200 years. Certainly, the ruling class were decidedly British in demeanour if not ethnicity, but those they ruled reveal a variety of cultural backgrounds. And in a land where Jack/Jill is as good as his/her master, the program is set for distinctions to either fade or be mutually celebrated. The politically manufactured zeitgeist of fear cannot and should not prevail given our collective story. But alas it has and it does but it need not. Just read this inspiring article in the same issue of Eureka street.
So one hopes that law interpreted by the High Court of Australia, as in the Malaysia case now awaiting determination, and the reasoned voices from the middle ground that are now being given some airplay, might begin to turn, or at least soften, the political perception of public opinion. Hope springs eternal!
Why can’t our government get it right with asylum seekers who arrive by boat?
The lawfulness of the disgraceful Malaysia deal is being tested before the full bench of the High Court today.
This morning’s headlines in the West Australian were like a breeze of fresh air through the stench of indifference and acrimony that usually surrounds this issue. A group of eminent Australians representing, among other professions, business and the arts, have called for a rethink of the detention strategies, advocating minimum holding for security and health checks and release into the community while asylum claims are ascertained. More humane, less expensive, win-win. They echo recent representations made by senior officials in Immigration to their political masters.
But how does our government respond ? “Let’s build floating detention centres.” Have they completely lost the plot? What kind of blinkered thinking seeks to take us back to the time Britain used floating hulks to imprison its burgeoning underclass. The irony is that when this strategy became unwieldy transportation to the great south land was deemed the solution. That’s right – they were sent out here as “boat people.” Go figure! Granted these $150 million vessels are intended to deliver intercepted asylum seekers swiftly to unnamed off-shore locations – but really?
I guess things have to reach the zenith of the point of ridiculous before uncommon common sense can break through.
My service this morning featured a combination of technology and human error that threatened to undo us – namely the wrong set of hymn lyrics on PowerPoint . A quick swapping of USB drives fixed that – then I inadvertently destroyed the world – knocking the globe from its podium and witnessing its shattering into half a dozen pieces. I have now glued it back together and it is back in its place. All else went smoothly.
This afternoon’s launch of the Project 54 Prayer initiative for the Commonwealth of Nations in preparation for CHOGM took place as part of Evensong at St George’s Cathedral. Many churches have combined for this project – representing the range of liturgical and free form traditions. It was an unusual blend of high church chorale and revival hymns combined with the pageantry of a parade of flags representing the 54 nations that will be represented at CHOGM. A homespun chat from the cathedral pulpit by well known radio personality and Baptist minister Graham Mabury added to the eclectic nature of the launch.
There was just enough time to grab a Subway then join our friends at the local Uniting Church where renowned New Testament scholar, Bill Loader, gave the first of a series of three talks on John’s Gospel. We are fortunate to have such easy access to the kind of scholarship Bill often brings to the table. We always look forward to the times that we can sit with him to explore the insights that he is able to bring.
Permit me to indulge a little more in my railway alternate universe where I live out my childhood daydreams. I see myself at the throttle of the Coffee Pot chugging through Pichi Richi Pass in South Australia’s lower Flinders Ranges.
Quirky, eh wot?
Why waste a daydream on something so wheezy and small in the scheme of steam? Why not yearn for the serious grunt of the Union Pacific Big Boy or the speed and aristocracy of the Flying Scotsman?
Simple – I like quaint and understated. Hidden treasures that await discovery and delight. I reckon the Coffee Pot fills the order.
Here’s an Oz flick that literally champions the underdog! Red Dog is the monicker given to the red kelpie that mysteriously appears and adopts the good burghers of Dampier, a mining port in WA’s hot Pilbara region. It is based on a true story of the 70s, and the era is faithfully depicted. A commemorative statue stands alongside the road into Dampier today. The narrative is told towards the end of the era by the town characters, alternating between that present and a series of flashbacks without losing continuity. It is the celebration of a canine odyssey and the loose knit multi-cultural community that found common cause in him.
The film has enjoyed an unexpectedly high box office return in the two weeks since its release. It will be interesting to see how its laconic quirkiness is received overseas.
This one is hotting up for parliamentary attention next week, with both the Australian Christian Lobby and Getup! campaigning from opposite sides. It looks like it’s going to be high noon at the OK Corral as these two shape up to each other in their lobbying for support. Funny thing is that, in the past, I have sided with each on different occasions on various issues.
I have held back on this one because I’m not satisfied with the arguments of either side. I’m aware this puts me in “no man’s land” the place where one wins suspicion of being a person of no conviction, where one becomes a target for rotten tomatoes from both sides.
The “againsts”, I fear, are guilty of hyperbole. They say that only the traditional nuclear family can offer the solid building block for society. If the world was a black and white version of “Pleasantville” that might be the case. My experience of family units who display all sorts of variations on the proverbial norm says it is not so. Some of the most solid folk I know were brought up in nurturing environments that were anything but ordinary. Some of the most damaged people I have encountered describe a traditional mum-dad-and-kids environment. Whatever the arrangement, it seems to me that loving, respectful, nurturing relationships, whatever the age, gender or cultural mix, are what engender that much sought after solid family unit.
Again I find myself hesitant to cast my lot with the “fors”, as sympathetic as I am with the case for equal recognition of a coupled relationship without discrimination and the legal rights appended to it. My dilemma is, that many couples, regardless of sexual orientation, have a high regard for marriage, and it is right that that they pursue the removal of blocks that prevent the fullest expression of what it can mean as the highest level of spiritual and practical commitment to each other. The thing is that “marriage” itself has become the rallying point, thus altering the subtle nature of what all, in non combative mode, might appreciate as its subtlety, mystery and sanctity. I fear these things are lost in the heat of battle. Of course, some would argue that this is a temporary turbulence and it must be endured for the sake of the long term goal.
I feel there needs to be a reframing of the question of what constitutes marriage and that the wisdom of tradition, culture, and contemporary anthropology need to be in play, not as combatants, but seeking partners.
I am also aware it has been too long for those alienated by the current system and that a measure of justice is crying out for satisfaction.
And so I remain a mugwump, sitting on the barbed wire fence in no man’s land, a place of ambiguity, until a better way forward emerges.
A top immigration official recommends more community based schemes for processing asylum claims and raises questions about the effectiveness of unnecessary detention.
Will our politicians listen? Doesn’t take much to blow out a candle.
I’m indebted to Jack Smit of SafeCom for posting the following transcript. Check out SafeCom, by the way – it’s one of the most regular and comprehensive monitors of social justice issues in Australia I have come across.
Immigration Dept head raises questions about mandatory detention
ABC Radio Current Affairs – AM
Naomi Woodley
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 08:03:00
TONY EASTLEY: The head of the Immigration Department says politicians should be questioning the value of mandatory detention for asylum seekers.
Andrew Metcalfe also told the start of another parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s detention system that he’d personally like to see more community-based programs.
The top-ranking public servant has posed a series of questions for MPs and Senators.
From Canberra, Naomi Woodley reports.
NAOMI WOODLEY: In June, Parliament voted to set up a select or ongoing inquiry into Australia’s immigration detention network.
The secretary of the Immigration Department Andrew Metcalfe opened its first hearing last night by outlining the areas he thinks politicians should focus on.
ANDREW METCALFE: There are a range of policy conundrums. How should we manage the issue of asylum? What is the balance between our international obligations to protect refugees and our need for strong border controls?
NAOMI WOODLEY: And he had some more pointed suggestions on the treatment of asylum seekers who reach Australia.
ANDREW METCALFE: Is immigration detention a deterrent? Does immigration detention facilitate case resolution?
What range of facilities should be utilised? For how long is an immigrant arrival and status determination process in a detention centre environment required?
There are many questions for you as parliamentarians to consider.
NAOMI WOODLEY: None of the MPs or Senators at the inquiry directly asked Mr Metcalfe to expand on what he meant.
Instead the Opposition’s immigration spokesman Scott Morrison was focusing on the sharp increase in the number of serious incidents in detention centres this year.
SCOTT MORRISON: At what point in this escalation of these quite serious indicators were you instructed by the Minister to say, look, something’s not working here?
Basically, when did you get to the Houston-we-have-a-problem stage?
ANDREW METCALFE: Ah, I think that I wouldn’t describe it as there being one specific date in which I woke up or the Department woke up and see the Minister – we have a problem.
NAOMI WOODLEY: Andrew Metcalfe says it’s partly explained by a significant number of people who’ve been in detention for a long time because their initial claims have been refused.
He also says the inquiry should be looking at whether detention is contributing to the rates of self-harm amongst detainees.
Late in the three-hour hearing he again suggested that policy makers should be look at alternatives to mandatory detention. He says he’d personally like community programs to be expanded.
ANDREW METCALFE: It hasn’t been entirely without incident as you would not expect anything involving hundreds of people to be entirely without incident, but we believe it does provide the Department with the necessary access to our clients in terms of status determination without their being required to be held in detention facilities, often in fairly remote locations.
NAOMI WOODLEY: He says since last October, 1765 people have been placed in community detention including 841 children.
The committee’s next hearing will be on Christmas Island in September.
The High Court of Australia has several interesting cases before it right now.
I’ve already pinpointed the challenge to the federally funded School Chaplaincy Program.
Rocking the boat is a very succinct article on the current injunction to halt the Malaysia refugee swap scheme on the basis that the Australian government does not have the power to enact it.
Our legal system often gets sledged because it tends to operate in a rarified atmosphere – indeed justice is never so blind as when it fails to deliver the verdict we think is right. However both these cases show how, in the High Court at least, this “second tier of government” protects us from the emotions of the zeitgeist and political opportunism.
The outcomes of both these cases will leave some parties unhappy. At least it won’t be personal!
It is occasionally suggested for interviews…”What is your greatest weakness?”
I occasionally sit in on job interview or performance review panels as well as having been subject to my own annual performance reviews. I am glad, for the right reasons, that this question never arises. It seems to appear frequently in interview guides, however.
My answer, if asked, would be “The ability to see the hidden agenda behind such a question and play it to my advantage.” Some would see that as a strength, not a weakness. If you’re looking for solid, open and honest teamwork, however, the question sets both the interview panel and candidate/colleague up for something less than the team can be.
What is the purpose of the question? If to encourage improved performance there are a range of more collaborative questions that lead to goal setting, skill acquisition and self-management.
It is a lazy question – best crossed out of the HR literature.
Wondering Pilgrim 