Blog Post 1: Creating a Data Set using Secondary Sources

Article 1: “How Australia should deal with asylum seekers and refugees.”

Written by Eva Orner and Steven Glass, the article discusses the irrationality of the Australian government’s reluctance in taking in refugees from around the world despite their honour bound obligations to do so. Eva Orner is a renowned filmmaker who has recently released ‘Chasing Asylum,’ a documentary exposing the crude reality of Australia’s detention centre, and Glass is a law partner who is a board member of the Asylum Seekers Centre in Sydney.

The article is a strongly opinionated piece, appealing to the public’s empathy and criticises harshly the Turnbull government’s incapability in taking in the number of refugees they have promised. Orner and Glass through the article points their questions directly towards the key members like Dutton, shooting point blank on their policies like the Border Force Act and questionins the real purpose behind the prohibition of media access into the camps. The article argues the irrationality and incompetence of the government should no longer be tolerated at the expense of the people unfairly trapped in the camps, and considering their profession and the high level of engagement they have had with refugees in detention centres, Orner and Glass were likely to have been motivated to release the opinion piece from witnessing first hand the crude injustice hidden from the eyes of public media. However the article could also be described as bias towards the official views of the liberal government in its harsh criticism regarding Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton’s policies, as it does not include the liberal government’s official explanation behind the implementation of these policies.


Glass, S & Orner, E 2016, ‘How Australia should deal with asylum seekers and refugees’, Sydney Morning Herald, June 4 2016, viewed 4th of August 2016,



Article 2: “Manus, Nauru detention: this is not our Australia.”

Written by Martin Mckenzie-Murray, the chief correspondent of The Saturday Paper, and a regular political contributor to The Age newspaper in the Opinion section, this news article comes motivated from the writer’s exchange with one of the refugees in the Nauru detention camp. Considering the writer’s profession and past contributions to Australian journalism as a political writer, his articles can considered credible as it is taken directly from the accounts of his refugee friend.

The article focuses on the current political stance taken by the Turnbull government and discusses several possibilities that could be taken following the PNG supreme court’s ruling of Manus detention centre illegal.

One of the proposal made by shadow minister Richard Marles was to offer the PNG government money to legalise Manus centre or change Manus centre to an open camp to offer more freedom for asylum seekers. The first proposal would only be a temporary solution as the PNG could over time demand more sums of pay out. The second proposal would be exposing the Manus centre to the local hostility demonstrated earlier in the 2014 riots. Another solution was to transfer Manus occupants to Nauru, which would be a very temporary measure considering the psychological damage Nauru has been inflicting upon the centre’s refugee.

The author highlights the government’s current stasis in their delayed response to the court ruling, pointing out the cruelty in mulling over possibilities whilst refugees in Nauru are falling victim to the devolving psychological conditions.


McKenzie-Murray, M 2016, ‘Manus, Nauru detention: this is not our Australia,’ The Saturday Paper, April 30 2016, viewed 1st of August,



Article 3: “The huddled masses have never been in greater need. What will we do about it?”

Written by Tim Costello, the current CEO of World Vision Australia and a prominent voice in matters of social justice the article focuses on Australia’s current predicament regarding the Nauru and Manus detention centres. In the context of the global refugee crisis, Costello criticizes the recent events of Brexit, connoting the supporters to be selfish in their refusal to contribute in assisting the EU’s efforts in reallocating refugees. Placing the recent political event in parallel with Australia’s current predicament, Costello points out the past history of the Australian government’s policy in receiving boat refugees, criticizing its progressive failures in efficiency beginning from the Howard government’s Pacific Operation down to Abbott’s Operation Sovereign Borders. Through these policies, whether they have been effective or not, has enabled us to understand the pattern in relation to the number of boats arriving to Australia. Using this as an advantage, Costello suggests by turning the boats back we would have more resources in solving the situation in Nauru and Manus island. Rather than continuously subjecting refugees to the crude conditions of the detention centres, Costello argues in favour for the Howard government’s policy as it allowed a proper resettlement process of refugees in Australia and throughout other countries. With no discussion in implementing new policies coming to light (be it short or long term), Costello’s temporary solution currently seems to be one of the most viable option available to Australia to quickly resolve the escalating crisis at the Nauru and Manus detention centres.


Costello, T 2016, ‘The huddled masses have never been in greater need. What will we do about it?’, The Guardian, 1 July 2016, viewed on 1st of August,



Article 4: “Resettling refugees in Australia would not resume the people-smuggling trade.”

Written by Alex Reilly, the Deputy Dean and Director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit, also an associate of the Australian Population and Migration Research Centre – affirms his position as a credible source of argument based on his personal research. He has been consistently writing and researching Australia’s immigration policies on The Conversation dating back to 2013.

Reilly likewise echoes Costello’s arguments that the boats should be stopped – for now – as it would ‘prevent people drowning at sea and enable Australia to resettle more refugees through the UN resettlement program.’ Arguing the boat turn backs as a necessary step in this moment, Reilly also addresses the government’s fear in reviving the ‘people-smuggling trade,’ deeming it unlikely as shown by how the numbers spiked when Rudd’s government abolished the turn back policy. Reilly asserts through these findings, Australia has the ability to earn themselves more time if hard pressed by deterring the boats through threats of offshore detention. Reilly’s views align with Costello’s point in however addressing the Nauru and Manus island as one of Australia’s foremost responsibility in reaching a solution, criticising that “there is no case for maintaining the inflexible bipartisan line on resettlement.”

In contrast to this belief Eva Orner claims the boat crisis as hoax devised by politicians, stating only 7.5% of the Australian immigrant intake are refugees, and the biggest number so far to have arrived by boat were 25,000. It can be argued however that in contrast to the Australian approved immigrants, the refugees are behind in terms of their level of adaptability concerning language and skills in labour.

In stopping the boats completely at this moment however, from a humanitarian point of view this would place more refugees at danger the longer they are left to survive on their own in the war torn zones of Syria and its surrounding regions. Australia needs to find a solution in catalysing their resettlement process as a whole.


Reilly, A 2016, ‘Resettling refugees in Australia would not resume the people-smuggling trade’, The Conversation, June 13 2016, viewed on 1st of August,



Article 5: “Legacy asylum seekers: Labor will invite thousands of illegals to stay.”

Written by Daniel Meers and Simon Benson (Chief National Political Reporter), National Political Reporters – credible in the profession being award winning journalists. The article focuses on the change of stance from Labor regarding the border protection policy, proposing to provide 30,000 asylum seekers that had arrived by abolishing TPV, Temporary Protection Visas. TPVs have been instilled to act as a deterrent for people smuggling trade marketing Australia as a permanent home, but Labor is arguing TPVs are no longer effective with offshore refugees being denied entry to Australia completely, and that it is currently doing nothing but heightening tension and insecurity amongst the people who have already settled in to the Australian way of life. In opposition Dutton claims this change would encourage people smuggling trade once again.

However although Dutton argues that TPV is a necessary form of border protection policy, arguing that this would enable the people smugglers to “sell” “permanent residency” to people again, it should be noted (in my personal opinion) that these individuals running from prosecution and war will make their way towards other nations, including Australia, no matter what barricades are installed as a means to deter the volume of refugees and boat arrivals.


Benson, S & Meers, D 2016, ‘Legacy asylum seekers: Labor will invite thousands of illegals to stay’, The Daily Telegraph, June 16 2016, viewed on 1st of August,



%d bloggers like this: