Asylum seekers may be housed at Inverbrackie (Woodside)

[Psyber]

People in rural areas are generally less at ease with the sudden influx of groups of people whose family haven't been there for generations, regardless of where they are from.

Why then are they so keen to get the homeless into Inverbrackie all of a sudden?

I don't think they are as a whole. That's one of the issues some locals may raise.
However, there is a strong Christian tradition in some of those areas, so some sections of the community may prefer Christians, any Christians, including nominal ones.

[Dirko]

Now I'm certainly no Fireman Sam, but I would suggest comparisons between the two are just a tad far fetched.

So the Port Lincoln fires 2005, where a few people died, what was the fuel load looking like there Gingernuts ?

The more discussion I hear on this subject (I mean in general, not only on SAFooty ), the sadder I am to think that Australia is such an ignorant and subsequently xenophobic nation.

Have you looked at any other countries immigration policies to base that on?

[fisho mcspaz]

Only the US - their policies aren't so dissimilar from Australia's but they've got borders with Canada and Mexico, whereas we're an island, so that rather dilutes the comparison somewhat.

I am completely ignorant as to all other countries' immigration policies. I don't think I need to know about them to be able to say that Australia is a xenophobic nation. It's not the immigration policies that make it so (not directly, I mean); it's the widespread ignorance of the populace. Chucking asylum seekers in a place like Baxter was not a humane act of the Howard government, but I do not believe that it was pre-empted by racism. The racism factor is in the reaction of the Australian people to asylum seekers. When I was sixteen I wrote a letter to the Advertiser protesting against refugees being held for years in Baxter, and received a whole bunch of freaky hate mail from 'Christians' basically telling me I'd better shut up or else. The government ignores views of people like me, and the extremists respond to it.

[Squawk]

I suspect some objectors might be racist, but others who object are simply being called racist because it's an easy label to cast.

And SJABC, you're right. The Eyre Peninsula has had (I think) 4 significant fires in 8 years. More than any other fire district in that time, I think. If you look at your pic you can also see the smoke trail from the fire in the Adelaide Hills on the same day. (I saw the fire jump the freeway that day, just past the toll gate, as over 100 trucks were reversing down and parking along Portrush Rd). When I left work around 2pm, it was the Hills fire that was of greatest concern in many ways. When I got back to work, I was staggered to hear that they thought 13 people had died in 4 hrs I was gone, before it was rounded back down.)

And for those who think buses are still an option for evacuation, from memory 5 of the 9 people who died at Pt Lincoln in January 2005 were killed in cars trying to flee the fires. Other people survived by jumping off cliffs and in to the sea. Ash Wed 1983 saw a lot of people die in cars as well, as did the Vic fires in 2009.

[Gingernuts]

Now I'm certainly no Fireman Sam, but I would suggest comparisons between the two are just a tad far fetched.

So the Port Lincoln fires 2005, where a few people died, what was the fuel load looking like there Gingernuts ?

Never said there was no danger at Inverbrackie, just that the comparison to Kinglake was far fetched, which I still stand by.

And I say again, "fire danger" is just a smoke screen for "not in my backyard".

[Squawk]

Except that fire danger is only one of many issues that has been raised by those advocating against Inverbrackie. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, those advocating for Inverbrackie simply say their opponents are racist.

Regardless of anyone's views for or against, you can't dismiss the bushfire problem that has been created. It's there for all the residents but it's a much greater danger for this group of 400 people, regardless of the NIMBYs.

[cripple]

I suspect some objectors might be racist, but others who object are simply being called racist because it's an easy label to cast.

And SJABC, you're right. The Eyre Peninsula has had (I think) 4 significant fires in 8 years. More than any other fire district in that time, I think. If you look at your pic you can also see the smoke trail from the fire in the Adelaide Hills on the same day. (I saw the fire jump the freeway that day, just past the toll gate, as over 100 trucks were reversing down and parking along Portrush Rd). When I left work around 2pm, it was the Hills fire that was of greatest concern in many ways. When I got back to work, I was staggered to hear that they thought 13 people had died in 4 hrs I was gone, before it was rounded back down.)

And for those who think buses are still an option for evacuation, from memory 5 of the 9 people who died at Pt Lincoln in January 2005 were killed in cars trying to flee the fires. Other people survived by jumping off cliffs and in to the sea. Ash Wed 1983 saw a lot of people die in cars as well, as did the Vic fires in 2009.

To put this buses issue to rest, if a day is declared as a catastrophic fire danger day at 6pm the night before, use the 8 buses to clear the danger early and before any potential danger is present. No one is expecting bus drivers to risk their lives by trying to beat a fire in a bus, to do so is absolute madness. There are plenty of options available to smart and prepared people when it comes to risk management of any magnitude. To propose bushfire, tsunami, earthquke etc... (all terrible natural disasters) as a reason not to locate a populace in a location seems to be more like a reason to justify your dislike for people living there.
Going by this reasoning, i hope you write to the government and ask them to close down detention centres in Port Hedland, Darwin and Weipa because they are in cyclone territory and we should really be looking out for the rights of these asylum seekers and any possible dangers they may face.

[fish]

Good point cripple. To take the "fire danger" scenario even further, surely the safest option for the asylum seekers is to let them live as individual families scattered around the suburbs of our capital cities, and do away with this dangerous business of concentrating them in detention centres.

[Hondo]

Back on the issue of consultation. If a decision has already been made, then there's as much of a public backlash when a "consultation" was clearly a token gesture. No-one likes to be taken for a ride.

With this issue I am not sure what consultation would achieve other than communities saying "yeah OK, just not here". If they picked 10 communities to consult with because they wanted 5 locations can you imagine the never ending media circus as every community said thanks but no thanks. It would end up as almost a huge community referendum on the issue of immigration itself rather than housing asylum seekers and it would get out of control probably as emotion takes over the facts. We think it's bad now ... times it by 10 at least.

Tony Abott would have a field day.

Unfortunately for the communities concerned, in this case, the only consultation could be about how best to manage and integrate the asylum seekers. If the Govt thought a real consultation process would score less negative points then I reckon they would have done it.

[fisho mcspaz]

Except that fire danger is only one of many issues that has been raised by those advocating against Inverbrackie. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, those advocating for Inverbrackie simply say their opponents are racist.

Regardless of anyone's views for or against, you can't dismiss the bushfire problem that has been created. It's there for all the residents but it's a much greater danger for this group of 400 people, regardless of the NIMBYs.

I don't think they're all racist - I don't even think most of the racist ones are racist. It's the things they say that disturb me, going on about terrorism and towelheads and all that s***. Ignorance is at the root of it all but I've already said my piece on this subject in the Politics thread and I don't feel like going into it all again.

[Squawk]

To put this buses issue to rest, if a day is declared as a catastrophic fire danger day at 6pm the night before, use the 8 buses to clear the danger early and before any potential danger is present. No one is expecting bus drivers to risk their lives by trying to beat a fire in a bus, to do so is absolute madness. There are plenty of options available to smart and prepared people when it comes to risk management of any magnitude. To propose bushfire, tsunami, earthquke etc... (all terrible natural disasters) as a reason not to locate a populace in a location seems to be more like a reason to justify your dislike for people living there.
Going by this reasoning, i hope you write to the government and ask them to close down detention centres in Port Hedland, Darwin and Weipa because they are in cyclone territory and we should really be looking out for the rights of these asylum seekers and any possible dangers they may face.

The reality is that the concern is not just on a Catastrophic day. That's just when the risk of an active fire is greatest. A threat on other fire danger rating days can be just as devastating. Pre-evacuation is encouraged for all citizens, but moving 400 detainees is a complex issue - move them where? Last year we had 5 Catastrophic Days. Who is going to move them and be responsible for them, because the Cwlth wont do it. They only have about 15-20 AFP officers in Adelaide (not located at the Airport), and they don't own many facilities in SA to securely relocate 400 people to.

Locations used in cyclone areas are likely to have been built to meet cyclonic building standards. There is also a lot more lead time when cyclones are forecast.

As I said earlier, the reality is that the Cwlth has run out of room and needs alternative options. Hence Inverbrackie, Northam and other places. TBH I really dont care what facilities they use, the point I'm making is that they haven't planned this they are just implementing it at short notice.

The bottom line is that advocates for Inverbrackie say that compassion outweighs risk. I'm suggesting that compassion has to be balanced with ALL risks - bushfire, security, health, etc. What worries me is that there isn't enough balance between compassion and risk in the latest policy shift, and that's because the government had to act almost overnight to relieve the pressure on Christmas Island and other places. Hence, it's policy on the run. That's bad policy.

[Squawk]

I don't think they're all racist - I don't even think most of the racist ones are racist. It's the things they say that disturb me, going on about terrorism and towelheads and all that s***. Ignorance is at the root of it all but I've already said my piece on this subject in the Politics thread and I don't feel like going into it all again.

Unfortunately those attitudes are largely created by the media taking negative angles on anything Islamic.

[redden whites]

Why didn't the locals kick up a merry dance at the poor soldiers forced to live in such a bushfire zone.........
Redneck Wonderland

[saintal]

Why didn't the locals kick up a merry dance at the poor soldiers forced to live in such a bushfire zone.........
Redneck Wonderland

Ridiculous comparison/comment.



An oldish article on this done to death issue:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... e=adelaide

[Sojourner]

Why not put the building of the new Detention Centre out to the various councils across Australia and let it be tendered for?

What is so wrong about letting local communities have the right to have their own say on the issue and in doing so, choose places of which there are bound to be no shortage, where the locals are quite happy about the idea and see the resultant benefits of it for their community, is that not a better outcome than dictating to people what their local community will be changed to irrespective of their thoughts?

As it stands the only real response from the larger communty appears to be on of anger about the way that they have not been included in the decision making, when the election rolls around its a pretty safe bet that the swing against Pyne and co will not be repeated in SA as a result and I dont see how that can be a positive outcome for the ALP. If the centre was placed somewhere where it would be recieved with open arms by the local community who get the opportunity to be involved in the process does that not then put an end to all the various vitriolic diatribes going on and get us back to the situation of just trying to sort out the problems that cause the refugee issues to happen in their own countries? Why set up a situation that just keeps the cycle going instead of dealing with the problem in the best way as opposed to the cheapest way?

[Hondo]

What is so wrong about letting local communities have the right to have their own say on the issue and in doing so, choose places of which there are bound to be no shortage, where the locals are quite happy about the idea and see the resultant benefits of it for their community, is that not a better outcome than dictating to people what their local community will be changed to irrespective of their thoughts?

Do you think that's likely?

The areas that have the room are likely to be lower socio-econcomic areas in which the tolerance level for integration of asylum seekers would be even less than we see now.

I think there's an issue of where the Commonwealth has land it owns and whether new housing has to be built from scratch in the agreeable community v a quick paint job on existing housing at much lower cost to the taxpayer.

It's like when a Govt decides to build a new road and your house is in the way. No matter how much they consult with you, your house is still going to get bulldozed. Possibly a bad analogy but unless you can think of a community which would agree to asylum seekers coming in if they had a choice then I think we come back to where we are now.

[Gingernuts]

What is so wrong about letting local communities have the right to have their own say on the issue and in doing so, choose places of which there are bound to be no shortage, where the locals are quite happy about the idea and see the resultant benefits of it for their community, is that not a better outcome than dictating to people what their local community will be changed to irrespective of their thoughts?

Do you think that's likely?

The areas that have the room are likely to be lower socio-econcomic areas in which the tolerance level for integration of asylum seekers would be even less than we see now.

I think there's an issue of where the Commonwealth has land it owns and whether new housing has to be built from scratch in the agreeable community v a quick paint job on existing housing at much lower cost to the taxpayer.

It's like when a Govt decides to build a new road and your house is in the way. No matter how much they consult with you, your house is still going to get bulldozed. Possibly a bad analogy but unless you can think of a community which would agree to asylum seekers coming in if they had a choice then I think we come back to where we are now.

That's my take on it too Hondo, I doubt you would find anywhere that would welcome them with open arms.

The local government elections are taking place right now, and I am yet to hear of a mayor/council candidate coming out to say "Yea, we'll take them! Vote for me and I'll push to bring them to town!".

Reality is, the reaction the immigration dept is getting from Woodside residents is what they would get anywhere. For example - Port Augusta would seemingly be a town that would welcome any opportunity to bring much needed jobs and income to the area. However when the detention centre was built out there a few years back, they were far from welcoming.

So given this is the case, they might as well save a few bucks and retro-fit a Commonwealth owned residential area that is currently not being used. I for one am happy to see the government use my taxes in such an cost effective manner.

They are people just like you and me, the only difference is that had the misfortune of being born in a shithole.

Whether you agree with their methods of entry to this country, the reality is they are here now, and they have to go somewhere. That somewhere will inevitably be in someones 'backyard', and there's just no avoiding that.

[Gozu]

That's my take on it too Hondo, I doubt you would find anywhere that would welcome them with open arms.

The local government elections are taking place right now, and I am yet to hear of a mayor/council candidate coming out to say "Yea, we'll take them! Vote for me and I'll push to bring them to town!".

Reality is, the reaction the immigration dept is getting from Woodside residents is what they would get anywhere. For example - Port Augusta would seemingly be a town that would welcome any opportunity to bring much needed jobs and income to the area. However when the detention centre was built out there a few years back, they were far from welcoming.

So given this is the case, they might as well save a few bucks and retro-fit a Commonwealth owned residential area that is currently not being used. I for one am happy to see the government use my taxes in such an cost effective manner.

They are people just like you and me, the only difference is that had the misfortune of being born in a shithole.

Whether you agree with their methods of entry to this country, the reality is they are here now, and they have to go somewhere. That somewhere will inevitably be in someones 'backyard', and there's just no avoiding that.

Very well said, Gingernuts.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

There is no problem, the answer is right here in this thread, the newspaper & on our political benches.
Going by Rebs, that Fish Girl, Gingernuts ect's comments all that has to be done is move a couple of families next door, across the street, s*it, whack em in the spare room. Have a review of the letters to the editor, any writers throwing the racist tag around at the White Knights of Woodside, purchase the neighboring properties & move em in. Surely Natasia Scott The Spoilt & Gillard would'nt mind a few stray refugees joining the tennis club.
Be cheaper to purchase the properties than maintaining fences & medical care, there would be no angst from the immediate neighbors, hell they could even bring over kangaroo casseroles for tea.

[Wedgie]

What if aliens from another planet landed at Woodside threatening war with the planet Earth and the asylum seekers' own languages coincidentally had some components similar to the Alien language which made it easier for them to communicate win the aliens?