logo
How Australia became home to a million refugees

How Australia became home to a million refugees

Tran, who was eight at the time, counts herself as lucky that they did not encounter pirates roaming the oceans they had heard stories about.
Her father had worked in a warehouse affiliated with the American army during the war, and feared he had a target on his back. On their 14th attempt, the family made it to a Malaysian refugee camp. Following months of processing, Tran remembers landing in Sydney on a rainy afternoon the following year.
'It was just joyous,' she said. 'To this day, I still love the rain, and when I'm in long car rides and it's raining, yeah, those moments come back.'
Tran is a board director for six organisations ranging from liquor regulation to family violence and financial counselling for women, and said she was motivated to create opportunities for those who otherwise wouldn't have them.
'That's what I've been gifted by just being in Australia,' Tran, who sits on the Victorian Liquor Commission, said. 'We get to live without fear, and we get to live being able to make the most of what the community provides us.'
John Howard's Coalition government began processing refugees offshore in 2001 after the Tampa, a ship carrying 433 mostly Hazara asylum-seekers, grabbed national attention as it tried to enter Australian waters.
The Rudd Labor government dismantled the policy in 2008, with then-minister for immigration and citizenship Chris Evans labelling it a 'cynical, costly and ultimately unsuccessful exercise'.
Four years later, then-prime minister Julia Gillard, under political pressure from opposition leader Tony Abbott, reintroduced offshore processing.
The policy was strengthened under the Abbott government's 'Operation Sovereign Borders' program, which continues to this day with bipartisan support. There were 93 people on Nauru at the end of last year, according to the Refugee Council of Australia.
Faqihi, an ambassador for the council, said her family had been threatened with violence and barred from sending their children to school in Afghanistan as members of the Hazara ethnic minority. She believed Indonesia, where the family moved in 2012, would provide safety and educational opportunities for six months before a country took them in permanently.
But Faqihi and her family were stuck for a decade in processing limbo, unable to get an education or work or access public services because of her refugee status.
'Those 10 years were the darkest moments of my life,' she said. 'We lived through a decade of uncertainty … without any say in the most important decisions being made about our lives.'
Eventually arriving in Australia in 2022 was like being reborn, she said.
The Department of Home Affairs said the refugee program for the 2024-25 financial year had 20,000 places.
Loading
The UK, which has a much larger population than Australia and is also going through a major immigration debate, accepted 93,342 refugees and asylum seekers in the 2023-24 financial year. The US resettled 100,034 refugees in the same year, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
The United Nations has found Australia has violated the human rights of refugees detained in offshore processing, and the policy has been widely criticised by advocates as inhumane.
Faqihi continues to advocate for the almost 12,000 displaced people in limbo in Indonesia.
'There is a lot Australia can do as a leader in the region,' she said. 'Australia can respond by expanding resettlement visas, especially for those who are stuck in the region and our neighbourhood regions.'
Tran said: 'I just hope that Australians continue to take refugees, not because we might add value or anything, but ... because it's the right thing to do, and the best thing you can offer someone is a chance to be Australian.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift

Sydney Morning Herald

timean hour ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.

Trump's ‘big new' visa fee could slug thousands of Australian travellers
Trump's ‘big new' visa fee could slug thousands of Australian travellers

Sydney Morning Herald

timean hour ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Trump's ‘big new' visa fee could slug thousands of Australian travellers

Thousands of Australian business travellers, students and workers heading to the United States are set to be charged a $US250 ($383) visa application fee as part of changes introduced under President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill'. Most Australians visiting the US as tourists enter the country under the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation, known as the ESTA waiver program, and will have to pay a small increase for the cost of the waiver – from $US21 ($32) to $US40 ($60). The US Department of Homeland Security has the authority to begin the new 'visa integrity fee' from October 1. It can be applied to anyone who is not eligible for the ESTA visa waiver, including the Visa H-1B (specialty occupations), Visa F-1 (academic student), Visa B-1/B-2 (business visitor/tourist visitor), and Visa J-1 (exchange visitor). People will need to pay the charge once their visa application is approved – in addition to the cost of the visa. The fee will also apply to intra-company transferees (Visa L-1) or the visa category for extraordinary ability or achievement in arts, athletics and sciences (Visa O-1). Not everyone can qualify for the ESTA waiver. Among exclusions are people with criminal records or certain dual-nationalities. Travellers in line to be slugged by the 'visa integrity fee' could be eligible to recoup the full cost after legally exiting the country.

Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift

The Age

timean hour ago

  • The Age

Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store