Talk:Immigration to Australia/Archive 1

Misc
"This places doubt on the idea that immigration is effective in decreasing unemployment. One could conclude that while high immigration may lead to a short-term increase in economic growth, in the long run this is not sustainable and in the long-run will simply lead to lower wages, or in the case of fixed (mimimum) wages high unemployment."

Why would one argue this? This conclusion comes from what form of reasoning? Immigration needn't lead to short-term increase in economic growth. In fact if demand is still and labor supply increases immigration leads to short-term decrease in wages. and in the long run as migrants accumulate skills etc demand and productivity may increase and economic growth is greater. And population growth is an important part of economic growth because more people mean more customers and greater numbers of customers allow firms to exploit economies of scale too. Population growth can be increased with programs to encourage greater production of babies e.g. subsidies (e.g. Howard's baby bonus) or with higher levels of immigration.

Another issue is environment. If higher population leads to environmental degredation then this is an argument to stop programs that boost birth rates. Immigration is transfer of humans from one place to another. Therefore if it is change in population that affects environment and immigration does not increase or decrease population then there is no enviornmental problem. E.g. if 1000 people move into Australia form America they produce X amount of CO2 emissions but that CO2 emission may have been produced in the US anyway and have the same effect on the environment. So perhaps distinguish between local and global environmental problems.

I really like your additions on our current migration and humanitarian programs. I'm starting to think that we need to split this page into two: History of immigration to Australia and Australian immigration policy The policy page will have information on our current migration and humanitarian programs, and refugee policy, and the history page will have everything else. What do you think? - Borofkin 03:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, will recent events be included in the History page- like the refugee controversy section?--nixie 07:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Perhaps an article Australian immigration detailing the current situation, but with a section at the top labelled "History" with a line "Main article: History of Australian immigration". This is consistent with the way Australia and History of Australia are related.
 * So, current policy and current intake numbers will appear on Australian immigration, with a brief history paragraph, and everything else is on History of Australian immigration. Sound good?
 * Sounds good--nixie 05:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. You may go wild and crazy updating Australian immigration with info on our current migration programs. I'd like to see these sections: "Migration program", "Humanitarian program", "Onshore asylum seekers". Or somesuch. - Borofkin 06:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article name
We should probably rename this article as Immigration to Australia to bring it into line with similar articles from other countries:


 * Immigration to the United States
 * Immigration to the United Kingdom

- Borofkin 02:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(from WP:RM)

Australian immigration &#8594; Immigration to Australia

 * There is no article at the target name. I accidentally moved the talk page, and now it won't let me move the article. There's been a comment about the move on the talk page for a day or so. Borofkin 00:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Disagree.I prefer the name Australian Immigration, but this is just my opinion with no factual basis. Agree. Thats a good enough reason for me. SECProto 03:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm moving the article to bring it's name into line with other similar articles, such as Immigration to the United States and Immigration to the United Kingdom. - Borofkin 03:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree. Furthermore, "Australian immigration" doesn't specify whether it refers to immigration into Australia or immigration of Australians into other places, whereas "Immigration to Australia" is unambiguous. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 22:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesnt have to specify. The correct term for leaving a country is Emigration. SECProto 02:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the difference between immigration and emigration, but immigration always involves two countries and thus technically the current title is ambiguous. Not that it matters anyways, since consistency is the more important issue here and is reason enough to change the title. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 03:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ahh. I reread your first post and i know what you mean now. whoops. SECProto 19:16, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. Current title is ambiguous. &#8212;Tkinias 22:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with above comments. Timrollpickering 13:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

new "Views" section
The last reference cites a study on immigration to the USA. Is there any evidence that the same economic effect (immigration => lower wages) applies in Australia? Taxation, social security and other differences could change the outcome. --Scott Davis Talk 14:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and US reference is not apropriate for the Australian situation and is misleading.--nixie 03:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Reference 2 is used to reference the statement "In the last few years immigration has been boosted to the highest rate since the late 1980s", but that page does not mention the 1980s at all, and shows a decrease in net immigration from 2003 to 2004. --Scott Davis Talk 03:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. Even after Scott's work, it still comes over as hopelessly POV. While it is cited, all of the citations given are of dubious quality and/or relevance, and thus highly misleading. In addition to what's been discussed above, the only relevant content in the first reference is as follows: "Some, including the lobby group Sustainable Population Australia, argue in favour of stabilising the population for ecological reasons." (p. 4) The net result is that this pressure group's views are cited as if held by Monash Uni researchers. We'd be better off with a direct external link to their site. The third reference does not mention migration or population factors at all, and while the fourth might, it's a 300-page PDF file, so the citation is of little use without a page or chapter reference. I say get rid of the entire section, pending a ground-up rewrite &mdash; the political debate surrounding immigration is encyclopaedia-worthy, but not the way the section is now. No content at all is better than misleading content. J.K. 12:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The general bits are expressed better in immigration already. The Australia-specific bits are not supported by the references provided, and some aren't specific to immigration anyway. I've had two goes at it and still can't make it look good - I tried when it was in the main Australia article too. If nobody else can fix this section, please delete it. --Scott Davis Talk 13:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There is criticism of the references. I could just remove some of the references altogether, after all they are not really necessary. All the article says is that some people argue this and that, it does not say they are facts. The point of the article, as highlighted by the name is VIEWS on immigration. If the main article is going to talk about immigration policy then this seems relevant.

To address the specific points, the link between immigration and wages is a theoretical concept/arguement and does not need to be based on evidence. Re the comment that immigration is the highest since the last 1980s, I know for a fact this is true, but cannot find a single page containtaining all the data. I will remove the reference, but not the statement, as no one has disputed the actual fact. I have already twice addressed the issue of the supposed decline from 2003 to 2004 in the Australia discussion.

Re housing affordability, the decline in housing affordability is national, and has been substantial. Refer to the following two links: http://about.commbank.com.au/group_display/0,1922,CH2071%255FTS10332,00.html https://research.comsec.com.au/ResearchFiles/H/HIA_march_qtr_2005.pdf Jigjog


 * Thanks Jigjog. These two articles are certainly interesting. Unfortunately the first one is getting a bit old. The Commbank site doesn't seem to have a similar more recent press release to compare :-( The second one clearly shows (on page 2) that Sydney is unaffordable, and it, plus smaller contributions from Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra, are severely affecting the median/average affordability index. It would be interesting to explore the effect of the first home buyer grant on housing affordability, however that doesn't belong in this article. Do you think Australian views on immigration are significantly different to the general pros and cons described in the general immigration article?


 * I haven't disputed specific comments on the level of net migration, as I have no idea if the statement is correct. I think I know more people who have left Australia in the last 15 years than have arrived in that time, but that could reflect more on my age and educational/economic position than any wider effects. --Scott Davis Talk 03:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The general Immigration_reduction article (if that is what you are referring to]] is quite differrent, and in the Immigration to Australia article all I have included is one paragraph about negative views on immigration in Australia. The link between housing and immigration is particularly relevant to the Australian context, as the fact that Australia is the driest continent.

Re housing, I have found the page on the Productivity Commission report that mentions a link between immigration and house prices, which is page 63 (final paragraph). Also on page 63 is stated that immigration has risen from a low in 192-93 (when net migration was less than 40,000). It is now around 125,000, see

I might try to write a new article called something like "housing affordability in Australia". What do others think of this?

I have inserted a paragraph in the introductory section of the article about the increasing level of immigration over the last decade. This is referenced to two ABS web pages. I thought this line belonged in the introductory section rather than the "views" section. Jigjog 01:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I meant the Differing perspectives on immigration section of immigration. net overseas migration was 117,600 persons in the year ended June 2004 and note that the page 63 reference still only says 125,000 is approaching the 1989 high. If you think you can make an interesting article about Housing affordability in Australia that is suitably NPOV, go for it. Frankly, I'll be surprised. The extra intro paragraph looks mostly OK though. --Scott Davis Talk 12:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Re Petaholmes' edit, the idea that there isn't a struggle between labour and capital in Australia is unrealistic. That's why we have a Labor Party and a Liberal Party, and it is why many people opposed immigration, for example the Australians Against Further Immigration Party. There is a long history in Australia about unions opposing immigration on the grounds that it would lower wages. That is one reason why the White Australia Policy remained in place for so many years, and why some Chinese workers were attacked early last century. Economics is a much more powerful motivator than racism. Anyway, I have found and inserted into the section a current reference about an attempt by an employer to import cheap foreign labour. Jigjog 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Some people would say that the idea that the Australian Labor Party represents labour is unrealistic, too. The views section is still quite anti-immigration. Surely the balance to lower wages is increased demand, leading to higher wages. The present government has been quite active internationally attempting to lower economic barriers to trade. Like it or not, it is quite silly to lower the barriers to the trade of goods, but keep them high for trade of services. In fact, Australia tends to lose quite a lot of highly skilled people to emmigration as well. One of the difficulties (and a reason ABS stats vary from preliminary to final) is determining when a citizen has actually emmigrated/immigrated - especially if the initial intent was only a "working holiday". --Scott Davis Talk 00:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't about problems with immigration in general, it is about the Australian situation. Provide some evidence that immigration to Australia actually causes downward wage pressure and it can stay.--nixie 01:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you take research from Professor Ross Garnaut, ANU, by way of DIMIA ,full pdf at face value then then the section really should go;
 * Unlike in the USA, Australia's emphasis on skilled immigration does not put pressure on the wages of lower skilled Australians.
 * This also makes an interesing read, on why immigration is necessary to keep the participation rate stable and why that's necessary to maintain standards of living.--nixie 03:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been ignored that the removed paragraph commences with the words, "Another economic view is that...". If someone wants to include a contrary economic view in the section then that would be OK, but it is incorrect to say that the removed paragrph is incorrect, because that certainly is an economic view.

The removal of the sentence was quite unjustified. It was previously removed because it was said to be of no demonstrated relevance to Australia. I explained how it was relevant to Australia, and inserted a link to an Australian article, and now Petaholmes appears to have found a new reason to remove it. It would seem to me that some people do not like to read view they disagree with, particularly in relation to immigration Jigjog 21:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, if that sentence is to be CENSORED then I will re-insert the link to Immigration Reduction, and people can read about it there. If anyone has any problem with that article then they can edit it. Jigjog 22:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Some people may think it, but it has been debunked, it is not the case in Australia.--nixie 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The reference I have included in the article re IT workers is not available online, so for you information I include the firts few paragraphs here:

7 July 2004 © Australian Financial Review

Immigrants taking local IT jobs: report By David Crowe

Thousands of low-cost workers are entering the country and undermining the job prospects of new computer science graduates, according to a report commissioned for the federal government that calls for drastic changes to skilled migration.

Visa requirements should be tightened to end a "serious oversupply" of young overseas workers which is driving down salaries and contributing to high unemployment among information and communication technology (ICT) workers under 30, the report says.

It also likens the easy entry of temporary workers to a subsidy that gives offshore outsourcers such as Indian computer companies an unfair advantage over Australian rivals.

The findings are certain to trigger fresh debate over migration just two months after federal Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone raised the skilled migrant intake to a record 77,000 in 2004-05.

Although Senator Vanstone imposed new barriers for some skilled visas, the report suggests those measures are not enough to stem the flow of cheap labour.

Jigjog 01:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe (think I read somewhere) that the range of ICT jobs on the skilled immigrant list has been rediuced since that article was written. It is online, but costs $3.30 to access. I went to www.afr.com, chose advanced search, and searched for "immigrants" in titles only in the last two years. That got 14 hits, of which yours is the seventh one. The article above it shows the opposing view (from October 2004):
 * "Lew, Fox call for more immigrants and a capped week Two of Australia's most successful businessmen have some advice for the Howard Government after its historic fourth election win: Australia needs more immigrants and should consider capping the hours of the working week."
 * I've attempted to add a few more relevent views to the article.--Scott Davis Talk 09:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not surprising that two of Australia's most successful businessmen would advocate increased immigration. Higher immigration leads to higher business profits, both because of increasing number of customers for their products, and because it means there is an increased pool of labour.

Re IT skills, there is an article in the Herald Sun from a few weeks ago which reports that an immigration expert (Bob Birrell) is concerned about too many people with IT skills coming in to the country.

Re the link to immigration reduction, it is quite reasonable that at the end of a paragraph about views outlining the negative effects of immigration that a link be place to the Wikipedia entry on immigration reduction. I can see no justification in removing the link. Jigjog 23:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It pays to read the actual research rather than relying on the press release by the Minister. Politicians usually have their own agenda to push. Thanks for providing the link in the first place Petaholmes, it is very informative.

I had to remove the first part of the sentence because it did not make sense. IE this: "Although some groups claim that immigration causes immigration reduction in Australia..." Jigjog 06:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you provide page numbers for the reference that shows "Alternative research has found that due to Australia’s structured labour market immigration is more likely to cause increased unemployment than a fall in wages[9]."? I can't find that in the executive summary or chapter 6 &mdash; it does state that migrants are more likely to be unemployed than native-born Australians, and that in fact current immigration trends reduce the gap between poor and rich in Australia. The immigration reduction article is about a specific USA movement, and has no relevence here without some strong explanation. It is not about a general move to reduce trans-national migration everywhere. --Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Refer to page 21, and also page 36.

Re the immigration reduction article, it commences by saying, “Immigration reduction refers to movements active within the United States and elsewhere that advocate a reduction in the amount of immigration allowed into the United States or other countries”. That seems perfectly reasonable. The article certainly refers to the US a lot, but given that the US is the largest English-speaking nation and takes a very large amount of immigration, that is not unreasonable. The Australian experience is similar, and the arguments for and against immigration are similar. The article is certainly of interest to anyone who wants to know about immigration reduction, which is what the link specifies. If people don't want to know about those things then they don't have to follow the link. That is why the link is there. Jigjog 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I raised the question at Talk:Immigration reduction. That article is clearly about a movement in the USA, not relevent to here. A regular contributor to that article was surprised that there could be any confusion, and immediately removed "and elsewhere" from the introduction. He didn't see a need to change the title of that article, as there are no "immigration reduction movements" elsewhere to be distinguished from.


 * I am surprised that my "or" has been switched to "and" by Jigjog, as that seems to link the environment/water issue to the affordability of housing, which would surprise me. --Scott Davis Talk 00:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "almost all economists" because, firstly it is disputable, and secondly the reference is from the United States, not Australia. Jig-jog 01:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mandatory detention/ Strict policy
Can anyone confirm that recent immigrants are more likely to be in favour with the current illegal immigration policy than others? I remember hearing about it somewhere. From ethnic friends, the logic seems to be that they've gone through 'the process' so others should do the same. Htra0497 10:43, 12 February 2006 (AEST)
 * Not sure what you're getting at, but read The Age, the SMH or any of the other reliable broadsheets and you'll see the varieties of attitudes coming from older migrants towards newer arrivals. Eyedubya 09:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkered past
Can an article starting with "Australian Immigration has a checkered past" really be considered a factual article for an encyclopedia? I don't think so, which is why I've edited that and other politically loaded comments here.

I've also added a (referenced)fact that few of the Australian government's detractors on this issue, ie, that Australia has the second-largest refugee resettlement program in the world after the much bigger and richer USA. I guess the Australian government's POV is that we are happy to take our fair share of refugees, but only by legitimate means of arrival. Having boatloads simply rocking up on the beach so that we can't control the numbers entering Australia will lead to more than we can cope with arriving and is unsafe to the refugees themselves, and therefore must be deterred by mandatory detention and other measures.

Note that I'm including these POV's here, where they should be, rather than in the article itself which should stick to the facts. bozboy(yet to register on wiki). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.231.9 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 May 2006


 * All well and good though it also needs to be pointed out that while Australia may have the second highest official program for refugees, the actual number of asylum seekers (i.e. the unofficial, informal 'tides' of displaced people flowing around much of the globe) knocking on Australia's door is tiny by global comparisons, and so there needs to be some consideration of the ratio between these two numbers - the actual pressure on the system, and the formal numbers admitted by the system. To make an analogy with electricity, its like voltages, or potential difference, and the shock potential related to it. Australia's informal 'potential difference' is unlikely to cause much more than a tingle. Oh yes, isn't there also the issue of absolute numbers of humanitarian migrants and per capita calculations? Being a small population in a huge country puts Australia in a difficult position relative to everywhere else, these things cut both ways. Eyedubya 09:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

terminology
There is a terminology dispute ongoing which primarily involves U.S. participants, but might benefit from the involvement of people knowledgable about immigration politics in other countries. Usage on Wikipedia is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Many academics use the term 'informal' instead of illegal, unauthorised, etc. Eyedubya 09:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the Infobox??
Do we need the infobox at the bottom of the page? Every link is a red one. Does it provide any use? Are the articles it referes to actually ever going to be created, much less be of any use?? I suspect not.--Merbabu 23:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Population growth
"However, opponents of population growth assert the Federal Government's claims of negative population growth are fallacious as at current levels of migration and fertility, Australia's population will pass 30 million by mid-century - a 50% increase."

The ABS and CSIRO have come to similar conclusions. Based on the high levels of immigration that Australia is currently experiencing, Australia will have a population of 32 million by 2050. See the Future Dilemmas projections. How can Costello honestly claim that we risk negative population growth at current levels? ZwickauDeluxe 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Political duplicity aside, fertility rates on their own are insufficient to produce the kind of growth Costello is talking about.Eyedubya 09:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a total rewrite
It started out as factual, and has been successively loaded with different opinions ranging from the environment to the salary of IT workers. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is biased, but there are far more opinions being expressed than what it warrants. In short, this article is unwieldy and suffocates any meaningful information. Remember, we are discussing what has happened, not about what is going to happen or what ought to happen.

A rewritten article would just have:
 * Initial European settlement (where, when, who)
 * Various surges of immigration, like transportation, the Gold Rushes, post-War migration, post-Vietnam War
 * Various immigration policies (White Australia, assisted migration, mandatory detention).
 * Cultural, social and economic impacts of immigration
 * And, don't forget to include some reliable statistics on immigration (the ABS has plenty).

Note: if you are trying to "write for the enemy" and then write a counter-argument against your devil's advocacy, it is fair to also write a counter-argument to views that you believe in. Kransky 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, this article is pretty weak. I've fiddled around the edges, but it needs someone to own it and do the kind of things you're suggesting ASAP. Eyedubya 09:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Trading asylum seekers with the US
Could somebody more familiar with this article add in info regarding this deal? Murderbike 18:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

History
can someone lengthen the history section out? It has very little info.--LastmanSAC 04:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Migration Agents
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on here. Some of the criticism being levelled at my edits are a bit ludicrous. jbdelaporte 05:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I request that the section be replaced with the following:

Under Australian law (Migration Act 1958, Part 3) any person who gives what is called "immigration assistance" for a fee must in most cases be a Registered Migration Agent. The term "immigration assistance" is defined in section 276 of the Act to cover using, or purporting to use, knowledge of or experience in migration procedure to advise or assist various people with visa applications and related sponsorships, appeals, etc.

The legislation appoints an organisation called the Migration Institute of Australia Limited (MIA) to function as the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) which is charged with maintaining a register of migration agents and carrying out a variety of functions under the Act in relation to supervision and discipline of agents. The register can be accessed on the internet.

In the United Kingdom the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) performs a similar function to the MARA, as does the Canadian Society for Immigration Consultants (CSIC) in Canada. However, in both countries practising lawyers are regulated by their own professional bodies. In the United States, only practising lawyers may perform such functions. Australia is the only country which imposes a regime of dual regulation on lawyers working in the area of immigration law.

Migration Agents registered before July 2006 were not required to undertake any formal studies. A multiple-choice test called the MAPKE was used as the measure of knowledge of immigration rules and procedures. Since then new applicants need to undertake a one semester course called the Graduate Certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice. There is no requirement for newly registered agents to work for a period of time under supervision. The first two digits of an agent's seven-digit registration number give the year that the agent became registered.

In the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, practising lawyers may also apply for accreditation as specialists in Australian immigration law.

Registered Migration Agents must conform to a Code of Conduct. Complaints against agents may be lodged with the MARA.
 * I've disabled the editprotected request. There needs to be some demonstrable consensus for changes like these. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no point repeating the text from the MARA page. The text that is currently here is POV, particularly 'There is a significant difference in education and training between migration agents and lawyers. Migration agents, unlike lawyers, are not practically trained or supervised, and have not completed full-time legal education.', and these two sentences are unsupported. I request that these two sentences be removed. peterl 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edits
The first paragraph of the section entitled "Replacement" is inaccurate. It currently reads: "The fertility rate in Australia has dropped over the last generation below replacement levels, meaning that without immigration, Australia's population would both age and decline, raising the question of long-term social and cultural sustainability."

In fact Australia's population is currently increasing at a rate of nearly 300,000 people per year, and nearly half of that is due to the birth rate being higher than the death rate. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2006 in Australia there were 265,900 births and only 133,900 deaths, meaning a surplus of births over deaths of 132,100.

See: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3101.0Media%20Release1Dec%202006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3101.0&issue=Dec%202006&num=&view=

Australia's birth rate is also curently increasing. I suggest that the entire "Replacement" section be deleted, as the second paragraph, while a direct quote also contains inaccuracies, and is unecessary for the articlea as a whole.

Jig-jog 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the talk page is quiet, I'll unprotect the article. I hope everyone will avoid edit warring, and discuss changes here instead. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why have you removed my edit (which was to removed that section)? I have explained and backed up with statistics that the paragraph in question is inaccurate. The inaccuracy should not be left in the article unaltered. Jig-jog 10:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit was removed when I reverted a bunch of SPAs/socks. I've restored the last version by you but it's still protected. Sarah 10:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Update
The Australian government has announced a freeze on taking in any more refugees from Africa. Can we have the article unprotected so that it can be updated? Phonemonkey 15:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reference? peterl 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is one from the BBC . Phonemonkey 08:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It seems that there is a lot of duplicate information between this article and Migratory history of Australia - I think there should be one article, under this current title. Phonemonkey 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - but that's going ot need some work! I don't have time at the moment but I'd help with tweaking... however I'm concerned more with reverting recent edits at the minute - the use of 'Invasion Day' to refer to Australia Day and also of the First Fleet to refer to the arrival of the British colonists in Australia is no way Original Research!!!! However a merged artiocle i think would help acheive consensus on these detils... Paki.tv 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the reference that you are using for "invasion day". What source are you using? What publication? What was the date of this source? Unless you can find a RS reliable source for this it remains OR original research despite the amount of exclamation marks you use. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the Australian Government reliable ??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!???? Paki.tv 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the merger should be progressed --Matilda talk 05:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind --Matilda talk 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal arrival
I've undone an edit which gives a date for Aboriginal arrival as "the most commonly accepted". We can't vote on history without making it clear that we are doing so. While it may well be true, we shouldn't say it is unless we know. The current wording is at least accurate. --Pete 02:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The referenced information which you just "undid" (here's the diff for courtesy), was replaced with unreferenced text. To take your argument to an extreme, you could say that Aborigines arrived more than 1000 years ago, and yes that would be more accurate, but is not the best way to do it. Skyring(Pete), please find a recent 2007 reference for your information. -- Lester  02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget about taking arguments to extremes and otherwise changing the conversation. I undid your edit for a reason, explained why here, and you've evaded the point I have made. If you can't address it, then please go do something productive instead of tapdancing. --Pete 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that incivility and edit waring are good ways of dealing with any Wikipedia content dispute. I also recommend the use of cited information over uncited text. Ten years ago, the dominant scientific opinion was that indigenous Australians arrived 40,000 years ago. More recently, with new scientific evidence, the dominant scientific opinion is 50,000 years (to the closest 10,000 year mark). Of course there will always be a minority who believe something different. Some people believe that the world was formed 2000 years ago. Anyway, for the arrival of indigenous Australians, 50,000 is the current thinking. -- Lester  23:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you haven't addressed my point, instead moving towards ad-hom. What I (and you) personally believe are immaterial. I actually have no problem with the 50 000 years dating, but your edit summary of "aboriginal arrival (most commonly accepted date)" which you source with a newspaper article is the problem. We're an encyclopaedia, not a directory of the features and opinion pages of your favorite newspapers. I'm not making any fresh edit - I'm simply restoring the accepted version until we get a useful source. And as ever, may I suggest that you address my stated reason for undoing this edit? See above. That way, you have a good chance of satisfying me to the extent that I won't revert your edit. Speculation, evasion, dishonesty and ad-hominem is not the way to build any sort of confidence in you as an editor. --Pete 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you (Skyring,Pete) removing a completely valid reference? And replacing it with unreferenced, unsupported unformation? You must give a reference for your claim. If it's supported, then sure, it will be left in. A supported claim always beats an unsupported one. peterl 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this discussion, so I decided to go get some references...


 * 50000-60000 BP - Australian National University
 * 40000-50000 BP with an outside range of 70000 - Commercial organisation
 * 45000 or 50000 BP - Iowa State University

Do we need more? Robert Brockway 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I can't find any serious sources for less than 40 000, so "at least 40 000 years" is good for me. If we use 50 000 years, then it must have a qualifier - we can't state it as a fact, given that some good sources give an arrival date (even if in a range of possibilities) of less than that. I'm very dubious about counting source noses to find a figure, given that the amount of original research on this question is extremely limited, and many sources are merely references to the research of others. Refer to the same paper often enough and you don't have more truth, just more coverage. --Pete 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pete. How about "Estimates typically range from 40 000 - 50 000 years" ? The 50 000 year date is sufficiently well supported to warrant a mention IMHO.  Cheers, Robert Brockway 00:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks good. The existing source supports that range, though of course a better one (or more) could always be found. Rather frustrating hunting through Google Scholar and finding articles that look very good, but require subscription to access. --Pete 00:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok cool, I've done the deed :) Robert Brockway 01:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of the 3 links that User:Robert Brockway presented (above), the first one is the only valid one, which cites work by Professor Jones and other notable scientists from various Australian universities and the Australian Museum. The second link is for a website for merchandising Aboriginal artworks, and the third is from an American writer quoting older works.

The reason that 40,000 years is no longer valid is because it is now a minority opinion in the scientific world. There has been new research this year which puts 50,000 as the minimum. Any reference should be very new, it should include Australian scientists, and it should be from a reliable source.

Here's the diff for the latest edit This is what I believe is wrong with the material: Because scientific research in this area has progressed this year, any references should be no older than April 2007. Thanks,-- Lester  00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It changed "around 50,000 years" to "at least 40,000 years", which has since been changed again to "40,000 - 50,000 years", which I believe is just incorrect. If the eminent Australian scientists working in the field believe it is 50,000-60,000 years, the mainstream Australian newspapers say "around 50,000" years, how can we claim it is 40,000 years?
 * The above 40,000 claim is supported by a reference from an online art shop, which replaced a previous reference from a Sydney Morning Herald article about new discoveries in Aboriginal history, from mid-2007.
 * The "40,000+" claim has the effect of diminishing Aboriginal history.

History being the written record of events, it's nonsense to talk of 40 000 or 50 000 years of Aboriginal history. We're talking Aboriginal existence, not history. Once again, we need to be factual, and while 50 000 years is within the accepted range, it is certainly not the accepted minimum. --Pete 07:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see a figure of 50,000+ which I suspect is closer to the truth. I originally expected to find such a figure when I went to grab some references but I found that the 40,000 figure was still fairly commonly quoted. Just because research is recent doesn't mean it is correct - indeed very recent scientific research may not yet have stood up to a proper peer review. Robert Brockway 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

UN Report
user:141.228.106.135 recently added information about a UN report which condemned Australia as being racist, using this reference. The content was subsequently reverted, without any reason given. While the sentence may have needed a bit of rewriting, I think the mention of the UN report was valid, and should not have been deleted. It was properly referenced.-- Lester  04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well...I entirely agree that User:Prester John ought to have said why he reverted. But considering that the edit by 141.228.106.135 that PJ removed read, in its entirety, "Australia is the only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations", while the BBC reference says nothing at all about other developed countries, I can't call PJ's edit a bad or unreasonable revert. That sentence needs more than "a bit of rewriting" to be properly referenced by the offered reference. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC).