Joseph Sutherland is, as he puts it, “only one very old man”. But he is one of several people registered to vote in the Canning byelection who told Guardian Australia they would take the Australian government’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis in mind when casting their vote at the 19 September poll.
“My feeling is that they could do more, a lot more,” he said. “We’re a country that is well off by international standards.”
The 82-year-old Armadale resident joined the Liberal party on his 78th birthday after the late Don Randall, who had sought shelter and a glass of water at his house on a hot day while campaigning in 2010, talked him around. But he still thinks of himself as a floating voter.
Sitting in the sun in the Armadale mall, Sutherland said the “shocking” image of three-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi, whose drowned body washed up on a beach in Turkey after his family’s attempt to reach the Greek islands last week went tragically wrong, would be one of three “main features” to determine his vote, the others being marriage equality – he’s against it – and economic security.
Mother and daughter Brenda and Jackie shared Sutherland’s desire for more to be done. Talking at the Armadale shopping centre, Brenda said Australia’s lack of action, up to that point, had been “quite disgusting”.
“I think we should make more room for them [refugees] because we’ve got plenty of room.”
Jackie agreed. “I mean, you know, all the money they spend on new train stations, or you know, shopping centres, car parks, I think there’s definitely an allowance [to help refugees],” she said. “I think 10,000 [the figure suggested by the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, before Abbott’s announcement] is a bit pitiful, really.”
On Wednesday the Abbott government announced Australia would take 12,000 Syrian refugees for permanent settlement, over and above the existing humanitarian intake of 13,750 refugees, and would donate $44m to the UNHCR. That is a significant departure from comments by the prime minister, Tony Abbott, on Sunday when he said that any additional intake of Syrian refugees would come out of Australia’s existing quota.
Sharon, waiting for a bus to take her home to the neighbouring suburb of Kelmscott, also supported an increased refugee intake: “It’s a very multicultural society and I don’t think more would do any harm.”
Three shop owners who were taking a break in the Armadale mall told Guardian Australia they did not want to give their views on refugees publicly in case it led to a backlash against their business. But all said they felt “very sorry” for the hundreds of thousands of people trying to reach safety in Europe.
Fellow Canning voter Bill Smith was less certain. He felt sorry for the refugees fleeing Syria, saying “it’s a horrible thing to happen, I reckon, they got big problems”, but he was worried about the problems a large influx of refugees might cause.
When asked if Australia should increase its refugee intake, Smith said he was not sure. “It depends what effect it’s going to have overall,” he said.
“The more you take in the more jobs you have got to have available, which they haven’t, really. The unemployment rate is not too good, really.”
Another woman, who declined to put a name to her opinion because “you won’t like mine”, was more unequivocal: “I reckon they should stay in their own country. We’ve got enough people of our own that we have to home and feed.”
A Sri Lankan immigrant, Gihan, who also asked for his last name not be used, had more specific concerns.
“Being human beings we should treat each other with equality,” he said. “But I have a problem: people of the Muslim faith, are they in a position of accepting that basic equality? Extreme religion spoils them.”
Gihan, who has lived in Australia for a few years and moved into the electorate six months ago, is not eligible to vote. But he would be urging those who were to be cautious, to “protect their country”, adding, “I wonder to what extent [new refugees] are going to comply with Australian living standards.”
