Well, at least the author acknowledges that racism is not merely the 'white man's burden', but unfortunately the exclusive use of the term 'refugee' obscures a subtle, but important distinction in the way many Australians regard newcomers to this country.

Whilst asylum seeker advocates may argue otherwise, surveys, such as conducted by Red Cross, show that Australians make a clear distinction between refugees and asylum seekers. Their attitudes to the former are overwhelmingly positive (83 per cent of Australians would be willing to help a refuge settle into their community and another 67 per cent say refugees have made a positive contribution to Australian society); it is towards asylum seekers that negative attitudes are found.

So, why is this?

Asylum seeker advocates often appeal to the touted Australian value of 'a fair go': I suspect that it is just that value that partly explains hostility to asylum seekers. They are seen as having 'jumped the queue', and purchased an illegal means of entering the country, while other, poorer, refugees 'do the right thing', and wait patiently in camps to be processed.

Like it or not, there is a queue to enter Australia: we have a quota, and every asylum seeker is seen as having displaced a rule-abiding refugee, who has possibly waited years for their chance.

Monash University expert Dr. Bob Birrell explains it thus, 'I think the controversy in Australia ... has to do with the undocumented arrivals on our shores who then claim asylum. There are questions there about who are these people, are they an especially privileged group because they have the money to come here. But I think overwhelmingly the key issue is the way they arrive. Instead of us choosing them, they are choosing us.'

"We need to change the way we talk about the challenges of refugees and remind ourselves of where we as a nation have come from and what kind of society we want to be"

perhaps we want to be an isolationist society, there have been calls from the young to put up signs, "Fxxx Off, we're full"

Not a good look admittedly but it reflects the no nonsense instant message and communication society, where people twitter or message instantly, sometimes without thinking, (see any of the "edgy" darlings of the ABC and their twits that are constantly having to be recalled. These are older people who cannot contain their prejudices)

The author seems to want Australia to be a different kind of place to what in reality it is, it doesn't matter where we came from or what happened, what matters is now and what our future looks like. That's just soppy hand wringing, to look backwards all the time .. and many don't think the past is much cop anyway, especially when it is so often used to beat us around the ears when it is convenient to the bashers .. see issues relating to aboriginals.

We won't change the way we talk and in fact it will increase as pressure to become a mixed society with little linkage across cultures continues.

Well may you wish for a different Australia, because this one is on a different path to the liberal progressive ideal.

"Rather than promoting the benefits of cultural diversity, mainstream media representations and political debates concerning immigration in Australia reveal the volatile and divisive path that Australia has ventured down in recent years."
To be honest, it would be hard for the media to promote "The benefits of having Wahabis interacting with a secular Western Society"- it just rolls off the tongue doesn't it?

Of course, YOU Lucas, are not helping either.
By generalizing the hostility as a one-size fits all xenophobia against a generalized 'other' you will ensure that those who specifically fear having fundamentalist ratbags wash up here, will continue to sound like a generalized voter call for general racism- when certainly shutting the doors to religious (including Islamic) fundamentalists in favor of moderate, secular people is a logical course of action?
Especially considering it may mean less people will be caught up in the net, than currently are?

Umm, pardon my ignorance but what exactly is a "racist incident" as defined for the purposes of the Deakin survey? Blithely calling people racist is about as valid as calling people elephants unless we can agree on what each term actually means. In the context of people who feel themselves to be victims of racist attitudes I believe the task is even tougher. What steps were taken to address a natural inclination to over-state one's case when asked a leading question like "How often do you feel yourself subjected to racist attitudes?".

...Here is some lateral thinking for the day. Eliminate Christmas Island from the inventory of Australian territories and re-install the Island to the Indonesian Archipelago where it rightly belongs. The need for that innovation is obvious and urgent.

The author of this article is from a different planet, or perhaps I am being unfair - the author deserves a better cause to fight. Rather than the feeble stuff which get labelled "racial incidents" in Australia, perhaps the author could emigrate to Malaysia or even China. She could spend some time in a Chinese jail for disturbing public order or some such, for this sort of writing. In other words, she would have a regime that would (almost) match her rhetoric.

As for much of the basic thesis, being older (mid-50s) I can recall a time (latish 70s) when men who still wore hats would gratutiously abuse greek or italian immigrants. Although Australia is far from a perfect place to suggest we are going backwards is simply ridiculous. The article should be ignored.