Biloela family friends Vashini Jayakumar and Angela Fredericks with the Murugappan family — Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharnicca — at Perth Hospital on June 17.

The Biloela family — Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharnicca Murugappan — has been granted a three-month temporary bridging visa by the Immigration Minister Alex Hawke.

We asked readers to respond to Leslie Cannold’s Both Sides Now debating the question of the government allowing the Murugappans to stay permanently. As was to be expected, your opinions varied widely.

On should Australia let the Biloela family stay

Stephen Buzacott writes: Despite the welcome repatriation of the Murugappan family to Perth, the denial of return to Biloela is just vindictive — just another example of the smug, mean, vindictive and incompetent nature of our government.

Monica Chardon writes: Sorry. This is really sad but this is the parents’ fault these two beautiful little girls are caught up in this. They knew before both were born that they were not allowed to stay. If we let them stay it would open a can of worms. Those parents are the ones the finger should be pointed at, not the government. Rules are there for a reason. How on earth were they allowed to work here for so long without the correct paperwork? They should all be sent back to Sri Lanka and apply through the correct channels.

Gary Hinkley writes: The Murugappan family has had ample time to prove they are refugees (of any description). They failed all legal due diligence. Certainly they appear a lovely family. But sadly they are not entitled to remain. Should Sri Lanka grant them a passport to allow correct immigration, Australia would consider their application and probably in their favour. I have heard and read terrible stories of drownings at sea. No way should Australia allow these criminal boat transports to recommence. The consequences are too dire.

Margaret Page writes: There are always exceptions to every rule and I believe the Murugappan family should be allowed to stay and be given full citizenship. The town of Biloela wants them. They were obviously contributing and both children were born here. Surely we can show compassion. If we can’t then Australia is the poorer. As well, how much money has the Australian government spent punishing this family?

Stuart Ager writes: Emphatically the answer must be NO. To do otherwise would create a legal precedent and open up our borders to more people smugglers.

Theresa Hollis writes: Let’s forget all the “legal” arguments — this family has been living in Australia for many years in a town where they are part of the community. They have two daughters, both born here, which to my way of thinking makes them Australian. Yes we can argue the boat people stuff til the cows come home, but they have been ripped from the home they made and isolated behind wire bars for several years. Surely that is enough punishment. Let them stay.

Pam Rolls writes: From what I have read over the years, the couple came here separately and met in Australia. They were both told they were not refugees and would be returned to the country of origin. They were also warned that if they had children in Australia it would not help their cause. So, against all advice, they had two children while in detention. I say send them home, they are costing taxpayers millions.

Allan Bottomley writes: I noted Peter Dutton’s comment that “we should not show compassion to the Murugappan family”. This should be of growing concern to Australians with any sense of justice. The family had been part of a community in Queensland and was contributing to that community and to the wider Australian community by working and paying tax. They should never have been removed from Biloela. Their case could just as easily have been dealt with while they were left with some degree of normalcy in their lives.

Duncan Stitt writes: Let the family stay and return to Biloela ASAP.

Raewyn Quinn writes: Look, the family is in the wrong. They have lied, they have pursued every legal avenue (costing the taxpayer millions) through their stubbornness. They are not refugees so why let them stay? The father and mother have visited family in Sri Lanka during the time they have lived in Australia, I don’t see any risk to their lives in doing this. They should come over via the right legal visa system. I am glad the government is staying strong on this. If it softens, it sets a precedent.

Hazel Hassan writes: I don’t think letting this one family stay will suddenly bring a flood of boats to our shores. This family is not asking for handouts; they want to work and support themselves. They have a wonderful support base in Biloela. I think after the anguish Australia has put them through they deserve to be allowed to stay.

Allen Brown writes: What is missing in this debate is the government’s assertion that it is safe for Tamils to return to Sri Lanka. This is a lie, as demonstrated by the opinions of the UN, Amnesty International and the experience of Tamils who have been forcibly returned: torture and incarceration. Let the family go back to Biloela where they’re wanted.

Cecil Schultz writes: How much more torture can our government inflict on them? Let them stay.

Carole Baxter writes: The family should be allowed to stay. I have sent letters and emails and Facebook posts continually about this family because my older son once taught at Biloela High and I know the people are genuine. Now that the UK High Court has stated that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is wrong about returning Tamils not being in danger they should be considered genuine refugees. Thousands come by plane each year and disappear in Sydney and Melbourne never to be found, so why pick on this family?

Karen O’Dwyer writes: I think a point was missed in the “yes” case focusing on the morals only. Perhaps just at this time of COVID, when we can’t bring in our own let alone migrants, we could have a one-off amnesty for those here or on our offshore prisons to settle in country towns and places crying out for workers? It sounded to me like [Leslie Cannold] was against — so sad that pragmatism can seem to trump our moral values.