Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Should immigrants to Australia be required to live in rural or regional areas?
On July 7, 1996, the Immigration Minister, Mr Phillip Ruddock, announced federal government plans to channel migrants into country areas.
Under the scheme migrants prepared to settle in country areas would be more likely to be accepted into Australia. They would then be required to pay a bond which they would only recover once they had made a commitment to a rural or regional area by getting a job, buying a house or starting a business there.
A number of ethnic groups, including the Ethnic Communities' Council of Victoria, have been critical of the scheme, as has the Victorian premier, Mr Kennett, and the federal opposition immigration spokesperson, Mr Duncan Kerr.
Background
Under the new scheme 700 places have already been allocated to immigrants, in the new `concessional family category', who are prepared to live in rural areas.
Once the scheme is in full operation at least 1300 immigrants a year will have their waiting time for approval to settle within Australia shortened on condition that they pay a bond which they will forfeit if they do not live in regional or rural Australia. Bonds will range from $10,000 to $30,000.
These 1300 places will be made available to 500 potential migrants in a regional migration scheme, 700 from the family reunion program and at least 100 from a skilled migrant category.
In order to qualify for the placements, each potential migrant would need to have a sponsor who had lived in a designated area for 12 months. That sponsor must not have been in receipt of defined social security payments for more than two weeks over the past 12 months. The potential migrant must be less than 45 years of age when applying, must have recognised skills relevant to his or her usual occupation at Australian diploma level or higher, and must have functional English.
In addition to these plans to encourage/require new migrants to Australia to settle in rural or regional areas there have been plans announced to reduce the total number of migrants that will be allowed into Australia and to alter the balance of the categories.
Prior to Mr Ruddock's proposed plan to channel migrants into rural or regional Australia, a series of other changes to immigration policy were announced.
The Government has announced that it intends to reduce the total immigration intake by 10,000 to 86,000 per year. More controversial has been the intention to cut the family reunion program by 13,500 to 44,700. There is also to be a 1000 reduction in the humanitarian program to 12,000.
The only area to be increased is the skilled migrant category, which is to be increased by 4,400 to 28,000. The level of skill required is also to be increased, while increased emphasis is to be placed on English skills.
Arguments supporting immigrants to Australia being required to live in rural or regional areas
There are two major sets of argument offered in support of potential migrants to Australia being required to live in regional or country areas. One stresses the benefits to Australia that would result from this; the other stresses the advantages to the migrant.
With regard to the advantages that might result for Australia as a consequence of migrants being directed into certain areas, it has been noted that this would make it possible to prevent migrants clustering in areas where there are not adequate employment opportunities, and where, therefore, they are not able to contribute significantly to their new country.
It has been claimed that currently more than 40 per cent of incoming migrants settle in Sydney and 20 per cent in Melbourne. It has further been claimed that neither city is able to provide adequate employment opportunities for such numbers, especially when the majority of immigrants are non-English speakers and lowly skilled.
On the other hand what are claimed to be a potential growth area, South Australia, attracts only 4.3 per cent of Australia's annual migrant intake.
The position being argued here is that the host country should be able to exercise control over the conditions under which immigrants arrive and settle and further that these conditions should be to the clear advantage of the host country.
The Age, in its editorial of July 9, 1996, stated the position in the following manner, `Any nation fortunate enough to be able to attract potential migrants should be able to impose reasonable conditions upon them.'
A similar point has been made by the premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, who implies that to be accepted as a permanent resident within a sought-after host country is a privilege, which can quite rightly enable that country to impose certain requirements upon in-coming immigrants.
Mr Carr has stated, `A lot of people want to come to this country. If someone is prepared to compete to come to Australia on the basis that they will go to a regional centre ... then I think that is good.'
Following on from the position put by premier Carr is the claim that such migrants are not being coerced, as it is their decision as to whether they want to form part of the scheme and accept the conditions of entry and settlement that come with it.
The Age, in its editorial of July 9, 1996, has stated, `If this constitutes coercion ... then it is coercion of a mild kind. Applicants who find the prospect of living outside Australia's three or four biggest cities distasteful will be penalised only to the extent that they must wait a little longer to have complete freedom of choice.'
On the question of the advantages to potential migrants that would result from their being required to settle in regional or country areas, it has been argued that the opportunities for employment are better in some of such regions.
Mr Ruddock, the Immigration Minister, has stated that there are different employment opportunities in different parts of Australia. He has highlighted the need for project engineers in Western Australia's north-west shelf project. Mr Ruddock has also observed that skilled workers are needed in Darwin and that there are numerous job opportunities in the hospitality industry in Queensland.
Some established migrants to Australia have supported the idea that current migrants should be encouraged to settle in areas outside the major cities.
Bill Zonnenbergs, who lives on the New South Wales side of the Murray River, near Mildura, migrated to Australia from Latvia.
Mr Zonnenbergs, commenting on the proposal to encourage new migrants into rural or regional areas, has stated, `Yes, it's a great idea. Do you want to create ghettos in the cities with these people? That is okay in the short term, but bad in the long term. It's good to spread [people] around.'
According to this line of argument, it is to the ultimate advantage of both the host country and migrants if immigrants are required to mix in with the mainstream population, so that each group of people is in a better position to gain from the other.
Arguments opposing immigrants to Australia being required to live in rural or regional areas
One of the major arguments offered against migrants being required to live in regional or rural areas is that it may not be in their best interests to require them to do so.
The Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, has questioned whether there would be enough jobs for migrants outside Melbourne.
`It might be fine in theory, but the fact is, are they going to be able to use [their] skills in those areas outside of metropolitan areas?' Mr Kennett has queried.
`In other words, there has to be industry there that equates with their skills.'
A similar point has been made by Dr Andrew Markus, associate professor of history at Monash University, who has described the idea as one of sending migrants to country areas where jobs did not exist. Dr Markus has characterised the proposal as `economic irrationalism'.
It has also been suggested that the scheme is discriminatory. It has been argued that it is discriminatory because it imposes English-speaking requirements upon those who avail themselves of it.
According to this line of argument such a requirement discriminates against all potential migrants who are unable to speak English at the time they seek to arrive in Australia.
It has further been argued that the scheme is discriminatory because it discriminates in favour of those with enough capital to meet at least the $10,000 which constitutes the lowest bond.
According to this line of argument, the scheme alienates 1300 migrant placements, making them available only to those who have between $10,000 and $30,000 to pay as a bond.
The Age, in its editorial of July 9, stated, `Bonds of the size suggested by Mr Ruddock would be beyond the reach of many migrant groups, effectively making Australia less attainable for at least some of the huddled masses of migratory legend.'
It has also been argued that the federal government's plan denies migrants' freedom of movement and residence within a country as guaranteed by the United Nations convention on human rights.
Ms Angela Chan, the chairperson of the Ethnic Communities' Council of New South Wales has claimed to have received legal advice that the federal proposal contravenes the United Nations convention as interpreted in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.
Schedule 2 of the Act says, `Everyone lawfully within the territory of a state shall, within that territory, has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.'
Ms Chan has stressed that Australia is a signatory to the relevant United Nations agreement and thus cannot legally attempt to limit migrants' freedom of movement and residence in the manner proposed.
It has further been claimed that the plan is unworkable, if only because it is said to be unreasonable to attempt to settle large numbers of migrants in rural Australia at the same time as federal, state and local governments are dramatically cutting infrastructure.
According to this line of argument it is inappropriate to seek to place large numbers of people in country areas at the same time as services in those areas are being reduced.
This point has been made by the Opposition spokesperson on immigration, Mr Duncan Kerr. Mr Kerr has condemned the proposal as `naive and unworkable'.
Further, it has been argued that to place migrants in rural or regional areas where they are unlikely to find employment and where there are inadequate services for them is likely to result in the antipathy of receiving communities.
According to this line of argument such rural communities may well resent and feel hostile toward newcomers whom they believe place an unreasonable strain on job opportunities and community services which are already felt to be inadequate.
This view has been put by Professor Mary Kalantzis who has warned of the risk of creating a backlash against new immigrants from existing communities.
Finally, it has been suggested that such a policy is unlikely to be well received by Australia's regional neighbours and may well damage our international standing. This argument has been put by the opposition spokesperson on immigration, Mr Duncan Kerr.
Further implications
It has been suggested that one of the consequences of Australia's proposed alterations to the conditions under which we will accept migrants into this country may be that the number of people seeking to enter the country will diminish.
Commenting on proposals to increase the skill level required of those seeking to enter Australia as skilled migrants, Ms Anne O'Donaghue, a Sydney-based solicitor, has claimed that the effect of such schemes would be that many potential migrants would simply choose a destination other than Australia.
It seems possible that the country settlement requirements, coupled with the need to pay a bond and the requirement that the potential migrant have a sponsor who has also been living in an approved area may mean that the 1300 places the Immigration Minister intends to fill will not attract the expected level of interest.
It will also be interesting to note whether the federal government's proposal will have an impact on voter support.
Groups such as the Ethnic Communities' Councils of Victoria and New South Wales have made their opposition to the new schemes apparent. It seems likely that Australia's various ethnic communities may oppose these schemes, including the regional settlement scheme, when they come to vote.
However, some commentators have suggested that the various immigration schemes, including the regional settlement scheme, are likely to meet with overall voter support, as these various schemes appear to place the interests of the host country in a more central position.
What may have some impact on the new federal government's long-term electoral prospects is that the government's flagged changes to immigration policy are counter to assurances they gave when in opposition contesting the last election. Thus, these changes to policy may, in conjunction with other policy position changes, serve to undermine the government's credibility.
Sources
The Age
6/7/96 page 25 comment by Bob Birrell, `Changing the face of immigration'
8/7/96 page 3 news item by Niki Savva, `Plan to channel migrants from city'
8/7/96 page 11 comment by Michael Gawenda, `Michael Gawenda'
9/7/96 page 10 editorial, `Diverting the migrant stream'
11/7/96 page 19 comment by Tony Parkinson, `Bush policy isn't mean, it's stupid'
The Australian
6/7/96 page 21 comment by Mike Steketee, `Immigration: the new direction'
6/7/96 page 21 comment by Alan Wood, `It's time we had a fresh debate'
9/7/96 page 3 news item by Gabrielle Chan and Richard Yallop, `Regional migrants' bonds may breach UN: ethnic groups'
10/7/96 page 4 news item by John Hughes, `Lawyer warns on migrant skill test'
11/7/96 page 10 editorial, `Ruddock's migrant bond idea'
12/7/96 page 13 analysis by Kimina Lyall, `Country-bound migrants'
The Herald Sun
8/7/96 page 7 news item by Karl Malakunas, `Migrants face bond'
9/7/96 page 2 news item by Karl Malakunas, `Attack on migration cash plan'
What they said ...
`There is enormous scope and opportunities for migrants to bring benefits to regional Australia'
Mr Phillip Ruddock, Immigration Minister
`The Prime Minister has indicated that he is starting to unravel multiculturalism; to then dump immigrants in regional Australia is to expose them to unnecessary misery'
Professor Mary Kalantzis, James Cook University