Should immigration to Australia, particularly Asian immigration, be halted or reduced?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
`We do have high unemployment, they do worry about the fact that some of the recent arrivals in certain ethnic groups - you've got unemployment levels of 40, 50, 60 per cent. Now that is unfair to all of us'
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard
`I believe that the contribution that Australians of Asian descent have made to this country has been immense ... They have brought to this country many skills, they have made a contribution to our society and they have brought this commitment to individual freedom, their commitment to small business and their commitment to the strength of the extended family'
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard
Independent MP Ms Pauline Hanson, in her maiden speech in September, 1996, called for Australia's immigration policy to be reviewed and multiculturalism to be abolished. Ms Hanson called specifically for an end to Asian immigration.
Ms Hanson's attitudes toward immigration have attracted enormous media attention and generated some debate.
This comes at a time when the federal government has begun restricting our migrant intake and when some recent studies have indicated racism may be becoming a problem in this country.
Background
Australia is predominantly a nation composed of migrants and the descendants of migrants. The country has been populated by waves of migration throughout its history. The response of the host population to new arrivals has varied.
With Federation in 1901 the White Australia Policy was effectively introduced and migration was largely limited to the Anglo-Irish. After World War II Australia accepted large numbers of European, non-British immigrants. By 1961 the government of the day was moving away from a White Australia Policy and in 1968 a policy of multiculturalism or a tolerance of cultural diversity began to be discussed.
It was not until 1973 that the Whitlam Government formally abandoned a policy of assimilation for Aboriginal and migrant groups. Members of minorities were no longer expected to give up aspects of their culture which set them apart from the majority.
The White Australia Policy was also formally repudiated.
1977 saw the arrival of the first Indo-chinese boatpeople, many of whom were political refugees, on Australia's shores.
Between 1984 and 1988 there was intermittent discussion of the effect of migration on the racial composition of the Australian population. In 1984, Professor Geoffrey Blainey urged caution, particularly with regard to Asian immigration. Four years later, then opposition leader, John Howard, echoed Professor Blainey's views. The positions of both men were popularly rejected and John Howard's political career was damaged.
During the most recent federal election Mr Howard was careful to stress his party's non-discriminatory policy on immigration, however, it was foreshadowed that should the Liberal-National coalition win office total immigration numbers would be reduced and some aspects of Australia's immigration policy would be tightened.
It was during the last election that Ms Hanson stood for the former Labor seat of Oxley, in Queensland. Ms Hanson originally stood as a Liberal candidate, however her endorsement was withdrawn after she had made what were said to be racist remarks about Aboriginals.
Ms Hanson won the seat as an independent, a feature of her campaign being remarks critical of the degree of government assistance received by Aboriginals and the extent of immigration in general and Asian immigration in particular.
Arguments in favour of restricting immigration to Australia, particularly Asian immigration
One of the primary arguments offered in support of restricting immigration to Australia is economic, in particular fear that immigration may increase unemployment within Australia.
Ms Hanson, in her maiden speech, claimed, `Immigration must be halted in the short-term so that our dole queues are not added to by, in many cases, unskilled migrants, not fluent in the English language.'
Similarly, the federal government has cited concerns over unemployment as one of its main reasons for restricting immigration to Australia.
On October 25, 1996, the Prime Minister, was reported as having endorsed the view that immigration was contributing to high unemployment.
Mr Howard apparently told Sydney radio commentator, John Laws, `We do have high unemployment, they do worry about the fact that some of the recent arrivals in certain ethnic groups - you've got unemployment levels of 40, 50, 60 per cent. Now that is unfair to all of us.'
According to this line of argument, if a government allows into a country relatively lowly skilled people for whom employment cannot readily be found, then it is automatically adding to its unemployment problem.
Prior to the attention on the issue created by Ms Hanson's remarks, the federal government had already decided to limit the family reunion program for migrants to Australia and to withhold unemployment benefits from migrants until they had been in Australia for at least two years.
Both of these measures have been presented as ways of helping to ensure that those migrants who come into Australia will be sufficiently skilled to gain employment.
(However, the Minister for Immigration, Mr Ruddock, has noted that the government, on humanitarian grounds, has eased its restrictions on family reunion sponsorships for refugees, such that the sponsor does not have to be an Australian citizen.)
Concern about worsening unemployment has also been offered as a justification for the federal government's decision to reduce Australia's immigrant intake by 10,000 this year.
When asked on October 17 whether immigration quotas should rise in the near future, Mr Howard replied, `No ... I think they should fall. That's why we cut them.'
Mr Howard then went on to say that the size and composition of Australia's migrant intake should be based on an `on-going assessment of the national interest.'
It would appear that in referring to Australia's `national interest' Mr Howard is primarily referring to Australia's employment situation.
Mr Howard, has, however, claimed that whatever limitations his government might impose on immigration they would be non-discriminatory, that is, they would not be racially based.
On October 8, Mr Howard stated in parliament, `I will always denounce racial intolerance. I will always defend the non-discriminatory character of Australia's immigration policy'.
Following on from his claim that his government's immigration policy is non-discriminatory, Mr Howard has argued that it should be possible to propose that immigration numbers be reduced without being accused of bigotry.
`In my view there should be robust debate in this country about the size of our immigration policy. People are entitled to attack the present immigration levels without being branded as bigots or racists.'
There appears to be a distinction between the argument put by the federal government on the impact of immigrants on unemployment and the views of some of the electorate.
The government appears to have a dual focus. It is concerned to reduce immigrant numbers overall, but it is particularly concerned to ensure that predominantly skilled migrants are allowed entry so that they can be employed.
From the point of view of many within the electorate, migrants are an employment problem not because they may come to Australia and not be able to find jobs, but because they represent competition for such jobs as are available.
A Melbourne shopkeeper, Mr Ross Cornell, has been reported as saying, `I agree we should stop immigration for five years so that people already in the country, whatever their race, have a chance to get a job.'
Ross Fitzgerald, associate professor of history and politics at Griffith University, Queensland, has stated, `To many of Hanson's wider constituency, unskilled migrants are as much of a threat as economic reforms and widespread technological change. The erosion of our manufacturing base following the lowering of tariff barriers has resulted in huge job losses. It is not surprising that many of the long-term unemployed - and those in work who fear both retrenchment and their inability to handle rapid economic change - seek scapegoats.'
According to this line of argument, though fear of workplace competition from new migrants represents a misunderstanding of the principal causes of job loss in Australia, it is a highly significant factor explaining opposition to immigration within the electorate.
It is also believed by some that not only do immigrants represent undesirable competition for jobs, but that they also receive special treatment from the government.
A survey conducted earlier this year among people living in the western suburbs of Sydney found a wide-spread belief that Asian migrants, in particular, received favourable treatment from government. It was believed, for example, that Asian immigrants were given cars, houses and free bank loans. Such beliefs have, it is claimed, encouraged opposition within certain sections of the electorate to Asian immigration.
Another argument offered against allowing migrants into Australia, especially migrants from Asia, is that it is claimed by some that they will not assimilate, or become part of the Australian community.
This is the primary argument offered by Ms Hanson to justify her claim that Asian migration to Australia should be stopped.
In her maiden speech, Ms Hanson stated that Australia was `in danger of being swamped by Asians'. She went on to state her belief that `They have their own culture and religion, form ghettoes and do not assimilate'.
Ms Hanson has further claimed, `My fear is that if we keep going the way we are going, as my mother has said for many years, the yellow race will rule the world, because they have a different culture. A different way of life.'
This view appears to be as much an attack on multiculturalism as it is on Asian immigration.
Ms Hanson appears to be objecting to cultural diversity. She seems to be arguing that Asian immigrants should be disallowed because they are culturally different from the majority of Australians and are, she believes, unlikely to surrender that difference.
Apparently referring specifically to multiculturalism, or the maintenance of cultural diversity, Ms Hanson has stated, `Why should we, the taxpayer, pay for them to maintain their own language? They're coming out here to Australia. Our language is English. That's that.'
A more extreme form of this rejection of difference rejects not merely different cultures but also seems to reject the differences in appearance between one race and another.
According to this line of argument inter-marriage between races is undesirable because it modifies the appearance of those children born of such marriages. Port Lincoln mayor, Peter Davis, recently attracted attention when he claimed, `If you are a child of a mixed race, particularly, if you will, Asian-Causian or aboriginal-white, you are a mongrel and that's what happens when you cross dogs or whatever.'
Finally there are those who argue that whatever the accuracy of public opinion regarding wage competition, preferential treatment, a failure to assimilate or the offspring of racially mixed marriages, if a majority within the Australian population are strongly opposed to immigration and wish numbers reduced then their attitudes should be considered when governments set quotas.
According to this line of argument governments have to consider the attitude of the host culture toward incoming migrants and ensure that numbers of migrants do not become so large as to engender hostility within the host community.
This was the position put by Professor Geoffrey Blainey in 1984. It does not appear to have been strongly articulated in the current debate.
Arguments against restricting immigration to Australia, particularly Asian immigration
Among those who favour a continuance of at least current levels of immigration within Australia and possibly a return to the levels allowed under the last Labor Government are those who maintain that the nature of migrants' economic contribution to Australia has been misunderstood.
The Age in its editorial of September 2, 1996, noted, `When unemployment and migrant numbers are high, it is easy to blame the latter for the former - even though the evidence is that, in the long-term, migration has a positive effect on unemployment.'
According to this argument migrants to a country ultimately promote growth because they generate demand for goods and services and thus in the medium- to long-term help to create employment.
A parallel has been drawn with the United States which has an unemployment rate of 5.3 per cent, some three per cent lower than Australia's, despite allowing almost one million migrants into the country every year.
Further it has been argued that many migrants have made major contributions to Australian life and culture.
Mr John Howard in his speech of October 8 (despite defending his government's decision to reduce the total number of migrants coming to Australia) made the following claim, `I believe that the contribution that Australians of Asian descent have made to this country has been immense ... They have brought to this country many skills, they have made a contribution to our society and they have brought this commitment to individual freedom, their commitment to small business and their commitment to the strength of the extended family.'
On the question of multiculturalism, there are those who argue that Australia should welcome its cultural and racial diversity on the one hand while not exaggerating the degree of difference between different ethnic groups.
Age journalist, Manika Naidoo, a South African Indian, who immigrated to Australia as a child, has claimed, `Multiculturalism has not failed, and we are just beginning to see its fruits. Go and sit on any university campus lawn, or walk through any school yard and look around you. Where are the Asian enclaves? Instead of hunting down the problems, why aren't we looking about for the everyday successes?'
According to this line of argument there is relatively little racial tension in Australia and migrants are able to maintain what they want of their former cultural identity while at the same time mixing freely with other Australians.
Arguments against allowing Asians, in particular, into Australia have been condemned as ignorant and ill-informed.
On the question of Asians' supposed failure to integrate or blend into the Australian community because of their marked cultural difference, it has been noted that many Asian migrants share religious beliefs common to many other Australians.
Martin Flanagan, writing in The Age on October 21, 1996, noted, that `Catholics continue to pour into the country from places like the former republic of South Vietnam and the Philippines.'
According to this line of argument it is not possible to reject a group of people because of their unalterable cultural and religious differences from their those of their host country when they practise the same religion as many within the host culture.
Martin Flanagan has also noted that religious beliefs in mainstream Australia are altering, bringing the beliefs of many Australians born within the country into line with those of many Asian immigrants.
Mr Flanagan has claimed, `the fastest growing religion in Australia is Buddhism'.
It has also been argued that claims like those of Ms Hanson that Asians form `ghettoes' and do not assimilate are inaccurate.
According to this line of argument the relatively high rate of mixed racial marriage shows that integration or assimilation does occur.
Figures published in The Herald Sun on October 24, 1996, indicate that 95 per cent of second-generation Indians living within Australia marry outside their own ethnic group, while some 75 per cent of second generation Chinese are said to marry outside their ethnic group. Interestingly, more than 50 per cent of second generation Greek and Italian Australians marry within their own ethnic group, yet Australians of central and southern European origin do not attract the degree of criticism that those of Asian descent do.
It has further been argued that other criticisms made of immigrants, and in particular Asian immigrants, are inaccurate.
Dr Ellie Vasta, the author of a study conducted by Wollongong University on attitudes among those living in the western suburbs of Sydney toward Asian immigration, noted that there was much misinformation currently being accepted as true.
`[Anglo-Australians] will quickly tell you that Asian migrants get things free when it is just untrue,' Dr Vasta has claimed.
Among the misinformation said to be accepted as true are myths that Asian immigrants receive a house, a car and no-interest bank loans on their arrival in Australia.
Proponents of Asian immigration maintain that what is required is that these myths be dispelled, not that the number of Asian migrants coming into Australia be reduced.
It is further claimed that popular perceptions of the number of Asian immigrants are exaggerated. Ms Hanson has claimed that `40 per cent of migrants between 1984 and 1995 were Asian.'
60 Minutes reporter, Tracey Curro, pointed out to Ms Hanson that despite the relatively high percentage of immigrants into Australia who are of Asian origin, the total number of Australians who are of Asian origin is only 866,224 of Australia's more than 8 million people. This is some 5 per cent.
A partial breakdown of this figure, as shown by the results of the 1991 census, indicates that .2 per cent of people in Australia were born in Japan, .5 per cent in China, .3 per cent in Hong Kong, .4 per cent in Malaysia, .4 per cent in the Philippines and .7 per cent in Vietnam.
According to those who stress these figures, the relatively small size of each of these Asian subgroups indicates that those such as Ms Hanson who see Australia as in danger of being `swamped by Asians' are taking an extreme view.
There are also those who argue that on humanitarian grounds Australia has an obligation to continue at least its family reunion program for all immigrants, including Asian immigrants.
The federal government has indicated that it may further limit the number of spouses and dependent parents of migrants already arrived in Australia allowed into the country.
The opposition spokesperson for immigration, Mr Duncan Kerr, has condemned the government's plans to cap the spouse intake so that any of those applying in a given year falling on the wrong side of the quota would simply have to reapply the following year.
According to Mr Kerr this system is unfair and discriminatory. Mr Kerr has also claimed that there is no legitimate justification for this policy as `The minister has not been able to identify any systematic amount of abuse.'
Finally there are those who argue that opposition to Asian immigration on the basis of a simple opposition to a particular ethnic type is prejudiced and unreasonable.
When Port Lincoln mayor, Peter Davis, claimed that the offspring of inter-racial marriage were `mongrels' his views were condemned by his fellow councillors who all quit the council.
Those who oppose Peter Davis' view claim that one ethnic group has no intrinsic superiority to another and that children who are the product of racially mixed marriages are no better or worse than those whose parents are of the same ethnic group.
Port Lincoln deputy mayor, Mr Greg Anderson, has condemned the prejudice of Mr Davis' claim which Mr Anderson paraphrases as `relations between white Caucasians produce the equivalent of thoroughbreds, whereas others are mixed relationships which produce mongrels.'
Critics of this view maintain that to reject another person on the basis of their physical appearance is superficial and groundless. Attention has been drawn in the media to apparently unprovoked abuse of Vietnamese in the streets.
Age journalist, Manika Naidoo, has urged `Whatever happens, let's not allow debate to degenerate into a vehicle for ignorant bigots who hurl vicious taunts at innocent strangers.'
Further implications
The consequences of a debate on Australia's immigration policy are potentially enormous. One of the most interesting aspects of the issue thus far is the extent to which the debate has failed to occur.
There has been extensive media coverage of the prime minister's perceived slowness to respond to Ms Hanson's maiden speech.
There have been endorsements of Ms Hanson's views from groups such as Australians Against Further Immigration. There have been criticisms of Ms Hanson's comments as prejudiced, divisive and ill-informed, however, there have been very few direct attempts to consider the rationale underlying Australia's current immigration policy and what our long-term policy might be.
Some of the questions which need to be addressed are:
* What is our desired rate of population growth into the next century?
* How do we balance humanitarian and equity considerations against economic considerations?
* How significant is Asian immigration as a means of consolidating Australia's position within our region?
* Do we value cultural diversity?
A number of commentators have stressed that if this debate is to occur, the tone in which it is conducted is crucial. There appears to be a fear among commentators and politicians alike that such a debate may be shanghaied by racial bigots. Should this happen it would have potentially disastrous effects for minority groups within Australia and for the Australian community as a whole.
Sources
The Age
2/9/96 page 4 news item by Caroline Milburn, `Study reveals anti-Asian bias'
2/9/96 page 14 editorial, `Protecting our tolerance'
12/9/96 page 2 new s item by Laura Tingle, `Outspoken MP under fire over remarks on race'
17/9/96 page 4 news item by Karen Middleton, `Threat to limit spouse migration'
14/10/96 page 15 comment by Manika Naidoo, `In diversity lies the strength within us'
20/10/96 page 20 comment by John Schauble, `Hate fills the vacuum'
21/10/96 page 15 comment by Martin Flanagan, `The issue we can't afford to ignore'
25/10/96 page 2 news item by Karen Middleton, `Immigration influencing jobless rate, says Howard'
The Australian
5/9/96 page 3 news item by Gabrielle Chan, `Ruddock eases conditions for refugee family sponsorships'
11/9/96 page 2 news item by Georgina Windsor and Andrew McGarry, `Hanson targets blacks, immigrants'
16/9/96 page 2 news item by Gabrielle Chan and John Short, `Traditional Labor voters reject party's immigration policy'
8/10/96 page 42 editorial, `Racism: time to curb rhetoric'
9/10/96 page 11 comment by Greg Sheridan, `Hanson debate has damaged us both at home and abroad'
9/10/96 page 11 comment by John Howard, `Tolerance a part of policy'
15/10/96 page 13 comment by Duncan Campbell, `Just how big a nation should we aim to be?'
17/10/96 page 2 news item by Gabrielle Chan, `Howard bats for immigration cuts'
23/10/96 page 6 news item by Andrew Ramsey, `Mayor's "mongrel" claim leaves him in council of one'
The Bulletin
22/10/96 page 18 analysis by Peter Wear, `High wire and Hanson'
22/10/96 page 20 analysis by Ross Fitzgerald, `Voice of the underclass'
22/10/96 page 23 analysis by Marian Sawer, `The culture of complaint'
The Herald Sun
19/10/96 page 21 analysis by Michelle Coffey, `Facts lacking in Hanson's claims'
22/10/96 pages 8 and 9 analysis by John Masanauskas, `Hanson factor lifts race fears'
23/10/96 page 4 news item by Laurie Nowell, `Chip shops fry outspoken MP'
23/10/96 pages 14 and 15 analysis by John Masanauskas, `Asian influx is set to top 20 pc'
24/10/96 page 15 news item by John Masanauskas, `Warning on racial mix'