M is for Migrants

M is for Migrants

“‘I understand the strength of emotion that causes people to behave improperly, to use rash, angry words and to resort to violent actions. I understand the deep empathy which brought you all here today. I also understand what drives people from their homes to risk their lives on such uncertain promises as made by unscrupulous smugglers, exposing themselves to untold dangers. Do not forget that I am a boat person. I arrived in this beautiful country as an illegal immigrant, a queue jumper, courtesy of the money my father paid to a smuggler. I do understand the issues. The concern of course it how to get the balance right. Neither an open door policy, or a turn the boats around policy will suffice to humanely and justly manage this complex problem.’

He paused, and inhaled the anticipation of the audience. With the protestors long gone, and the juice stains drying nicely on his suit, the time had come to close his address. It was vital that he leave them hungry because he had more to feed them later, when he was ready.”   from chapter 6, Ashmore Grief

Australia is a migrant nation. We have been dependent on migration for growth since Arthur Phillip led the First Fleet into Sydney Cove in 1788. Beginning with convicts and a smattering of free settlers, through the Gold Rush which saw 600 000 people come to Australia from all over the world, to federation in 1901, when migration policy began to be dominated by the infamous “White Australia Policy” which effectively ended Asian migration for fifty years. 

The end of the second world war caused another dramatic shift with then Prime Minister, Ben Chifley declaring that we should “populate or perish” (my paraphrase). A Department of Immigration was established and Australia began to accept significant numbers of refugees from Europe. In 1972 with the coming to power of the first Labour government since 1946, the racist quota system was replaced by something called ‘structured selection’ whereby migrants would be chosen according to social and personal attributes, and occupational group rather than country of origin. Three years later the first ‘boat people arrived and Australia experienced a wave of refugees from Southeast Asia, principally Vietnam and Cambodia.

Despite Australia’s incredible ethnic diversity, (around 50 statistically significant ethnic groups) and our continued record of successful and peaceful multiculturalism, the hysteria surrounding our current crop of illegal boat arrivals demonstrates the xenophobia which lies beneath the surface of our smiles. Roughly one in four Australians were born overseas, and sadly, this still bothers too many people.

Photograph sources:

http://www.imagegroup.com.au/our_services.asp

http://www.defenceanglicans.org.au/was-he-gods-messenger/

Split Ministries

It started with the Rudd Labour government separating the climate change portfolio from the environment and giving it its own minister. This was obviously done to broadcast the importance the government placed upon climate change. The recently re-elected, albeit barely elected, Gillard Labor Government scrapped the Education portfolio and installed a Minister for School Education,Early Childhood and Youth (Peter Garrett) and another minster for tertiary education and skills (Chris Evans).In the spirit of the Labour government's division of ministerial portfolios, I would like to suggest the following.

Foreign Affairs should be divided into two separate portfolios: one for countries we like and one for countries we don't like. Immigration could be split between illegal immigrants/asylum seekers and legal immigrants. And there should definitely be a distinct ministry for the greatest game of all: cricket. One minister for all the other sports and one minister whose sole responsibility is to look after the interests of our national game.

Lastly, I would like to propose a brand new portfolio to oversee our politicians, and make sure they do their jobs instead of spouting negative and nonconstructive rubbish.

The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

Being serious about the exercise of my democratic right to vote in the upcoming federal election has caused me to think more carefully than ever before about the options. More than that I have had to consider whether I really do have choices.

The Labour Party and the Coalition are the two main parties and one or the other has ruled Australia for my whole life. No other party is large enough to even win an election let alone form a government. Our system requires the winning of a majority of seats (electorates) in a majority of states. The minor parties, and independent candidates may win seats but they can't form governments. The value of independents in the parliament is a debate for another time but from the point of view of the voter, you have to determine whether the person you elect to represent you in parliament is actually going to be able to achieve anything if they are not part of the government or at least a major party.

Running my eye over the options I am left without a party I can call my own. One that truly and totally represents my point of view and one which can achieve things for me locally and nationally. When nobody completely measures up, I am forced into a choice between lesser evils. I am stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.

A vote for the Coalition gives me a government led by a man who I feel is 'not right' for the job of Prime Minister, and which doesn't like spending money until election time. Their obsession with surpluses is annoying, to put it mildly. A vote for the Greens will give me a carbon tax amongst a host of other extreme environmental policies, soft immigration policies and same sex marriages. I tried Family First, although the name is strange given that the importance of the family unit to a functional society is universally held and self evident, but they don't have policies. They have general statements of principle which I happen to agree with but they don't have any policies. Respecting Rev. Fred Nile as I do, I checked out the Christian Democrats and again courtesy of fundamental shared faith in Jesus Christ, I found plenty with which I could agree. However, their policies on drugs are too hard in my view, almost graceless and some of the CDP's rhetoric on immigration issues borders on racist. And what economic credentials do any of the minor parties have? Finally I return to what has been my default position since I began voting twenty four years ago:The Australian Labour Party.

With the ALP I have a poll driven wishy washy government which has fallen into the sustainable population trap. A government led by someone who modified her public persona and bored us all as soon as she wiped the blood off the knife. This government conducts endless reviews and commissions of enquiry but doesn't act. Their response to the Henry tax review was disappointingly underwhelming.

I need a party with the clout to succeed. The strength and courage to rip the big changes which are necessary to keep Australia the ridiculously prosperous nation that it is. I want people to be put first. I want compassion and grace. I want Christian values because those who love God and people, have positively and immeasurably transformed the world. Governments should pour resources into education, health and public infrastructure. I want a passionate and brave leader who inspires me and makes me proud to be an Australian, and who leads a government which is strong, clever, competent and compassionate.

Daryl Kerrigan might tell me that I'm dreaming but I am happy to admit to being an idealist. Is the Labour Party led by Julia Gillard whom I have always admired as a leader, what I am looking for or will I simply have to settle for second best?

Yours Truly,
Undecided.

Scapegoating Migrants

We have massive problems in our cities with failing and inadequate infrastructure.
Our relatively slowly expanding population, which is almost entirely driven by net migration not natural increase, is placing ever increasing demands on our public facilities and services. In response to the perceived panic generated by former Prime Minister Rudd's push for a big Australia, his successor, Julia Gillard, has ditched the concept in favour of a 'sustainable' Australia. She says we are going to have a sensible debate about how many people we want living in our country. Bulldust! The longed for rational discussion on serious issues in the lead up to this federal election has been torpedoed by spin and alarmist sloganism.

Cheryl Kernot put it this way, "everything seems to be coming more and more trivialised than ever and I think that the 30 day election campaign is becoming a waste of time and a waste of money and an expensive game between journalists, the media and two big parties." The ABC's Mark Colvin asked this question at the beginning of a recent interview with former NSW Premier Bob Carr: He said, "Are the main parties having a real debate about sustainable population or are they both more focused on finding ways to garner the anti-immigration vote?" (For the record, Mr Carr supports Julia Gillard on this issue.)

So what do we have? Ms Gillard appoints a sustainability minster, and dribbles on about some pie in the sky plan for an offshore processing centre in East Timor while Mr Abbott and his pals in the Coalition can't stop babbling on about how they are going to stop the boats. (Even though they haven't actually told us how) Both parties are talking about reducing migration targets, they just have different numbers to throw in our faces. Who are they talking to? Who is afraid of Australia being overrun at worst, or overburdened at least, by migrants? There is a very strong connection being made between migration and public infrastructure problems. The argument goes like this: we can't handle any more people in this country because there is already too much congestion on the roads, and overcrowding on public transport. Let me reduce it further: F#!* off we're full! Have you seen that bumper sticker? Makes me sick but that is what the current immigration/sustainable population debate has been reduced to.

Professor Peter McDonald is the director of the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute at the ANU. He doesn't think migration should be or even can be fixed at any particular number because we are in a global labour market. He says migration is going to be highly volatile and we need a system which is foresighted and flexible. No other country in the world has a target for a population growth rate.

The transport and infrastructure problems we are experiencing are as a result of a failure of government planning but if you listen to the rubbish being spouted in this election campaign, it is blatantly obvious who is copping the blame. Migrants are being scapegoated and it's not right.

Sources:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2963891.htm (Peter McDonald)

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2969354.htm (Cheryl Kernot)