With Pauline Hanson’s election to the Australian Senate and her daft warnings of “terrorism on our streets” and suburbs “swamped by Asians”, I thought it would be useful to examine her party’s, One Nation’s, actual immigration policies.
Below are the key extracts of this immigration policy, along with my commentary:
One Nation believes in balanced, zero net immigration (subject to review depending on economic conditions) and that coming to Australia is a privilege that must not be undervalued. We reserve the right of discretion in protecting our economy, social cohesion and cultural heritage.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN ZERO IMMIGRATION
‘Zero net’ means we replace the numbers that leave Australia with new migrants.
The justification for our policy of not exceeding zero net immigration is that environmentally, Australia is near her carrying capacity. Economically, immigration is unsustainable and socially, if continued as is, will lead to a further ethnically divided Australia. Current policy is encouraging large numbers of illegal migrants and it is time Australia, while recognising the contribution made by migrants in the past, sends to the world the message that mass immigration has passed its “use by date.”
It is now critical to develop a population policy for Australia in order to decide immigration numbers rationally and in the best interest of Australians. The immigration policies of the major political parties to this day have proven disastrous, proceeding as if there were no balance of payments problem, no foreign debt and no geographical or environmental constraints to population growth. If continued, such an immigration policy will irreversibly alter the natural and urban environment, economic viability as well as undermining the maintenance and further development of a unique and valuable Australian identity and culture…
One Nation notes that immigration throughout the last century has been of great benefit to Australia; however it must be recognised that inappropriately high levels of immigration can be detrimental to employment, to national infrastructure, services and the environment…
The statements about “cultural heritage”, an “ethnically divided Australia”, and the “maintenance and further development of a unique and valuable Australian identity and culture” fly in the face of Australia’s successful multi-cultural milieu and that makes One Nation at minimum “xenophobic” and “racist” at worst.
However, there is some merit to the policy so far: One Nation correctly identifies that Australia’s current tri-partisan population policy has encouraged an immigration intake that is too high and is unsustainable both economically and environmentally, as well as placing excessive strains on public services and the urban environment (read infrastructure and housing).
While I don’t support zero net migration – rather a much lower and better managed intake than is currently the case (say 70,000 net migrants a year, which is commensurate with the long-run average before John Howard raised the intake in the mid-2000s, and perhaps tilted more toward refugees) – at least I can understand where One Nation is coming from economically and in terms of the environment.
Back to the policy statement.
Big business and multinational corporations want increased immigration because they sell more product. Australians will only see longer queues for hospitals, nursing homes, schools and jobs….
An immediate review of our immigration is necessary until the economy has recovered, and to protect our culture and heritage and promote assimilation, nationalism, locality and pride in being Australian. The migration programme for 2014-15 is 190,000…
Australian “citizenship” is a valued privilege. One Nation would support a 5 year wait for new migrants to become Australian citizens. If they commit a criminal offence that carries with it a jail term of 1 year, they would automatically be denied citizenship and deported. To qualify they would have to have an understanding of the Australian Constitution and laws, pass a test in English and swear allegiance to the Commonwealth of Australia under our flag.
For people to assimilate into a society they must be able to communicate, therefore English is a requirement for citizenship. Germany, Japan and other countries around the world ask those wishing to become citizens of their nations, to speak their language.
Social security would not be available for new migrants for a period of five years.
Before arrival, migrants would be required to pass a complete and thorough health check before acceptance is granted, including checks for AIDS, Hepatitis and TB.
Australians have never been asked how they wish to see their country.
One Nation is correct when it says that “big business and multinational corporations” are the big winners from rampant population growth, whereas it is the ordinary citizens that suffer the negative externalities of increased pressure on public services, more competition for jobs, not to mention reduced housing affordability and greater congestion.
One Nation is also correct to call for a review of Australia’s population policy, whereby all sides of politics have endorsed a “Big Australia” agenda without first engaging the community for their views and support.
I also don’t have a problem with requiring migrants to wait five years for citizenship and sitting their citizenship tests in English, seeing as Australia is an English speaking country.
However, One Nation falls down badly in its statement about protecting “our culture and heritage and promote assimilation, nationalism, locality and pride in being Australian”, which again renders it “xenophobic” or “racist”, completely undermining its more sensible proposals.
Back to the statement:
One Nation believes that immigration should be open for debate and a population policy in place. Australians have the right to a cohesive society and deny immigration to anyone who does not abide by our law, culture, democracy, flag or Christian way of life. Australians have been tolerant and welcome new migrants coming to find a new homeland. We don’t want or need migrants bringing their problems, laws, culture and opposing religious beliefs on us.
The first sentence is spot on. Australia does need an open debate about population policy, which so far has not been forthcoming. However, this debate must be rational and evidenced-based, not centred around daft statements about race, colour or creed, which One Nation has unfortunately done in the rest of the paragraph above.
The fundamental flaw in One Nation’s immigration policy is that it focuses too much on where migrants are from, which is largely irrelevant, rather than the quantity of migration, which is the key issue for the economy, environment and living standards.
Instead of focusing on culture and race, One Nation should instead stick to highlighting the negative consequences for living standards from running an excessive overall immigration intake, namely:
- Why you are continually stuck in traffic;
- Why you cannot get a seat on a tram, train or bus;
- Why you or your child cannot afford a home; and
- Why your child’s school and hospitals are overcrowded.
One Nation should also highlight that for a major commodity exporter like Australia, which pays its way in the world by selling-off its fixed endowment of resources, ongoing high immigration can be self-defeating from an economic standpoint. That is, continually adding more people to the population year after year means less resources per capita. It also means that Australia must sell-off its fixed assets quicker just to maintain a constant standard of living (other things equal).
Again, none of these impacts has anything to do with race – i.e. where the migrants come from – but rather that the overall immigration intake is too high and has overwhelmed the capacity of the economy and infrastructure to absorb them, eroding individuals’ living standards in the process.
There has also been no proper debate within the community about the appropriate level of immigration and no political mandate for pursuing a ‘Big Australia’. And yet, under current policy settings, Australia is on track to double its population by 2050 to more than 40 million people, amid virtually no discussion nor mandate for this dramatic change, nor any plan on how to cope with this growth.
Without consultation, the Howard Government dramatically raised the immigration intake while deflecting the electorate’s attention to “boat people”. John Howard scapegoated refugees to give the impression that he was stemming the migrant inflow while proceeding in secret with his ‘Big Australia’ plan – performing a classic political ‘bait-and-switch’. And the Rudd/Gillard Governments and the Abbott/Turnbull Governments have continued the subterfuge.
Again, these are the fundamental issues that One Nation should be highlighting, not daft statements about culture and race. As soon as One Nation plays the ‘race card’, they will rightly be ridiculed and have already lost the debate, while shutting-down the prospects for a rational national discussion on population policy.
Population policy is far too important an issue to be segregated into pro- and anti-immigration corners based upon views about race and cultural supremacy. Instead, the whole population issue needs to be debated rationally and based upon a numbers game of what level of immigration is most likely to benefit the living standards of the existing population.
