Harsh, insensitive, morally callous, dog-whistling, fear-mongering, whipping up xenophobia -- all of these charges have been hurled at Sharman Stone in the past week or so. And her sin? To lament the loss of life. That's right: the opposition immigration spokeswoman merely complained that the federal government's lax border protection policies have culminated in the recent deaths of at least five boat people and injuries of up to 50 others trying to reach Australia on an unauthorised vessel which, thanks presumably to the antics onboard, caught fire and sank.
It speaks ill of our political discourse that a senior frontbencher should be condemned for publicly acknowledging what the Australian Federal Police had privately told the Rudd government: that Canberra's softened border protection policy, enunciated in August last year, would encourage more people-smugglers, which in turn would heighten the risk of deaths on our seas.
It's a wonder Ms Stone has not also been accused of resuscitating the White Australia Policy. During the Tampa asylum seeker stand-off in 2001, many journalists and academics frequently used that old chestnut against John Howard and Philip Ruddock. That such crude populists who pandered to racism almost doubled the nation's annual non-discriminatory legal migrant intake from about 70,000 in 1996 to nearly 140,000 in 2007 did not matter. For the moral absolutists, what counts is the symbolism of compassion. And yet it is interesting how readily some of those who espouse the causes of human rights and civil society will resort to ad hominem attacks when faced with views they find uncongenial.
Never mind that any democratically elected government has good reasons to take seriously the issue of deciding who comes in to the country and the circumstances in which they come. It's not simply that the post-Tampa hardline policies stemmed the tide of boats: between 1999 and 2001, some 8,000 people are known to have paid for the people-smuggling passage; from 2002 to 2008, only 134 reached Australia by boat. Nor is it simply that the Howard government's position -- backed, remember, by Kim Beazley's Labor opposition -- won overwhelming public support. Nor is it simply that Australia, far from being denounced as the new international pariah, was a model to many Western countries which have considered or adopted tougher measures of their own in recent years. Nor is it simply that the Rudd government's decision to end temporary protection visas, abolish mandatory detention and close detention camps on Nauru and Christmas Island has shown a green light to the people-smugglers.
All of these arguments are true, and they vindicate the Howard government as well as shame its Labor successor. But there is another, more obvious, point to this debate that both supporters and opponents of a tough border protection policy overlook: if the people's elected representatives do not defend the sovereignty of their nation's borders and the integrity of our immigration system, then public support for our high levels of non-discriminatory legal migration will falter. During the second half of the Howard years -- which is to say, the period following the Tampa stand-off -- a political consensus for high annual migrant intakes prevailed. This flowed directly from a sense that, in Howard's words, we were deciding who comes here.
"For its supporters, the Prime Minister's action was a highly reassuring event," argued the eminent historian John Hirst of the year or so after Tampa. "Its broad appeal was not to race or xenophobia; it was a declaration that Australia still existed and could still take charge of its destiny." Meanwhile, the unauthorised boats virtually stopped while the rate of legal non-discriminatory immigration almost doubled.
The risk now is that if our political leaders are seen to be turning a blind eye to a people-smuggling racket that treats our borders and migration programme with contempt, and if a perception holds that an unregulated inflow of boat people could accelerate rapidly out of control and put an intense burden on the public purse and the nation's resources, then it follows that public faith in Canberra's capacity to take charge of our destiny diminishes. This is especially the case when one bears in mind the boat people's alleged tactics of pouring petrol onto their sea vessel in order to intimidate naval authorities into accepting their entry. When critics such as David Marr accept this, it is excused because of the alleged "desperation" of the boat people. Yet why they should feel desperate at being returned to Indonesia, a tolerant Islamic state and safe port of refuge for Muslims, is not clear. We're being taken for fools.
In these circumstances, is it any wonder that public support for our immigration levels might collapse? Such a scenario is self-evidently not in our national interest.
The one public policy issue that consistently unites both sides of the political divide is that of a large-scale non-discriminatory immigration policy. It has been a great Australian success story since the war, especially since Harold Holt and Hubert Opperman dissolved the White Australia Policy in the mid-1960s. With rare exceptions, migrants have provided powerful economic benefits to the nation, such as increased domestic demand, a more flexible workforce, new ideas and new cultural links, international entrepreneurial and management skills and the development of new trade skills. There is little reason to restrict skilled immigration, though there may be a case for limited unskilled cheap labour and family reunion programmes.
During the Howard years, the numbers almost doubled. Even immigration minister Chris Evans has praised the former PM's record. In March, he told a Senate Estimates testimony: "He ran a strong humanitarian migration programme and, in fact, a very strong skilled migration programme, which he increased each year for 11 successive years. I give him due credit at every public opportunity. We have had bipartisan support for that policy for many years, and long may it continue."
The problem, though, is that community support for such a policy is less likely to continue if the government gives the impression that it is not in control of who comes into the country. Polls consistently show that a broad cross-section of the Australian people want their government to subject new unlawful arrivals to tough scrutiny. Again, as Hirst pointed out, a tough stand on border control increases support for the official migration programme.
People-smuggling is a business, albeit an illegal and immoral one, and like all businesses it is alert to maximising economic opportunities wherever and whenever they may arise. As the ABC's Chris Uhlmann reported exclusively this week, the people-smuggling sources in Jakarta have caught the significance of the Rudd government's decision to soften Australian border controls. Sure, global trends indicate rising asylum seeker traffic, but people-smugglers are also back in business because the law has changed.
As it turns out, public support for high levels of immigration is falling. According to leading demographer Katherine Betts, 46 per cent of voters support cuts to immigration. It is not clear whether this is due to urban congestion or rising house prices. But it is a fair bet that public consensus for high immigration rates will further deteriorate if the government makes it easier for unauthorised arrivals to jump the queue.
A tough stand is not tantamount to racism or xenophobia. It is sound public policy.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment