Category: Australia & NZ

From Leith van Onselen:

Senator-elect One Nation’s Pauline Hanson dominated news headlines yesterday after she warned of “terrorism on our streets” and suburbs “swamped by Asians”, prompting righteous indignation from all manner of MSM commentators.

The below extract from The Canberra Times captures some of the shenanigans: At a fiery press conference in Brisbane on Monday, Ms Hanson claimed the major parties should respect the large number of votes One Nation pulled, and urged a return to an Australia “where we as a nation had a right to have an opinion and have a say”…… “We are a Christian country and that’s what I’m saying … [former Liberal prime minister] John Howard said we have a right to say who comes into our country and I’m saying exactly the same.”

My simple advice to Ms Hanson is that if she wants to be taken seriously in the immigration debate, then she must dump the racial overture and instead focus on the level of immigration and why it is too high.

The fact that many of us in major cities are stuck in traffic, cannot get a seat on the train, are experiencing crowded hospitals and schools, and cannot afford a home has little to do with race, but rather a high immigration intake that has overwhelmed our cities’ ability to cope with the influx.

….Ms Hanson should also highlight that the system surrounding so-called skilled and student visas has been corrupted, with widespread rorting and fraud revealed by the recent joint ABC-Fairfax investigation (see Australia’s hidden people smuggling scandal). Again, rather than focusing on race, Ms Hanson should argue to restore integrity to Australia’s visa system so that it is not overtaken by “crooks and criminals”.

…More broadly, Ms Hanson should 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 this 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”.

…..We should not forget that an Essential Research opinion poll published in May revealed that the overwhelming majority of Australians (59%) believed “the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high”, more than double the 28% of Australians that disagreed with that statement.

….under current policy, Australia is on track to double its population by 2050 to more than 40 million people – something most Australians oppose. Again, this comes amid virtually no discussion nor mandate for this dramatic change, nor any plan on how to cope with this growth.

As long as Ms Hanson plays the “race card”, she will be rightly ridiculed and has already lost the debate. 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 issue needs to be debated rationally and based upon whether or not immigration is benefiting the living standards of the existing population.

I agree. This has nothing to do with race or religion. Pauline Hanson is barking up the wrong tree. This is about numbers. I suspect the same is true of the Brexit vote. I am all in favor of skilled migration (being a migrant myself) but any newcomer should ask themselves how they can contribute to existing Australian values and culture….rather than preserve their own.

Source: How Hanson should frame the immigration debate – MacroBusiness