Population fears

The recent Federal elections have opened a can of worms in relation to immigration issues, which can well impact resident migrants too, says TANVEER AHMED.

My family has always voted Labor during Federal elections. It is not unlike supporting a football team, in that there is often little regard to actual performance or a scrutiny of the actual policies offered, but an emotional attachment and bond. This bond was cultivated from our act of migration in the 1980s, which was seen by them, just like many other immigrants, as a direct result of the policies implemented by the Hawke government. In their minds, Labor is the party for immigrants seeking to start a new life in Australia.

In contrast, the combination of the White Australia policy which was initially begun by the conservative Menzies government and the hardline asylum seeker policy implemented by the Howard government, has tainted the Liberals with a racist tinge. The infamous Howard line about asylum seekers, “We will decide who comes to this country and under what circumstances…” has tarnished Australia in the eyes of many, both locally and internationally.

But the reality is more complex.

The debate about what is being termed “sustainable population” became a major topic during the most recent Federal election. Both parties were competing over who would be seen as more hardline on blocking asylum seekers from entering Australia. When voters in key swing seats such as those in western Sydney were quizzed about what made them vote for the Coalition, many said they wanted an end to what they perceived as illegal immigration. The Coalition’s simplistic but effective war cry of “Stop the Debt. Stop the Boats” was clearly successful in delivering a hardline message.

…many non-white immigrants, often for the very first time, didn’t vote Labor (this election), opting instead for either the Greens or Independents.

This was also the election when many non-white immigrants, often for the very first time, didn’t vote Labor, opting instead for either the Greens or Independents. A number of acquaintances of mine from a South Asian background voted for the Coalition, citing their policies with regard to international students and visa requirements, a feature that the ALP is likely to restrict.

The segments within the Liberal Party that are most aligned towards business are also pro-immigration. They cite the need to help fill skill shortages and, although business leaders wouldn’t like to admit it, keep wages low in the lower end of the labour market. International students now fill large segments of the bottom end of the labour market, as anyone who has visited a service station, a Coles or Woolworths or caught a taxi, would notice.

As a result, the ALP was essentially outflanked on immigration on the Right by the Coalition, and outflanked on the Left by the Greens on the environment. In attempting to maintain a centrist position, many voters deserted them.

The history of the ALP suggests it is not naturally the party of immigration. From the very first act of Federation, the unions conspired to exclude Asians of Chinese descent and Melanesian workers from competing with their members. Australia was founded on an act of racism. But then, as it is now, the discrimination was as much about economics as it was about race.

Now the ALP will find it difficult negotiating a growing “unholy alliance” between environmentalists on the Left who support a dwindling intake of migrants on the basis that the unique geography of Australia cannot support a population over 30 million people, as well as those on the Right who are reluctant on the basis of social cohesion and an excessive racial diversity that they see as too far detached from our Anglo-British roots.

Australia recorded the highest percentage increase in immigration numbers during the Howard years, particularly skilled migration and those on temporary working visas. This is particularly relevant to the South Asian community because a large number of IT workers have benefitted from this policy.

Rudd essentially continued this trend and his pronouncement of wanting a “Big Australia” has been widely publicised. But the direction has abruptly turned with Gillard’s ascension and a number of insiders have suggested to me that the caretaker PM has little interest and familiarity with foreign policy matters.

The issue of asylum seekers is really a symbolic issue and doesn’t necessarily reflect the stance of the parties to the issue of immigration, more broadly. Television images of boats turning up on our shores resonate with some visceral fears of working class and rural Australians in particular. Many of them feel insecure by their suburbs being transformed in the past decade by growing numbers of non-white immigrants.

Australia is currently in the midst of a potentially transforming period in its stance on immigration, one driven primarily by emotional factors. It is one that may have damaging implications for the South Asian community.

 

Dr Tanveer Ahmed is a psychiatrist at Sydney’s Northside West Clinic. He is also an opinion columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald