Prev
Next

The two speed immigration debate

Leo Shanahan

by Leo Shanahan

05 Aug 04:42pm

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Boat People, Immigration, Population, Scott Morrison, Tony Burke

38 comments

There’s a rather odd immigration debate taking place in this election, characterised appropriately enough, by today’s immigration debate between Tony Burke and Scott Morrison. 

Cartoon by Sturt Krygsman

Minister for (*sustainable) Population Tony Burke began his address talking about all those things that Labor have been stressing in the population debate: sustainability on region by region, arguing that the Coalition are all over the place with their policy and refusing to be pushed into naming a goal population figure: “A sustainable Australia involves a level of detail that will not be solved by finding a glib magic number,” Mr Bourke told the National Press Club today.

Then Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison got up and made his pitch on immigration: it involved talking about boat people almost the entire time. At one point exciting a group of student don John Howard masks and start screaming at Morrison.

He did finish up with some comments about a broader population policy:

“The Coalition is committed to reducing net overseas migration to at least 170,000 our first time, and put Australia on stock sustainable population growth path.”

Finishing off with this familiar statement:

“Immigration is about deciding who comes to this country, the circumstances under which they come and I would argue the purposes for which they come.”

Of course Morrison’s statement an entirely reasonable one, it’s just that almost his entire pitch was about boat people. Asylum seekers then went on to dominate the entire debate.

The humanitarian intake in this country is around 13,500, with 90 per cent applying for asylum are granted refugee status. The amount that come by but is once again only a fraction of this. Why are these people the backbone of the Opposition’s immigration argument this campaign?

Well the pretty obvious answer to that is that the Coalition has successfully merged the issue of the asylum seekers with fears about a sustainable Australia – and the Government are desperately trying to catch up.

Morrison is right to say Gillard’s policy on East Timor doesn’t make any sense, and conspicuous in his absence was actual Immigration Minister Chris Evans to answer questions on boat arrivals.

Burke was struggling with Morrison’s assault on the issue of boat people, and to be fair it’s not his portfolio (although I suspect if Labor win Chris Evans’ days as minister are numbered). But what the debate did highlight was the way the entire population/immigration issue has become hopelessly mixed in with that of boat people, and cynical though it may be, it’s still working for the Coalition.

And in case we missed it the first time, this is the way Morrison ended the debate:

“The Coalition stands to repay Labor’s debt, to end Labor’s waste, stop Labor’s new taxes and, most significantly, to stop the boats.”

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

38 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • iansand says:

      05:31pm | 05/08/10

      The Liberals have been trying to frighten people for years.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      06:52pm | 05/08/10

      Thanks for that ian.

      So what?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      06:22am | 06/08/10

      And they are quite correct to do so.

      It isn’t that any Tom, Dick or Habibi can jump off a boat and get citizenship or permanent residency under Labor (thought the whole idea of political asylum was to return home and put some effort into rebuilding your own country when safe?), but that he will then bring his mother, wife(s), several cousins, grandparents, brothers and sisters under Labor’s family reunion program. 

      And they all add to our social welfare bill.

      Now, I am all for an orderly immigration program on an as-needed basis. If there are real jobs waiting, by all means bring people in, but limit it to that person, their spouse and their children. The Italians, Greeks, Poms etc who came here early in the last century left countries that were miles ahead of Australia in terms of infrastructure; they were pioneers who came here to help build this country and hopefully gain the rewards for putting that effort in. 

      Latter day immigrants are leaving there own countries because conditions are better in Australia and we are a soft touch.

    • Geoffrey Tobin says:

      04:01pm | 06/08/10

      Tony of Poorak, Europe was a faming wreck after WW2.  That’s the primary reason why we had all those immigrants in the 1940s and 50s.

      And I recall their being despised by the same gang who promote hatred today.

    • MarK says:

      06:55pm | 05/08/10

      So Morrison won easy? I didn’t see it so have no idea.

      I guess who really cares. Can we just go vote now please? Then again the name change to Burke’s portfolio was pure spin politics and misdirection so bugger him and Julia.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      10:55am | 06/08/10

      I would say he didn’t win, because he spent most of the time not talking about population and immigration, instead focusing on asylum seekers, which to those of us with an education and a clue is an entirely different issue.

      However, as the article notes, in the minds of the stupid the Coalition seems to have effectively linked asylum seekers to population, so in that sense I think it is fair to say that Morrison won.

    • Geoffrey Tobin says:

      04:03pm | 06/08/10

      Morrison won what?  A place in the circles of hell?

      Achieveing the winning spin is just a way to be more twisted than the other guy.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      07:06pm | 05/08/10

      @Leo and Iansand:  I’m frightened by people who arrive by boat because they decide they are coming to Australia whether they have been accepted as refugees or not elsewhere.  I believe they are “asylum shopping”: or being selective about which country they want to live in.  In this way, they deprive those refugees who are waiting for approval to come here and who do the right thing and stay at a refugee camp until their approval comes through.  I think I would be close to the mark in saying that a great number of Australians do not consider boat people as genuine asylum seekers for this very reason.  Rather we see them as economic refugees because they can afford to pay these outrageous fees to the people smugglers; the more desperate and genuine refugees cannot because they don’t have this money nor the ways and means to get it.  I believe you two know this as do most Labor supporters but you refuse to publicly acknowledge such a situation exists.  Your criticisms of the Coalition are in my view disingenuous.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      08:06pm | 05/08/10

      The Kool Aid.  Drink it.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:09pm | 05/08/10

      So the thousands of migrants on education visas, 457 visas and illegally overstaying tourist visas don’t bother you? While the Coalition was importing over 200,000 people into the country, they were spending millions of dollars keeping 6,000 people out. Just doesn’t quite make sense from that perspective. (For the record I’m an advocate of zero immigration)

    • Rose says:

      11:24pm | 05/08/10

      Julie, you assume a lot of things, every one of them completely wrong. How about you research the issue, by reading from legitimate sources, not newspapers, and get back to us when you have something of value to contribute.

    • AliceC says:

      09:33am | 06/08/10

      @Rose

      Hear hear!!!!

      @Julie, do your research about the issue before making assumptions. Have you ever met a person who was so desperate to get on a boat and risk their life to get here?

    • James1 says:

      10:57am | 06/08/10

      Julie, you poor frightened thing.  I pity you.  It must be hard living with a mental illness like the recently discovered “Border Security Anxiety”.

    • Geoffrey Tobin says:

      04:09pm | 06/08/10

      JCG:  Fear is not evidence.

      Does it ever occur to you that those aren’t facts, they’re fabrications by a political party that will tell you any lie, however gross and distorted, if it will seize a wad of votes?

      Howard went overboard when he cropped the photos and deliberately lied about their content.  Abbott and the whole gang happily went along with that, to their ever-lasting shame.

      That’s why Fraser resigned.

    • Richard says:

      07:11pm | 05/08/10

      I support Free Immigration!

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      09:00pm | 05/08/10

      Off you go then.

    • Mark S says:

      07:36pm | 05/08/10

      And unfortunately its worked for years

      Reply

    • Davido says:

      08:07pm | 05/08/10

      I can’t see the fuss with boat people. I can see how people think they are queue jumping or economic migrants masquerading as refugees. But I can also see it from a sympathetic point of view. Some people really have had crap lives and they deserve to have a chance in a great country.

      My real issue is with the bulk of immigration. I have no problem with genuine skilled workers - but there are so many people who get through a very easy system who really should not. I have one friend from India who has married and sponsored a further 12 people to arrive in Australia. None of whom would have made it in on their own.

      Reply

    • Geoffrey Tobin says:

      04:15pm | 06/08/10

      Nothing lasts forever.  Eventually, Australia will have mined all its resources and have nothing to offer the rest of the world but desperate “economic” refugees.

      When that day comes, will anyone accept our descendants?  Or will the governments of rich nations deride them and push their leaky boats away?  “Because you showed no compassion, it’s your turn to suffer now!”

    • Geoffrey Tobin says:

      04:18pm | 06/08/10

      Davido, sponsorship is a bipartisan policy.

      Btw, we have a huge number of economic migrants from Britain and New Zealand.  Long ago, the fact that they were on the dole was considered an issue; they’re still on social benefits.  Why don’t the Liberals do something about them?

    • Greg says:

      09:05pm | 05/08/10

      Two speed immigration debate?

      Yes, we get to choose between “open borders & totally flood the country” and “make some noises about boats and then flood the country”.

      A pox on both major parties. I’ll be voting for independants or minor parties who offer real immigration reform, regardless of how many names I get called by the usual suspects.

      In fact, I consider it an added bonus if I do upset the morons.

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      11:29pm | 05/08/10

      What I would like to see is a comprehensive population/ immigration policy, Australia has never had one. What we do have is a mish/mash of mini-policies which all only deal with one aspect of immigration or sustainable populations. The problem is that the Coalition is using boat arrivals as it’s immigration policy and Labor has advocated a sustainable population without telling us what that entails.

    • Jon says:

      01:30pm | 06/08/10

      Greg@ thanks, thats about it. Both sides said it was time have a real debate, but we never had one. All we got was more PC spin. A pox on both their houses!

    • Greg says:

      09:39pm | 05/08/10

      This is the proplem politicians and journalits have,I believe, The illegal and legal immigration have always been mixed. There are many people here, who most people do not want here. We do not want boat people as we do not know anything about them. Why do they destroy their I.D.? That alone is reason not to accept them and we must also remove other undesirable immigration.  Australians need a much bigger say in immigration to our country.

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      09:43am | 06/08/10

      @GReg

      There is no luch thing as ‘illegal immigration’, as you are only an immigrant when you have legally migrated to the new country (and the new country recognises you as such). There are asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants. Asylum seekers have the right to seek asylum in a safe country, and we then process their application to decide whether they are geniune or not. If they are not geniuine, thy are sent home. If they are (90%), then they have the legal right to stay.

      Feel free to actually do some research, or better still, go to a detention centre and meet some of these people. You will be shocked to find out what they have been through, and why they got on a shoddy boat in the first place).

      A person who has overstayed their working visa (and there are tens of thousands from USA, NZ, UK, etc,) are the ones who are here illegally, as they had an agreement of the length of time that they can live and work in Asutralia, and they have broken the law when they stay and work after the visa expires.

    • James1 says:

      11:45am | 06/08/10

      AliceC,

      An asylum seeker who is found not to be a genuine refugee is also an illegal immigrant.  But they are not allowed to stay in Australia, or receive welfare, so I guess in that sense what Greg has said is confusing, in that it is irrelevant that Australians do not want illegal immigrants because the government does not want them either, and does its utmost to remove them.

    • AliceC says:

      12:13pm | 06/08/10

      @James1

      I thinnk we’re on the same page with this issue. But the concept of ‘illegal immigrant’ is false, because you can only be an immigrant if the government recognises you as such. If you are sent back, because you are not a genuine asylum seeker, then you never immigrated.

      The problem is, it’s semantics like this that helps spread the fear…

    • James1 says:

      01:31pm | 06/08/10

      Indeed Alice.  When the words “asylum seeker”, “refugee”, and “Illegal immigrant” are taken to mean the same thing, no wonder we have the distorted debate that we do.

    • Greg says:

      07:30pm | 06/08/10

      Alice and James, the definitions are splitting hairs and it gives people opportunity to misrepresent others meanings. In a nut shell my opinion is: If you overstay your visa you are here illegally. If you circumvent the normal and correct processes to get here you are here illegally. If you are country shopping you are here illegally.If you are quae jumping you are here illegally.
      Look at the people who have been waiting in camps who just cant afford the smugglers fee. Why does anyone defend people who come here in an illegal manner that is known to be expensive and have no I.D.? Is this the way we want our immigration system to run? Catch us if you can?
      Alice dont patronise me. It sounds like you have alot to learn. A fool learns by his own mistakes, a wise man by the mistakes of others.  Time to take the blinkers off.

    • Greg says:

      01:15am | 07/08/10

      OK, if it makes you feel better, we can call illegal immigrants illegal aliens instead. Happy now?

    • Tails says:

      09:50pm | 05/08/10

      The first time I heard about goat people I was tolerant. Then I began to think about it some more. Are they half person/half goat? And if so, which half?
      Think of the effect their cloven hooves will have on our land!
      Think of their voracious appetites, eating all those tin cans bound for recycling stations around the country.
      And think of the constant bleating.
      Constant. Bleating!!!!

      Reply

    • Goat says:

      08:58pm | 06/08/10

      Bleeaaaat

    • Giles says:

      03:02am | 06/08/10

      The Greens best voting comes from Sydney’s inner west. In recent years, the whiter parts of the inner west have become increasingly ethnically diverse. So now the Greens are against immigration to placate the newly racially aware white, german car driving, (all of a sudden)big breeding, vegan nazis of Balmain, Annandale, Leichhardt, Glebe and surrounds. The same mob demonstrating violently against Pauline Hanson in the 1990s have become more protectionist than One Nation ever was. These people liked the Asians when they were west of Ashfield, but now they’re getting a little too close for comfort. This mob lobbied successfully against a new university campus in Rozelle because of the ‘demographics changes’ it would bring(ie Asian students) to the area. And NO MEDIA cared. One rule for whites in the outer west(Camden etc) and another for the trendy inner westies.

      Reply

    • Ian Curr says:

      09:39am | 06/08/10

      On 5 August 2010 the National Press Club hosted a debate about sustainable population in Australia. Neither the Minister for Population & Agriculture, Tony Burke (ALP), nor the shadow Minister Scott Morrison (Lib) made any mention of the original inhabitants of Australia before colonization.

      Neither politician even bothered to acknowledge the original owners of the lands that their policies are going to populate.

      They were keen to speak about boat people as if they were not boat people themselves. They spoke about immigration being determined by market forces.

      Both politicians forgot the fundamental point that it is indigenous people who own the land and are the custodians of it.

      Nor was there a single question from the press about this omission.

      Neither the Minister nor his shadow showed respect for the land or recognition of its people.

      By contrast, in the video below Les Malezer talks about the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous people. He explains how the colonial governments from 1788 - 2010 have ignore indigenous sovereign rights.
      He explains that the aboriginal flag is a message stick to colonial governments to recognise indigenous rights to land and resources.

      This speech should be sent to schools so that kids can learn about the murri flag and the sovereign rights it stands for.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      01:27am | 07/08/10

      Maybe nobody mentioned it because it wasn’t worth mentioning? There was no Australian nation before European settlement. There was only a wilderness inhabited by a disparate bunch of stone-age tribes, who had not even invented the wheel or metal tools yet, let alone formed a civilised nation.
      This is the true meaning of Terra Nullius. It never meant that there were no inhabitants, it meant that there was no organised civilisation to negotiate with.
      The European settlers were not “boat people”. They were pioneers who built a nation where none had previously existed. They were not freeloaders coming to gatecrash and claim welfare after all the work had been done.
      That is the truth. Deal with it.

    • Geoffrey Tobin says:

      04:23pm | 06/08/10

      Ian, I was wondering when someone would mention how 99% of Australians got here.  (James Cook’s claim to Australia was illegal, even according to the orders he received from the Crown.)

      Reply

    • Ian Curr says:

      05:06pm | 06/08/10

      Here is the video of Les Malezer’s speech about the UN declaration of Indigenous Rights and the Aboriginal Flag.

      Les is spokesperson for Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA) and has done a lot of work in the UN on indigenous rights.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2NqUBsDStE

    • J says:

      04:38pm | 06/08/10

      I do believe this article is incorrect..

      The protesters actually had masks of Gillard, Abbott, and a number of famous refugees (Einstein, Frank Lowy, Jackie Chan, M.I.A), together with banners carrying slogans.

      Stating that they were of Howard is factually incorrect, and makes this into a partisan issue. In reality, the protest was about both parties’ poor refugee policy.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed