When the first white settlers arrived in Australia, the indigenous inhabitants were not asked about their immigration policy. Perhaps the Aborigines' experience of being made outcasts in their own land prompted later residents to be cautious about who they allowed to join them. Migrants were needed to swell the labour force, but the source of those migrants was a subject for much public discussion. The furore created by Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party are but the 1990's version of that debate.
Opinion polls suggest that many Australians think immigration should be halted. Behind the question of how many immigrants should be allowed to enter Australia each year and how they should be selected lies a deeper one - what sort of society do we want? Before trying to find answers, we need to look at what sort of society we are now.
Who are we?
Of Australia's permanent residents, 6.6% were born in the U.K and Ireland, 6.4% came from Europe, 5.0% from Asia, 2.1% from Oceania, 1.2% from the Middle East and North Africa and 2.0% from the rest of the world.
In 1995-96 nearly 100,000 people from more than 150 countries arrived in Australia. Only Israel has a more recent and diverse population. The following chart shows where the new arrivals came from:
|
1995-96 arrivals: |
(1986-87 figures in brackets) |
|
Oceania (inc. NZ) |
16.4% (14.7%) |
|
Europe and former USSR |
26.7% (32.1%) |
|
Mid. East and N. Africa |
7.7% (6.6%) |
|
Southeast Asia |
13.3% (20.3%) |
|
Northeast Asia |
18.8% (7.9%) |
|
Southern Asia |
7.8% (5.6%) |
|
N.America |
2.5% (2.6%) |
|
S. and Central America |
1.3% (3.8%) |
|
Africa |
5.5% (6.6%) |
In addition, 265,582 people had temporary residence visas, mainly work and business related (although not all were resident at the same time). Student visas were issued to 60,700 people, predominantly Asian students. Over the twelve months more than 2.5 million visitors visas were issued. Tourists from the United Kingdom and Japan accounted for nearly 50% of these.
About 30,000 people left Australia permanently over the same period - some returning to their original country and others leaving to marry or work elsewhere.
Since 1989 a total of 2,794 boat people have arrived (including 75 children born here). Of these, 2,046 have already left Australia. Only 521 have gained permanent residency.
Current immigration Policy
In 1972 Australia adopted a "non-discriminatory" immigration policy, in the sense that race, sex, religion and country of origin were no longer taken into account. All migrants have to meet health and character criteria. A points system was introduced in 1979 and since then there has been increasing emphasis on selecting migrants according to their skills, work experience and ability to speak English.
In May 1997 the government announced a reduction in the proposed annual intake from 80,000 to 68,000, a move which was criticised for appearing to pander to the anti-immigration sentiments being expressed at the time. Family re-unions were allocated 32,000 places (which were filled well within the 12 month period), skilled migrants 35,260 places and the Humanitarian programme 12,000 places.
Other changes have been introduced by the present government. Skilled migrants who do not speak English are required to pay an up-front fee to cover the cost of language tuition. The waiting period for receiving welfare payments has been extended from 6 months to two years. Migrants arriving under the Humanitarian programme are exempt, but some of those sponsoring a family member have to pay a bond to cover welfare costs for the first two years.
Australia's intake of refugees is high on a per-capita basis. However, the way in which asylum seekers are handled (such as holding them in detention until their case has been heard) has been questioned for failing to comply with United Nations guidelines.
There is no policy to alter the "ethnic mix" of Australia, as some allege. Since the 1980's, migrant applications from Europe have fallen sharply, whilst those from S.E. and northern Asia have reached a peak. More recently, applications from the former USSR and Yugoslavia have increased. So-called multi-cultural policy deals with those already here rather than with selection of applicants.
Arguments in favour of continued immigration
It is difficult to measure the impact that migrants have on the economy and on society in general. What can be said is that properly conducted studies have failed to show that migrants cause the unemployment rate to rise. Nor do migrants have any measurable impact on the inflation rate or the standard of living in the short term.
Over the years, migrants have provided much needed labour and skills and have allowed the scale of production to increase. The insight they have afforded into other cultures has improved our access to foreign markets as well as enriching our lifestyle.
Because many migrants are young, healthy and already educated, they add more to the tax base than they remove through welfare payments. Australia's population has aged more slowly than it would have done otherwise. Our birth rate is below replacement level, so immigrants are necessary if we want to maintain the population at its present level.
Arguments against immigration
Groups such as One Nation (and before them Graeme Campbell's Australians Against Further Immigration) argue that Australian society is being changed detrimentally by the present policy, that migrants are putting Australians out of work, and that Australia cannot absorb any more immigrants without conflicts developing. Whilst some of their arguments appear reasonable, they are often not backed by reliable evidence and there appears to be a strong undercurrent of racism.
Other groups such as Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population, the Australian Democrats and some Greens say that Australia has now reached, if not exceeded, the maximum population it can carry. Water resources are limited and the environment fragile. Whilst wishing to restrict immigration, this group has no preference on where immigrants should could come from. Some would like to see Australia accept more refugees and place less stress on skilled migrants.
Some in the Green movement, concerned that any argument against immigration appears racist, argue that introducing environmentally sound practices and reducing waste would have the same result as cutting immigration.
What sort of society do we want?
Since the early 1970's, Australian governments, academics and commentators have been using the term "multicultural" to describe their vision for Australia. It is a term which means different things to different people.
At its simplest it describes the existing state of affairs. Our society contains people from many different cultures. At another level, it is used to describe a society in which everyone has equal rights and obligations regardless of their race or country of origin. Others use it to mean a tolerant society in which diversity is welcome. To some it has become a byword for "ordinary Australians" being relegated to one minority among many, a condition imposed without consultation.
Is there a Christian viewpoint
The Old Testament contains many references to "aliens" or migrants. Abraham migrated to Canaan and lived there "as an alien" (Gen. 21.22-24). His descendants moved to Egypt to escape a famine. Initially they were welcomed, but later they were enslaved and ill treated. God reminded them of this experience when he rescued them and gave them the Law. "Do not ill-treat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt" (Exodus 22:21).
Aliens were to receive the same consideration as the poor, widows and orphans, (eg Deut. 24:17,18). At the same time, they were expected to follow the laws and customs of the Israelites (for instance, in keeping the Sabbath holy, Ex. 20:8 )
When God gave the land of Canaan to Israel, those already living there were alienated because of their sins. The Israelites, in turn, were warned that if they failed to keep the law, the aliens living amongst them would rise above them (Deut. 28:43). In due course the Jews were exiled.
The New Testament is addressed to the Church rather than to a nation. But two themes are especially relevant to the issue of immigration. One is the unity we have in Christ. Racial barriers are broken down and there is "neither Jew nor Greek". The other is the idea that we are all aliens, strangers in this world. Our ties to worldly concepts such as nationality are to be very tenuous.
How these biblical ideas are applied to a national immigration policy is for the individual to decide. What is clear is that once a person has arrived here as a migrant, they should be treated with justice and compassion.
Christians should not react negatively to the arrival of non-Christians migrants. Rather than fearing that they will dilute the Christian ethos of our society (which is weak anyway), we should rejoice that the gospel can be shared with those who might otherwise never have heard it. As a minority in an increasingly secular society, we also have an interest in protecting the rights of all minority groups to express their beliefs.
By Dr Stella Budrikis
© Copyright 1998