WITH polls pointing to an electoral whitewash for the federal government, the Coalition has inevitably returned to its favoured policy debate. Migration.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
When John Howard appeared certain to lose the 2001 election to Kim Beazley, it was the unlikely arrival on the horizon of a Norwegian freight ship – along with the 9/11 atrocity in the United States – that changed the course of debate.
Suddenly national security was the key battleground and the Coalition was seen as the party best equipped to protect us.
Almost two decades on, with another defeat likely, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is returning his party to familiar ground.
In delivering the Bradfield Oration in Sydney this week, Mr Morrison proposed an end to “top down” discussions about migration levels for the country. At the same time, he said he expected “this will lead to a reduction in our current migration settings”.
That’s not a discussion. By making the end point of a conversation the starting point, Mr Morrison is saying to his key constituency that he is here to protect from the [real or perceived] threat of migration.
And that’s a shame, because there is a legitimate conversation about migration to be had in this country.
As a wealthy nation, Australia should not be seeking to do less to help the world’s poorest and most desperate. Yes, we have our challenges – the ongoing drought being top of mind in regional areas – but they pale in comparison to millions overseas.
So rather than taking the easy – and, probably electorally popular – step of cutting migration numbers, the discussion should centre on where those migrants should be encouraged to live and how we can best support their transition.
Moving migrants to the bush is a regular suggestion, and it has its merits. But it can only be done successfully through engaging with and investing in those communities.
Many small rural towns would welcome new migrants to spark their economy and fill their schools, but they must come with a government commitment to boost health, education and welfare infrastructure in those same towns.
The government is already spending millions in these areas – simply redirecting a portion of it away from the capital cities could benefit both the city and the bush.
But that conversation would take time, and time is something the government is a little short on at the moment.
