The ghost of White Australia still finds resonance
WHEN AUSTRALIA ended the last elements of the unofficially named White Australia policy in 1966, the door opened for the creation of a fairer immigration scheme not based on race and the development of a more culturally diverse country. That change and the granting of aboriginals the right to vote, laid the foundation for a more tolerant Australian society.
Immigration has always been a hot topic in Australia, whether in discussions on the number of immigrants that should be allowed to enter each year and the capacity of the country to sustain them; our treatment of people who arrive illegally by boat or the number and origin of refugees that are admitted.
But every now and then the ghost of the White Australia policy makes a return. This was the case when the Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton recently announced his support for the granting of special refugee status for white South Africans to immigrate to Australia.
The origin of the issue has its genius in my home state of Western Australia (WA) where on November 11 last year, the West Australian Liberal Party State Council passed a motion calling for the federal government to introduce laws allowing “right of passage” to persecuted European minorities of South Africa and Zimbabwe.
When Minister Dutton announced his support for the motion, my local federal member for the electorate of Moore, Ian Goodenough, MP, expressed his support, stating that the electorate of Moore has the largest number of white South Africans in Australia and they have easily assimilated.
Within days, Sherry Sufi, the chairperson of the West Australian Liberal Party’s policy committee, had an article published in The Australian newspaper on March 20, boasting about the initiative being his idea. While it was claimed the opinion expressed in the article were his own and not the views of the Liberal Party, the reality is given his position and the fact that the motion was passed by the party, it is not possible to separate the two.
The opinion of Sufi is the view of the Liberal Party. Neither Minister Dutton, Goodenough or Sufi have appreciated the potential damage the motion will do to Australia abroad and within Australia to the Liberal Party.
In many offshore quarters Australia is still seen as being racist. This is despite almost 60 years of multi-racial immigration creating one of the most diverse and free multi-cultural societies in the world.
Goodenough, who is originally from Singapore, has benefited from the policy. But let’s not sugar coat the motion. When a class of people, identified solely by the colour of their skin, is given preference over other persons of a different colour, it is an act of racism. And that is wrong and should not be tolerated.
The proposal breaches article two of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in part: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” And if implemented, would violate the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which implements the convention in Australia.
No evidence The proposal ignores the facts and provides no evidence that white South Africans are being persecuted in South Africa. Land ownership is a key indicator of human rights enforcement.
As reported recently in The Africa Report, white South Africans still own almost 75 percent of arable land, which is down from 85 percent when apartheid ended in 1994. Another indicator of persecution is the number of people fleeing a jurisdiction.
There have been no reports of boat loads of white people fleeing to Australia across the Indian Ocean or arriving in Australia by air from South Africa and claiming refugee status. While the boats packed with migrants making the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean to Europe contain no white people. And in my various trips to Botswana, I have never seen or heard of any refugee camps there filled with any white South Africans fleeing persecution.
Botswana is a democratic country situated on South Africa’s northern border. It has one of the highest income-per-capita rates in Africa, the lowest corruption rating amongst African countries, a highly educated youth population and infrastructure similar to Australia. If white South Africans were being persecuted, then Botswana is the place one would expect to find white refugees. But there are none.
The African continent has long been ignored by Australia in strategic terms. Australia only focuses on the continent when it needs its support, for example, the lobbying and pork barrelling undertaken by a previous Labour Government to buy African votes, to secure a seat on the UN Security Council in 2012.
Once the seat had been secured, Australia’s interest and subsequent expenditure on aid in Africa, rapidly declined. And Australia’s lack of vision is also evidenced by the Working Holiday Programme (WHP) and Australia’s slow response to the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) initiative announced by India and Japan.
The WHP is designed to encourage young people under the age of 30 to come to Australia to work and gain experience. While there are several Asian countries included in the programme, it is heavily swayed in favour of rich white European countries. Not a single African country is included in the programme. The AAGC offers countries in the Asia/Pacific Region an opportunity to forge new relationships with countries in Africa. But in Australia, there has been very little interest shown from politicians and policy developers in it.
The white South African motion has the potential to damage Australia’s offshore reputation and harm Australian business. Not just exporters of goods and services to Africa, or the more than 350 Australian firms operating in Africa but also indirectly.
For example, a non-white person in business anywhere in the world, would find it offensive, because the proposal favours white people. In a worst-case scenario, the motion increases the risk of personal attack to Australians operating offshore by non-white extremist groups. WA recently suffered a slump in international visa arrivals. The proposal will not assist WA in attracting tourists. Clearly the WA Liberal Party wasn’t thinking of the interests of Western Australians who benefit from or work in the tourism industry.
African students Neither did it have the welfare of local universities in mind either. Particularly Curtin University and Edith Cowan University, the latter which is situated in the Electorate of Moore, both of which have a growing African student base, and who earn income from the growing number of African students who study in Western Australia. The Liberal Party proposal specifies preference being given to white South African farmers. Australia accepts more than 200 000 immigrants a year for permanent settlement, including refugees. And almost 400 000 students and temporary business migrants arrive yearly. There is no shortage of people wanting to immigrate to Australia.
The waiting list to get to Australia is long. If Australia needs farmers, and the average age of farmers is increasing, then the country can be selective in acquiring them as it does with all skilled migrants. Australia could and should accept farmers from any country with an emphasis on those who can produce food for diverse overseas markets, particularly the closer and more populated Asian markets.
The Liberal Party motion lacks substance and has not been subject to independent analysis. If it had been, its weaknesses would have been exposed. The proposal has brought external derision for very little political and economic gain. And this issue should not be about politics anyway. It is unjust and racially discriminatory for Australia to have an immigration policy that treats non-whites unfairly. The motion should be withdrawn.