By Reihana Mohideen
Immigration has had a very low profile in these elections, mainly because Labor and Liberal immigration policies are essentially bipartisan.
The ALP talks of a gross intake of around 80,000 per year, and the Liberals have referred to a net intake of around 50,000 to 60,000 — virtually the same if the approximately 30,000 emigrating every year are taken into account.
The Labor government has imposed restrictions such as the six-
month waiting period before becoming eligible for unemployment benefits. The Liberals threaten to extend these.
What of the "third parties"?
The Democrats' "Getting to Work" document welcomed the 31,000 cut in immigration for the 1992-93 financial year. While the policy states that immigration levels must be cut for environmental, economic and demographic reasons, the main argumentation is essentially that higher levels of immigration are bad for the economy.
The Democrats cite the 1987-88 intake, which they say contributed to a budget "shortfall of about $8 billion which added to the national debt" due to infrastructure costs of around $11 billion.
This argumentation was presented by researcher Stephen Joske in a 1989 paper prepared for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library's research service. Joske claimed that while immigrants bring some $3 billion in savings with them, they require "well over $11 billion" in capital investment for housing, health, education, welfare and transport.
Most of this will have to be borrowed overseas, Joske assumes, thereby adding to foreign indebtedness and the current account deficit.
The Democrat policy, following Joske, makes several assumptions:
- That demands for infrastructure are met for new migrants. But most settle in areas that are acutely under-provided with public resources.
- That the new arrivals settle in the new areas of urban expansion which need additional infrastructure. But
studies of newly arrived migrants, particularly those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, show that they settle in the older working-class suburbs.
- That public infrastructure investment is a burden on the economy. A progressive politics should be demanding more spending on public infrastructure, as a means of both creating jobs and contributing to a cleaner environment.
The Democrats' case also obscures the nature of the foreign debt: it ignores the fact that some three-quarters is private sector debt, while most investment in infrastructure is public investment.
Blaming the foreign debt and current account deficit on immigration smacks of scapegoating migrants for problems that arise from a complex interaction of social, political and economic factors.
The figures referred to in the Democrats' policy look at only the short-term impact. A more recent study released by the Bureau of Immigration and Research analysed both the short-term and long-
term economic impact of immigration (over five to 10 years). The study showed that immigration improved the trade balance and gross domestic product in both the short term and long term. While it contributed to a deficit in the federal budget of around $57 million in the short term, it contributed a budget surplus of around $317 million in the long term.
Calling for a drastic cut in immigration is the South Australian Green Party. Its policy statement advocates slashing the immigrant intake to a token 20,000 per year (so the net intake would be zero or even negative). It advocates giving priority to refugees and family reunion immigration — but in a world where there are some 38 million refugees, a gross quota of 20,000, doesn't spread very far.
The SA Green Party's zero population growth policy would also mean restrictions on the increase in population through births, which has been the dominant factor in Australian population increase in the last few years.
The Australian Greens, the WA Greens, the Green Alliances in New South Wales and Victoria and the Democratic Socialists all call for a humanitarian and non-discriminatory immigration policy. So do Rainbow Alliance and the Janet Powell Independents' Network in Victoria. (These principles aren't stated in the Democrat policy).
The Greens (WA), the National Greens and Rainbow Alliance acknowledge that environmental considerations are important, but
they point out that population cannot be considered in isolation as a simple cause of environmental degradation.
The Rainbow Alliance ventures to set a quota for the immigration intake over a five-year period — averaging at a yearly maximum level of 70,000 to 80,000 (the annual average from 1947 to 1983 was around 90,000, and between 1980 and 1988 was around 99,000 per year).
The Greens and Democratic Socialist policies don't specify quotas. While the Greens indicate support for the family reunion and refugee programs, they do not take a position in favour of either an increase or reduction in the total immigration intake. (Cuts to immigration are very likely in the 1993-94 financial year.)
The Democratic Socialists oppose a cut in immigration numbers and call for a massive increase in family reunion and refugee immigration, implying support for a substantial increase in the quota to accommodate this increase.
One issue that has come to the fore is the Labor government's practice of detaining, in prison-like conditions, refugees seeking asylum. The government claims that these asylum seekers have "technically" not entered Australia, and therefore do not have the rights they would otherwise have. Some of these refugees have been "detained" for up to three years.
The Democratic Socialist policy is the firmest on protecting the democratic rights of asylum seekers. It unconditionally opposes the detention policy and calls for permanent residency rights to be automatically granted to asylum seekers (health and unemployment benefits, education, the right to work).
The WA Greens also "oppose their imprisonment whilst determining the authenticity of their refugee status".
The National Greens support "the practice of detaining asylum seekers under special defined circumstances". These special circumstances are not specified.
Although the National Greens call for the processing of applications for refugee status "as quickly as possible", even conditional support of such detention is problematic for a humanitarian immigration policy.
For over 100 years, until it was formally buried in 1972, the white Australia policy was the basic tenet of immigration policy, and racism, prejudice and xenophobia still persist in Australian society. A policy on immigration needs to recognise this reality.
The WA Greens in their policy "actively oppose the dissemination of racist propaganda", and the Democratic Socialists call for making "racial discrimination an offence carrying mandatory punishment".