Australia must review its policies

By Paulus Usmanto Njo

Rarely in the history of Australian political ornithology has a bird of such mediocrity made so great an impact on birdwatchers. Its cooing about birds of darker and different hues have polarized the nation. Cheap cheeps, which might better have been ignored, have aroused passions of such intensity that all of birdland has been forced to examine its views. The Hansonhen's pecking of indigenous and recently introduced species has muddled the waters of multiculturalism.

PERTH, Western Australia (JP): The above was written in a caricature published recently in the Sunday Times of Western Australia, portraying the current furor over racism in Australia. Beside it is a picture of a bird with the head of a woman, Pauline Hanson, a newly-elected independent parliamentarian from Queensland, who has been at the heart of the race row. The piece has an inviting title, "The Fishchipping Hansonhen (Whitus Bestus)".

Pauline Hanson is a puzzling political phenomenon. Dropping out of school at the age of 15, she was a fish-and-chip restaurateur before engaging in politics. There are few other examples in Australia, or elsewhere, of such an intellectually unimpressive politicians generating such vast popular support within such a short time.

Most of Hanson's views are simplistic or flawed. She estimated, for example, that Asians would constitute 30 percent of the Australian population by the year 2000, whereas estimates derived from official statistics are around 5 percent. She succeeded in drawing support for two major reasons.

First, there is widespread misunderstanding among Australians about the country's immigration program. Second, Prime Minister John Howard's government's response to Hanson's skyrocketing popularity has proved, until recently, ambiguous and ineffective.

Soon after her maiden speech in Canberra in early October -- in which she claimed that Australians were being swamped by Asian immigrants living in ghettos, called for Australia's withdrawal from the United Nations and demanded the termination of all Australian foreign aid missions and special assistance program to Aborigines -- Pauline Hanson was flooded with congratulations and expressions of support.

Within days she found herself a celebrity. Hundreds of letters, mostly in favor of her stance, greeted her every day in her office. In a number of radio interviews, callers queued to praise her, to avow their support, or simply to condemn Asian immigrants (vis-a-vis immigrants of other ethnic descents). Her speeches in various Australian regions always drew large audiences clapping enthusiastically at her anti-immigration, anti-Asian remarks. A fan club was soon established, and T-shirts bearing her picture, badges and other souvenirs were selling like hot cakes.

Stereotyped images of Australian Asians coming out of such campaigns are understandably distorted. Asian immigrants have been depicted as criminals, responsible for a recent outbreak of tuberculosis, taking the jobs available for white Australians and exploiting the country's welfare system. Immigration is, therefore, considered largely responsible for whatever economic hardships now beset many Australians.

In fact, the immigration program has several categories, including business, independent, spouse, family reunion and refugee. While there may be many refugees who have become dependent on welfare, the immigration program, in general, has a tight filtering process, in which a would-be migrant must prove to be healthy, skilled, law abiding and, often, wealthy. In short, many migrants bring in capital, skills and demand for goods and services that actually help create jobs for Australians.

These considerations have been largely overlooked in the debate, or they have not been sufficiently communicated to the public. Chris Sidoti, the chairman of an independent human rights commission, in a recent television interview, correctly pointed out that Hanson had initiated an outbreak of racism, rather than a debate on immigration. Racially motivated abuses of Asians, be they residents, citizens, students or tourists, have reportedly risen as a climate of hostility has slowly gripped the community.

The matter was inflamed by the prime minister's essentially lukewarm response, despite repeated requests by leaders of Asian minority groups that he take a sterner position.

A plethora of critical articles and editorials appeared in Asian newspapers, several Singaporean soldiers training in Queensland suffered verbal and physical abuses, three or four groups of Singaporean tourists canceled their reservations for an Australian tour and the Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennet warned of possible Asian boycotts of the upcoming Olympic and Commonwealth Games, before Prime Minister John Howard finally initiated a bipartisan motion in parliament, whereby politician after politician reaffirmed their commitment to Australia's multiculturalism and dismissed the possibility of the country reintroducing a White Australia policy.

The motion has begun to bite into Pauline Hanson's popularity. Previously, about two-thirds of callers in typical radio interviews supported her. The portion has now reportedly declined to one-third. Australia, a dry continent with limited ground water, has the right to review its immigration policy and assess its population targets. The nation would be better off if it did so without referring to race, especially ala Hanson racism.

Hanson has vowed to continue her campaign, rather than end it. But she has said little new and some people may be beginning to wonder if she is capable of talking about anything else.

The writer is a Ph.D. student at the Asia Research Center, Murdoch University, Western Australia.

Window: Australia, a dry continent with limited ground water, has the right to review its immigration policy and assess its population target. The nation would be better off if it did so without referring to race, especially ala Hanson racism.