As an addendum to Robert’s post on the Rudd government’s announcement of the appointment of Tony Burke as Population Minister, and the call for a national debate on population policy, I wanted to pick up on another aspect of Bernard Keane’s piece cited in that post:
That may be why the Coalition’s response to Burke’s appointment yesterday was a repeated effort to ignore the entire issue of population policy in favour of claiming too many boat people were coming.
On the other side, Labor has read the tea leaves on population and quickly and professionally put together a decent facsimile of action. The Prime Minister can now say that he has appointed the first Population Minister. A review is under way, giving Rudd an excuse to duck the issue between now and the election, but also providing the basis for a response to the Little Australianists like Dick Smith whenever they demand action to curb the plague of people coming here and eating our food.
Bear in mind Labor’s own heritage on immigration is mixed. The Parliamentary party has long been a “big Australia” supporter, from the days of Calwell through to its recent and occasionally continuing history of ethnic branch-stacking. But trade unions have been traditional opponents of high immigration, for exactly the reason business supports it, and the urban Left fringes of the party will lean to the environmentalist view that there’s very much such a thing as too many people.
As Robert noted, the Liberals are in conflict with their own business constituency, and the Coalition’s “broad church” encompasses some fairly wild extremes of nativism and racism. It’s worth underlining that these sentiments are more profound than electoral dog-whistling; they both reflect community attitudes deeply held in some sectors, and genuinely disturbing sentiments and reflexive prejudices on the part of those who articulate them. Kevin Andrews is a good example.
So, taking into account the argument Keane also makes about Labor’s heritage, what we have is a debate that doesn’t break neatly along partisan lines, and is overwritten with conflicting but complementary scissions around race, history and culture.
Julia Gillard’s interview on Lateline last night was interesting. She made what I thought were some insightful and incisive points about a Lowy Institute survey released today on population issues. Gillard showed a nuanced understanding of the dynamics of an apparently inconsistent and contradictory public opinion, and made the important point that projections (such as those in the Treasury’s 2010 Intergeneration Report) are just that, not immutable, shapeable into the future by political decisions we collectively take. At the same time, she deftly rubbished the Opposition’s opportunism on population and refugees.
Tony Jones’ questions appeared to presuppose a premise that politicians were wary of enabling a public debate on immigration, but also that such a debate could only be one which is highly partisan.
I think there’s a certain insularity (in both the literal and metaphorical senses of the word) to the trope that immigration is best left unspoken; that it should be a matter of consensus between the two major parties, lest public sentiment upset the apple cart. There’s a paranoia among elements of the political class – a disdain for public opinion – which results in a policing of the borders of population issues as pernicious as the fear some pollies are fond of inculcating about the policing of Australia’s borders. There’s something of the Nineteenth century fear of the mob about this attitude; a parochial concern that Australians are incapable of having a civic conversation if race is at issue.
We actually have everything to gain as a nation, I would argue, in conducting a mature and reasoned debate on population and immigration. Even if some unsightly ghosts are summoned up in the process.
Labor’s tendency, after the One Nation phenomenon, and Howard’s race-baiting in 2001, was to retreat behind a fence on immigration; to soften the border control rhetoric but to leave its underpinnings intact. Gillard’s own crafting of a consensus immigration policy was part of that move. That Rudd Labor is now prepared to facilitate a responsible debate on these very same issues, and to reframe them, seems to me to be something quite significant, and something that ought to be welcomed. A truly Big Australia would be one that could craft a collective conversation with a horizon longer than that of the next day’s papers, and the next election.
I agree very much with you Mark, and your point reminds me quite strongly of a piece Craig Emerson wrote (can’t remember where) on nullifying wedge politics back in the days of Howard doing this.
His point was basically, the way to deal with race-based wedges is to call them out, essentially. By discussing and also labelling racism where it happens, the community at large seeks to distance itself. He had some research from the states, I believe, to supplement his point.
I have a reasonable amount of time for Emerson. I would much rather him than Conroy looking after the internet, for example.
I don’t recall that argument from Emerson, patrickg, but I’d also strongly endorse it.
The attitude of “we must maintain silence” on race and racism leaves the community as a whole captive to its most reactionary elements.
Good post, Mark.
Yes. What we also see, and will increasingly see, is people finding themselves taking similar positions for radically different reasons, and people taking differing positions on the basis of underpinning values, assumptions and logics which aren’t all that far apart. My own underpinning values, assumptions and logic are not greatly different from those people in categories 4 and 5 of my typology on Robert’s thread, yet I find myself thinking the best demographic outcome will be one of stabilisation at or below 30 million.
Thanks, Paul.
As an aside, the ‘shout her down’ response of some Trotskyite groupuscules to Pauline Hanson, which you’d remember as well as I do, I would imagine, I think can interestingly be seen as a position far from radical; reflecting the gut reaction of the elite political classes, and the same ‘fear of the mob’. It’s always been better to take on racism where you find it through reasoned argumentation – that’s a strategy for changing hearts and minds which I think owes a lot to the experience of feminist and anti-homophobic activism, and also the US civil rights tradition, which was all about speaking the unsayable and breaching the walls of silence.
Mark, I remember it well. I also remember that Hanson had the sympathy of quite a lot of working class people of my acquaintaince, including not a few whose overall political outlook was left-wing and critical of Labor governments for, as they saw it, not upholding Labor traditions. The Trots and others in the “shout her down” school didn’t have a lot of good answers to these people’s questions. Another dimension of this was that, even when such people didn’t need convincing about what what wrong with Hanson’s policy stances, they had an instinctive sympathy with someone who came across as being “like them” and who was seen to be being put upon by the political establishment.
Found it here
The most salient stuff below, with fixed formatting:
Maturity is always a good thing, if you can achieve it.
There would never be a better time than now for the progressive side of politics in Australia to shape the terms of the debate on immigration and racial overtones associated with it.
The reasons:
1. The Tories have wedged themselves into a right wing, social conservative ideological ghetto.
2. Australia appears to be enjoying a period of sustained economic growth which will help to mop up excess labour.
3. Employer and business interests are favourably disposed to sharpish population growth.
All of these factors make it difficult for the Tories to blow their usual dog whistles.
And any reappearance of a latter-day Pauline Hanson would only further divide the Tories.
@5 – Paul, yes I remember some similar conversations with people I met at the time, including electors of Oxley.
@6 – thanks for the link, patrickg.
@7 – Agreed, Katz. The ability to shape a national conversation from a progressive position is quite strong at the moment, despite the reflex idiocy of most of the media. There’s another question here about the tendency of the journosphere to want to infantalise the public, which only succeeds in infantalising its own mode of thought.
I rather suspect Paul that the “shout her down” groups of lefties took this view on the basis that Hanson was not simply a parochial reactionary populist but a fascist. Trotskyists don’t debate fascists. They seek to make it impossible for them to operate.
There were two serious errors here. Firstly neither Hanson nor her movement were fascists, though doubtless some who liked her might have joined fascist groups, should they have become organised. Just as Trotsky debated Father Coughlin all those years ago, Hanson ought to have been debated rather than howled down.
Secondly, while it is certainly a tactical objective of communists to disrupt the activities of actual fascists, this is not a matter of principle. It is a matter of opportunity — the relation of forces. Becoming involved in an inconclusive physical struggle with fascists is counterporductive in large part because it does not serve to demoralise them, and because it can lead the police to intervene on their side, which is precisely what you don’t want. It can lead to honest and courageous people being arrested for no good reason.
Contrary to some of the impressionistic types, being a fascist is not a measure of how offensive one is politically. It’s about the actual role you play in attacking the workers and the specially oppressed — not with words but with acts. Thus a mob of strikebreakers preparing to break a strike who are of otherwise liberal disposition is a fascist mob whereas the handfuls of cranks supporting Hanson are not.
It always seemed to me that what really bothered the Socialist Action types was that Hanson in a sense shared at least some of their populist parochialism — her advocacy cut a little close to the bone. Over at usenet there’s one poster in a.p.s.t who even professes to be sympathetic to Trotsky but whose politics are a “left” version of rip and read Hanson and labourism.
Stop the Racists – Action Alert
Rally Against Racism
Friday 9 April at 12 noon
Flinders Street station, Melbourne
A fascist group has called a rally in Melbourne against immigrants and against Islam. We have endorsed a peaceful rally that is happening in the same day and place to stop the racists. Come to this rally.
Genuine unions and genuine labour movement organisations are asked to appoint marshals
Please forward this message to your networks
‘There’s another question here about the tendency of the journosphere to want to infantalise the public, which only succeeds in infantalising its own mode of thought.’
How true. It’s as though the public is too stupid to understand the complexities of the debate so it’s up the informed (insider) journo to interpret and simplify it for them. It also invokes said journalists with a significance that increasingly lack.
Was it really possible to debate Pauline Hanson though? As I remember it she had seemingly simple solutions, to complex problems, that fell apart when you actually examined them closely. A debate consisting soley of “please explain” from your debating opponent isn’t much of a debate.
Mindy said:
Well yes Mindy … it was entirely possible to “debate” her especially for that reason.
Yes, but what I’m getting at is that she had no comeback, and having something comeback with is to me an essential part of debating. Apparently not to Tony Abbott, though, you just throw in a maniacal laugh.
Sure, Mindy, but I’m not talking about engaging with her directly as an interlocutor (to clarify), but rather about trying to dispel her claims by engaging with those who might be inclined to support her.
Apparently the new population minister has already decided that population targets aren’t the way to go.
at the time of Hanson, the media were willing to represent any questioning of her as academic, intellectual posturing. So asking her if she was xenophobic and having her misunderstand you was presented as a victory for her. I don’t think you can debate in that environment. I don’t know if the same thing would happen now, but I do think the political (if not media) environment is better suited to it now than in 1996, and a lot of work could be done in dragging Australian political debate and popular opinion away from knee-jerk anti-immigration sentiments (and fears) to a reasoned debate which incorporates all sides and strengthens our multicultural society.
What would the culture warriors do then!!!?!
Well, the WAP is only dead forty years, that’s the reason for the bipartisan paternalism on most immigration policy.
And I think you’ll find the Liberals in 2001 showed us just how mature and civic the great Australian public can be when ‘the conversation’ is allowed to stray from that cross-party arena.
Rudd and his group are trying to wedge and split the Greens on population. That’s what’s behind this too. Scary, because it’s both irresponsible short-term politicking that will have bad outcomes population wise. And it will undermine, or so is the intent, the main existing social force electorally challenging the growth fetish, in its various relevant manifestations.
Pathetic dogwhistling from the Cult of the Rodent which everyone should just ignore.
And the Lowy Institute? Another one of those tax-exempt lobbying outfits, set up by the boss of Westfields.
Do you really expect he wants less people visiting his shopping centres?
What seems to be overlooked is the link in most peoples minds between “normal” migration and the resuming of the refugee issue.
Howard ran a historicly high intake of migrants directly after Hanson nearly cost him an election on that same issue. He did that by assuring (with all the associated political theatre) the average bloke the government was running the migration scheme not the smugglers.
You cant unpick (though it would be interesting to see it done seriously) large scale migration and the refugee issue.
Wether its right or wrongmany Australians will only accept high migration levels if the government of the day can assure them the migrants are “worthy”.
The refugee issue tends to make (as you can see largely unspoken in most newspapers) Australians nervous as it appears they have “lost control”.
I think most of the anxieties about the intake of migrants would dissapear if those annoying little boats did as well.
An “easy” way out would be to only accept refugees from the UN directly, Im pretty sure the quota could be increased and most Australians would consider this “fair” and in control.
Otherwise the issue will poison the whole migration issue again.
@21
Another solution might be to point out that asylum seekers make a up very, very small proportion of overseas arrivals. Stopping the “annoying little boats” isn’t going to happen, it’s a fraudulent claim.
Patrickb
Yes thats right a small number, but the overall influence on the migration issue is huge.
Stopping the “annoying little boats”, would again make migration a non issue to most.
I cant see how thats a fraudulent claim as you state, as it goes straight to the heart of the issue.
If people see the migration process, both normal and refugee as orderly and in control then the issue becomes null.
Yes it would be great if the issues were completely seperate, but does anyone believe either the media or Kevin “the great communicator” Rudd will allow that to happen?
I’m absolutely convinced I heard Abbott today declare something like, “Rudd’s mishandling of Christmas Island shows he is incapable of managing Australia’s immigration policy.” Assuming my mind isn’t playing tricks by inventing bogus news bulletins I think that’s pretty good evidence the Coalition is dedicated to linking these issues publicly. It’s no longer subtext.
Personally I wouldn’t be labelling the Bernard Keanes and the Mark Bahnisches as Rudd groupers.
No, no, but I kid. The Greens’ point of view has been totally sidelined in the public, non-bloggy debate that’s broken out—they don’t merit a single mention in The Age editorial that raises the very issues they claim as their own.
@23
It’s a fraudulent claim because no action sort of killing people is going to stop desperate people taking desperate measures. Asylum seekers didn’t stop coming under the previous government. If the the previous government was in power now they would have serious problems with overcrowding in their detention centres. I note that the opposition doesn’t claim that they can actually do anything about asylum seeker arrivals, they simply claim that arrival numbers were not as high under their administration and assume that there was a direct causal relationship between their policies and the lower number of arrivals during certain periods of their government’s tenure.
This time round I don’t get a sense that the Liberal racist dog-whistling is working. Its more a bored yawn of Jeez, they’re at it again than that ice-cold chill of feare one felt the night Howard said “We will say who comes to this country …” etc. (And I don’t mean he scared me about the refugees. He scared me because he proved himself the sicko racist fascist bastard I’d always thought he was. Abbott’s heart is not in it. I despise the man, but clearly he didn’t feel/doesn’t feel that race hatred Howard felt in his guts. Back then, at the risk of being Godwined, it was a bit like I imagine hearing Hitler say “Jew” would’ve been like.
Actually, they did. The current, absolute failure is due entirely to Rudd and the ALP’s policies.
Interesting post, Mark.
I suppose my view is that the elements of political class you refer to are quite happy with the status quo, and fear opening the issue up to wider public debate – even if conducted without a public outburst of Hansonism – might lead to a mature, reasoned view that nevertheless values different things than they do and therefore leads to outcomes they’re not enthused about.
For instance, bigger markets for domestic manufacturers, more influence on the world stage, and worries about becoming “another Europe” (oh, the horror, the horror) might maturely and rationally be given rather short shrift in public debate – which kind of sucks, if you’re a senior politician who thinks these things are important.
Speaking of senior politicians Scott Prasser on Bush Telegraph today pointed out that Tony Burke is the most junior minister. Prasser takes this as a sign that Rudd isn’t serious about developing a population policy as population cuts across many ministries.
OTOH it might mean that Burke has the time to do the necessary leg work. Burke is going to be interviewed on the program tomorrow.
I agree with the original post Mark. Indeed, you could argue that the Hanson phenomenon gathered more momentum because of the lack of earlier public debate about issues relating to multiculturalism and immigration. While bigoted and wrong-headed, she gave voice to a large minority that felt their views on these issues had been ignored by the major parties for some time. You are seeing this same issue play out in the UK at the moment, with rising support for the BNP. The mentality on the left that sometimes seeks to find ways to silence views they find unpalatable can actually end up furthering the very causes they are opposed to.
I fear that the next election will be quite ugly. The coalition realise they are on a hiding to nothing and that a scare campaign on migration/asylum seekers is their best bet of limiting their losses. Labor has to be prepared to meet the critique front on. However, although the public debate may be ugly, I think it is also necessary if we are going to be able to move on with a more humanistic policy that also has broad public acceptance.
While the talk is old now, Jock Collins provides a useful recap of the last twenty or so years in which he discusses the links between multiculturalism, immigration and racist anxiety. There was in fact a very considerable public discussion about multiculturalism which, as Collins points out, the rodent hated.
I’d like to think that Australians could have a sensible discussion about the issues surrounding incorporative social democracy (multiculturalism), immigration, population and ecology but am convinced that the ALP does not have the capacity to lead it or even provide a focus for discussion. I remember too well the hysteria around Hanson and the way that she played the victim which attracted support from fractions of labour deeply alienated by the export of manufacturing jobs to S.E. Asia and Keating’s comment that we would become “an Asian nation”. The latter comment fueled visions of mass Asian immigration as well as the slums and squalor that typify SE Asian industrialisation as the future of Australians living in rust belt cities.
On top of that I cannot see the Liberals showing any more capacity to not play the race anxiety card for electoral advantage than a dog does when it needs to lick its nuts. When, for example, the Libs claim that refugee boat arrivals diminished under their government my first thought is they are alluding to the 400+ on the SIEVE-X who didn’t make it. Who could attempt bipartisanship with those grim bastards?
I’m interested in the claim that talking about migration is an attempt to split the Greens.
I would suggest, rather, that any discussion about migration tends to split the Greens – it’s an unintended consequence, rather than a political manouvre (of course, that doesn’t mean that Labor wouldn’t welcome it!)
It’s going to be hard to have public discussions about a whole range of subjects if ‘splitting the Greens’ means certain issues are a no go zone.
Which suggests that the Greens themselves should be having some serious internal discussions in some policy areas, in an effort to resolve their own differences.
And no, asylum seekers didn’t stop coming under Howard. There were fewer boats towards the end, yes, but they were still coming in by plane. Craig has made the common error of equating ‘asylum seekers’ with ‘boat people’ as if they are synonyms.
Grattan puts the argument explicitly – immigration is too important to listen to public opinion:
Mehitabel #32, I think the immigration and population debates tend to aggravate fault lines within every significant political party, within their constituencies, and between them and their constituencies. I also think that political parties which endure over time with anything like a mass membership (meaasurable in the thousands rather than the hundreds or dozens) and mass support (measurable at half a million or more across Australia) often don’t resolve their differences over some policy issues. Rather, they try to manage such differences in such a way as to enable cooperation between different elements on the things they can agree on (as Labor and Liberals have done throughout their existence). Of course, some issues are more amenable to this approach than others.
The last 3 paras are a brilliant encapsualtion of issues, Mark. The only thing that I would add is that in the building of any large project there is a phase when various segments can proceed in a disjointed fashion as there is little scope for conflict as the gaps in between are large. But in Project Australia we are well passed the time where individual interests do not impact on each other. Australia’s population size and distribution is no longer of interest to Australia alone. If we do not develop a total plan now we will lose the option to do so as global events will overrun us. The horror planning mess that is Sydney examples how Australia in entirety could become without proper forethought now.
Appointment of a population minister demonstrates how far advanced Labour is against the Coalition as a mature adminstration body. Having said that it should be noted that Rudd has 80% failed in performing on Climate Change Abatement Initiatives. Global Financial Crisis is no excuse.
Craig Mc, that graph you linked to measures persons who are allegedly illegal entrants who are also in detention. It does not measure persons illegally resident in Australia.
According to this document:
These persons were illegals who were not in custody.
This figure dwarfs the number of persons apprehended in Australian waters who the Rudd government now has in custody.
What was the overstayer figure for 2008-09 Katz?
as long as we can have a reasoned debate about immigration….but there’s little evidence that we can. The so called debates, the sensational headlines, the comments to fire a few rounds at the boats, sink them, lately about refugees are damaging for everyone. These are not stirred up ghosts of the past and it’s not insular or paranoid to want to avoid adding to the nasty pot the coalition is trying to stir, the wish for bipartisanship is to protect the vulnerable who get caught in the cross fire and so we don’t end up with a debate like Tampa 2001 again. Unless there is bipartisanship to debate the issue honestly and intelligently, the complexities get lost in the headlines and it focuses people indiscriminantly on outsiders. I don’t mind talking about population growth and management but it’s what gets mixed up together with that. These are real people, immigrants and refugees, and talking over them and about them with an ‘us and them’ dialogue is a problem to begin with. But let’s see if Tony Burke can lead us into some intelligent informed debate – the Coalition is so far making a mess of the issue.
BilB the fact sheet I linked to was published in August 2009.
On that basis, I imagine that the figures you seek will be published in the second half of 2010.
As you are all aware I very very rarely post notices of political events on LP. This particular rally is, however, too important not to advertise IMHO.
You may be ware that the far-right anti-refugee and anti-immigrant forces are organising a rally attacking refugee rights this Sunday outside Villawood Detention Centre.
In response an anti-racism rally is being organised.
There is just 2.5 days to ensure we get a broad rally to welcome refugees and stand up against racism, as opposed to the racists who will be taunting those behind the razor wire and calling for even more inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.
Below is the facebook event – please make sure you are down as “attending”, post it to your profile, and invite all your facebook friends
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=109582062406674
Here are the email details….
————-
Please forward this rally to ALL people who would be concerned about the far-right taunting asylum seekers, many of whom have fled war and persecution, while they are locked behind the razor wire
UNITE AGAINST RACISM
Refugees are welcome – racism is not!
The Australian Protectionist Party have called a rally attacking refugee rights for this Sunday, April 11, at 3pm outside Villawood Detention Centre.
The APP are anti-refugee, anti-immigrant & racist. They letterbox leaflets that scapegoat Africans, Muslims & immigrants for crime, unemployment & other social problems. However, the major parties are also to blame – they have given a green light to racism, by also demonising refugees & using migrants as scapegoats.
Racism kills. Refugees are still being deported to their deaths. Attacks on international students and immigrants are increasing.
We need a peaceful show of support for refugee rights, for equality and justice – and to let all racists know that their hatred is not welcome.
Rally Sun April 11, 2pm
At Villawood Detention Centre
15 Birmingham Ave, Villawood (nr Leightonfield Stn)
Please forward this message, organise your friends, bring placards and banners in support of refugees and against racism.
I hope youse don’t mind.
On boat arrivals, the Government has just caved. Sri Lankan asylum applications will be frozen for 3 months; Afghans for 6.
Katz, the essential difference between visa overstayers and arrivals on irregular entry vessels is the possession of a valid visa in the first place. The former have satisfied entry requirements, the former have not. It is not valid to compare the two categories.
Bismarck,
They haven’t “caved” at all. What they have done is draw a line in the sand. And it is probably overdue.
Regarding the difference between boat people and overstayers, your explanation is clearer than most.
But nobody is able to say, least of all the sportsman himself, exactly what Abbott is going to do. Sitting in a studio behaving like a back window nodding dog while foamy mouthed zealots like Alan Jones and Ray Hadley spray their dyspeptic and constipated opinions, probably reeking of undigested meals days old, is one thing. Spelling out precisely how he intends to go about while keeping Indonesia on side and adhering to UN principles is quite another. I don’t think Tone has it in him. Do you?
Correction Bismarck.
The former have breached their entry conditions. They are prima facie criminals.
The latter may or may not be legitimate refugees and therefore definitely not criminals.
I hope that helps.
Bismark,
Visa difference? Not so. It is not difficult to forge some foreign passports or visas, and there is a roaring trade in stolen identities. The incentives to use boat passage over fraudulent identity are for whole family groups which are harder to forge for and for the less sophisticated border crosser and trafficer.
It would I imagine be difficult to forge an Australian passport, but then stolen identity may get passed that.
Bismark obviously has no understanding of migration law. In most cases if people have overstayed beyond 28 days they have breached the terms of their visa and are entitled to be deported.
On the other hand, as Katz points out, asylum seekers have yet to have their claims assessed, and only when their claims have been found to be invalid and their avenues of appeal exhausted are they entitled to be returned to their home country.
Katz, the immigration regime is not an easy analogy with the criminal law. Visa overstayers are not prima facie criminals, but unlawful non-citizens who are subject to arrest, detention and deportation (which, I can assure you, happens regularly, but which are administrative – not criminal – sanctions). However, on entry, provided they have a valid visa, they are free to go about their business until such time as they decide to breach their entry conditions or make a claim for a different class of visa. Those who arrive on irregular entry vessels typically do not have any valid travel documents at all and, until identity, health and security assessments are performed are prima facie unlawful entrants. They are therefore detained until those assessments are done and any asylum claim is checked.
Roy, I think the interesting question now is really how the Government spin machine plays this, in particular, how it deals with questions about TPVs and “changed circumstances” and how it holds the line on “push factors”.
Which is precisely what is happening as we speak. How, then, if these administrative and legal requirements are being satisfied, can it be said that the Rudd government has “caved”?
Your assertion isn’t very sensible, is it?
Score so far: Anti-racists 1/Australian Defence League: 0.
Just came form anti-racist rally outside Flinders street station. 250-300 anti-racists denied the fascists their rally point and are still occupying it. 15-20 racists are gathered outside Young and Jackson’s and more are possibly drinking inside. They are photographing activists and attempting to jeer but are being totally drowned out.
KRudd has just jumped the shark.
It’s now officially impossible to be a refugee from Afghanistan. Pathetic.
Good one, Chav.
Now re Rudd and new processing delays/restrictions: they caved, gone to water, shat and pissed themselves, given in, painted a big yellow streat from top to bottom on the Department of Immigration – use any metaphor you like, they’re weak-kneed jellybacked yellowlivered pusillanimous quaking unprincipled cowards. Give the Mad Monk a victory like this, Krudd, and he’ll turn into an Aussie version of Genghis Khan when it comes to issues of race. You’re a blithering idiot!
Some would argue, Chav, that your sort of action against brain dead street level racism is at least a way of giving the droogs attention and at worst a provocation that will increase their support in the way that some anti-Hansonite activists are alleged to have increased her support.
Not my view and congratulations on being there.
I don’t know if you’re following the news, Katz, but the Government has placed a complete freeze on the processing of asylum applications – for a period of 3 months for Sri Lankans and 6 months for Afghans. Ordinarily, an application for a protection visa must be processed and decided within 90 days of being made. Presumably, the changes the Government has announced today will prevent the application being made or received during the first 90 or 180 days. This is in direct response to the flood of boat arrivals, and the intelligence that thousands more are preparing to make the crossing from Indonesia. you think this does not constitute a change of position, that’s your call.
My comment @52 was in response to Katz’s @47, but got lost until after Katz’s acknowledgement of the facts.
I acknowledged that the facts had changed, Bismarck.
I supported Rudd’s old policy, not his new one.
Understood. I was talking about his new one.
“There’s a paranoia among elements of the political class – a disdain for public opinion.” You are right Mark. Let me explain why.
Big business want more population per se and immigration is the only way to get there. They brook no discussion whatever about a larger population. Kim Beakzley started talking about it back in 2004 but changed his mind within a month. The left want more immmigration per se and population is a by-product. Right wing liberatarians love free movement of people. Right, left and downtown – all aligned. LP and Catallaxy will be very like minded on this issue.
All major political classes have there own reasons to stay stumm about the huge (trend) increases in immigration and population. No wonder opinion polls typically show that most people are sanguine about the issue. They hear nothing about it except occasional reassurances that everything is fine. Until it suddenly becomes apparent that population will be 36 million in 40 years (never mind the project growth rate at that time). It is then the task of the political class to get the issue off the front page so they can quietly get on with the consipracy.
Don’t worry folks. This issue will be buried by big political interests within a month. We will then be back to the red-herring of boat people. And no, this is not inconsistent with my comments on the other thread. Boat people are no a threat to Australia or tis population. They are a threat to real refugees.
I don’t think, per se, the left does. The left supports multiculturalism per se and the rights of asylum seekers per se. Immigration sometimes results from those two principles.