Normally, the start of the political year is heralded by the PM and the Leader of the Opposition giving set-piece speeches ahead of the return of parliament, with the goal of trying to set the agenda. The speeches tend to be pabulum, but they get pored over like sacred texts by political journalists eager for something to write about after the summer break.
But these days, it’s Tony Abbott who kicks things off. By the end of January last year, he’d already attacked Palestinians, lectured “rebellious” colleagues (LOL) and issued a manifesto for political reform including abandoning climate action. And right on cue yesterday — evidently unchastened by the humiliation of being comprehensively repudiated by the electorate over marriage equality — he re-emerged in a chat with his good friend, Sydney radio entertainer Ray Hadley, to declare that, in effect, Indigenous Australians should be damn grateful for white invasion and that we should cut migration.
Once upon a time, Abbott could be regarded as a serious thinker on Indigenous issues, with a genuine interest in Aboriginal communities — certainly far more interest than Malcolm Turnbull ever displayed. Now, he’s become just another white reactionary.
On migration, Abbott is a migrant himself, of course. He came to Australia with his family when he was three. Particularly nationalistic Australians might wonder where someone who wasn’t born here gets off talking about curbing migration. The rest of us might merely point to the well-known phenomenon of the drawbridge migrant: the person who suddenly develops very strong views about restricting who can enter a country — but only after they themselves have been allowed to enter.
In a country where more than half the population are either born overseas or have a parent born overseas, it means there are an awful lot of immigrants who might take umbrage at Abbott’s comments — or a lot of drawbridge migrants who might nod in agreement.
Either way, he’s likely to get more traction than in his crusade for freedom for the rights of bigots last year. Until wages start growing, the government is exposed to the charge that ordinary Australians aren’t benefiting from the economy despite constantly being told there’s a jobs boom and everything is rosy. And migration and the perception that Australians aren’t being given priority over foreigners, while not as toxically widespread as in the US and the UK, is still potent. That’s particularly the case given that in Sydney and Melbourne it’s not just about jobs, but the role migration plays in adding to demand for housing in major cities and adding to pressure on infrastructure.
In 2016-17, net overseas migration rose by 27% to 245,00 entrants — the highest number since the financial crisis had a flood of expatriate Australians return home as the global recession hit. It’s also way above the level when Abbott was Prime Minister, of around 180,000. The “fuck off, we’re full” bumper sticker sentiment is more ripe for exploitation than at any time in recent years. And it’s an issue with a confusing ideological lineage — neoliberals and economists back open borders and businesses want unrestricted migration to keep wages down, while unions, right-wing populists and environmentalists — not to mention celebrities like Dick Smith — all have varying objections to migration. Abbott might have more luck trying to set the agenda this year. It’s the last thing Malcolm Turnbull needs.
Which is, of course, the point.
“Once upon a time, Abbott could be regarded as a serious thinker on Indigenous issues, with a genuine interest in Aboriginal communities ”
Really Bernard? Since when did photo ops and brainfarts constitute “serious thinking”?
Me too. Ever check his form? All he was in that race for was the votes? Those he seduced are waking up with sore fundaments.
Yeah, that piqued my ire, though the disclaimer was even dumber, “.. certainly far more interest than Malcolm Turnbull ever displayed” – as would a pickled gherkin.
Our problem is not the high level of immigration, it is that all immigrants gravitate towards the great metropolises of the east coast capitol cities. Yet our rural sector is dying as townships suffer a diminishing populace and lack of skilled persons.
Many folk want to make Australia their home, so why not mandate that their visa is conditional upon say five years contributing to the rural sector, before any settlement is allowed in the capitol cities. This is probably not PC but Australia needs growth in the countryside and there are many, many folk overseas who would welcome any chance to share in this great country.
Yes. I can think of several hundred in Manus and Nauru for a start. Some rural communities would welcome them with open arms, see ABC program on the WA wheatbelt town of Katanning.
There are no jobs in rural communities because their main industries have become highly automated. And they lack and will always lack the critical mass to be centres of any other sort of industry. Let them die. Not to mention why would anyone want to live surrounded by the sort of mouthbreathers that vote for the National Party.
I am so glad that the type of partisanship that allows one group to think the extermination of another group is fine if you don’t like their politics remains a U.S phenomenon because they are smokin’ it over there
Yes, but more carrot and less stick, please.
There have been successful examples of, for example, Hazara refugees from Afghanistan taking up work in abattoirs.
This probably also helps those abattoirs with halal certification, opening up additional markets but unacceptable to bigots like Cory Bernardi.
Mind you, this employment is vulnerable to seasonal and market conditions, so is not guaranteed long term.
And away from their own communities in the big capitals, a special effort is needed to make refugees feel wanted and to help them fit in. And often country towns put the rest of us from the cities to shame in that respect.
In general a useful article but I wonder if we could expend some effort on our terminology this year. The correct application (citing the first error) “On migration, Abbott is a migrant himself, of course.” is to replace the word migration with immigration and similarly for migrant to immigrant. I have been illustrating this error
for almost 40 years (to very little avail : I admit).
Secondly, the “fuck off, we’re full” ought to rewritten as “were full : fuck off”. Note the
(correct) use of the colon in this implicit infinitive phrase; the subject ought to imply the imperative (and not the other way about).
Lastly, for the sake of edification, “Once upon a time, Abbott could be regarded as a serious thinker on Indigenous issues” [example or reference?] “with a genuine interest in Aboriginal communities” [similarly] “certainly far more interest than Malcolm Turnbull ever displayed” [hence the requirement for references]. “Now, he’s become just another white reactionary” [because …]
Your second paragraph is as neat a demonstration of Muphry’s law as I’ve seen in some time. At least three times. Lovely.
Was not familiar with the term ‘drawbridge migrant’ but it sums up a few of my acquaintance. Those who were motivated by lifestyle opportunity back in the 1950s are more vociferous than the ones who sought political/religious sanctuary.
Those who have ‘varying objections to migration’ don’t as a general rule object to migration as such but to the very high number, most of whom seem to end up in Sydney or Melbourne and the infrastructure in both cities is struggling to keep up. Also sometimes objections to the corrupted nature of some of our migration and temporary entry programs. Is the student program about education, exchange of ideas and building better relations with our neighbours or is about funding higher education in exchange for permanent residence? The skilled temporary entry programs in place before the 457 visa worked well, got the overseas skills we needed and didn’t displace local workers with cheaper overseas workers (which was part of the intent of the 457 initially) And does the very large working holidaymaker program provide young people with a chance for extended travel whilst supplementing their savings with employment or has it become a program to exploit young foreigners as cheap labour in the rural sector?
Canada has a properly planned migration program as we did here before it was handed over to the market to decide who and how many.