December 29, 2001	Saturday	Shawwal 13, 1422

SYDNEY: Media debate here about the economic and social costs of immigration is rekindling suspicions that the government of Prime Minister John Howard may be quietly considering the re- introduction of some sort of a ‘White Australia’ policy.

“Despite what a few hyperbolic types might allege, the ‘White Australia’ policy is dead and gone,” said Dr Gerard Henderson, executive director of the Sydney Institute, writing in ‘The Australian’ recently. “However, if influential Australians have their way, it might soon be replaced by a Muslim Immigration Restriction Act or perhaps, a Judeo-Christian Australia policy.”

Australian diplomats and politicians, however, will be quick to dismiss such suggestions, even pointing out that Pauline Hanson’s racist One Nation Party was soundly beaten in the November polls.

But the fact is that in order to win back voters from the far right anti-immigration party, Howard’s anti-immigration rhetoric reflected very much the platform of One Nation.

He even went as far as suggesting during the campaign that some of the boat people from Iraq and Afghanistan whom Australia has refused to let in could be terrorists.

In order to protect Australia from “international terrorism”, the issue of resurrecting some sort of a ‘White Australia’ policy is been quietly raised through the media, with a subtle economic focus given to it.

Until the mid-1970s, Australia had a policy that specified that only those with European ancestry could migrate to Australia. It was designed to stem the “yellow peril” — the possibility of large numbers of Asians, especially Chinese, flocking to Australia.

Now, some respected economists, sociologists and influential media commentators are openly debating economic arguments to justify the re-introduction of a discriminatory immigration policy.

For instance, Wolfgang Kasper, emeritus professor of economics at the University of New South Wales, argued that because “no community can function effectively without shared institutions or values”, immigrants should be screened for their ability to be part of these factors in Australia.

Writing in the November issue of the ‘Quadrant’ magazine, Kasper added that a set of shared institutions and values are precious social capital.

He noted that although all people may be equal, they carry deeply held cultural and institutional baggage of greater or lesser value for life in Australia.

Thus, Kasper called for Australia’s immigration policy to be restructured to include a selection criteria that have to “measure the readiness or otherwise of newcomers to fit in with our open society”.

Another key figure to join in the debate is John Stone, former secretary to the treasury and ex-senator of the National Party. He was a member of the shadow Cabinet in 1988, when the then opposition leader Howard raised the issue of restricting Asian immigration. Stone was one of his strongest supporters in the shadow ministry.

In an article in ‘The Australian’ entitled, ‘We only want those who are prepared to be like us’, he called for a new immigration policy that discriminates not on the basis of race but culture.

Stone said: “Australians must fundamentally rethink the stupidities which for 20 years now have dominated our immigration policies and, along with them, our official policies of multi- culturalism.” He defines multi-culturalism as “non- assimilation” to the mainstream culture.

Espousing the theory of the superiority of the European Judeo- Christian culture over all others, he added: “All cultures are not equal, and it is ridiculous (and since Sept 11 much more dangerous) to keep insisting that they are.”

Sydney Institute’s Henderson disagrees, pointing out that Muslims have been in Australia since 1860. While the Islamic population has been growing rapidly in the last 20 years, majority of them are not Arab, and majority of the Arabic immigrants are not Muslims, he explains.

This latest bout of nostalgia for the less complicated times of the ‘White Australia’ policy by the country’s conservative white establishment has been triggered by the Howard government’s refusal lately to allow Middle Eastern and Afghan asylum seekers to land on Australian soil.

The government’s rhetoric has been uncomfortably close to that which was used to shut out non-white immigrants from Australia for most of the 20th century. But former human rights and equal opportunities commissioner Chris Sidoti says that groups trying to change the Howard government’s stance on asylum-seekers have been wasting their time. He suggests that they should focus on changing community attitudes.

A report released by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in December says that the level of racism against those who do not fit into the stereotype of the ‘typical Australian’ was increasing across Australia.

Since the Sept 11 attacks in New York and Washington, reports of cases of racism against all ethnic communities have increased, adds the report.—Dawn/The InterPress News Service.