Not whistling, shouting!

April 25, 2017

Today is Anzac Day 2017. A day which gives me time to reflect as well as providing the frame for the extraordinary ‘culture wars’ narrative of the past week. On the eve of an increasing emotional and patriotic Anzac Day, Australians last Wednesday were treated to news reports and commentary about changes to the 457 Visa category for temporary workers. Changing visa categories is not a new thing. In fact it’s pretty routine in terms of how governments manage the flow of people to Australia for both temporary and permanent processes.

What was most surprising about this announcement was the fanfare and the narrative which surrounded it. The changes weren’t announced by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection but rather the Prime Minister and in his prime ministerial way, couched what would normally have been routine changes into a larger national narrative.

In his interview with Kim Landers on the ABCs AM program, the Prime Minister wasn’t announcing detailed changes to temporary migrant visas he was delivering a far stronger jingoistic, populist narrative which moved his words beyond any accusations of whistleblowing to what would better be described as megaphone chest thumping righteousness. His defence of the changes was couched in patriotic terms such as Australians first, Australian jobs, Australian values. In what should be unforgivable in modern day public speaking the Prime Minister pronounced the Australian adjective 54 times during the interview.

The only thing missing in this play from the Liberal Government’s game book was a backdrop of wall to wall Australian flags.

My disappointment was very much understanding the intent of the messaging rather than the substantive content. In the last few months significant Visa changes have occurred in the international student space, reducing more than a dozen Visa categories into two overarching visas. The change was significant, its intent specific, and its outcomes potentially beneficial to Australia. The difference is that the changes weren’t promoted in nearly the same way as the current moral panic around 457 Visa holders. It could be argued that the changes to international student visas are far more impactful on Australia as they affects the lives of over 600,000 students who come to Australia on an annual basis and who also have work rights, albeit limited ones.

The 457 Visa gets the attention because it is so easily used to fuel what is fundamentally a xenophobic narrative. These foreigners coming in and taking our Australian jobs, denying our Australian people the first choice, and as such threatening our Australian values. Even as I write these words I can hear the brassy sounds of land of hope and glory, only because Australia lacks its own patriotic score.

Thursday introduced itself to a broader chorus of voices from both the government and crossbenchers as the Prime Minister and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection announced significant proposed changes to Australian citizenship.

The changes mooted include a separate English language test, and inclusion of questions designed to assess ‘cultural fit’ and an increased residential criterion requiring residents to have been permanently in Australia for four years before they can apply to become citizens.

While both the Prime Minister and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection were at pains to suggest that these changes were not geared to any one community or identifiable group, the intent of the words around their introduction and the response to questions could not be mistaken. Enter the narrative of ‘Australian values’ and the highly emotive and sensitive issues around female genital mutilation and underage marriage.

It was left to others such as Pauline Hanson to call it for what it is; a target on Muslims; even if the cultural practices suggested do not have a base in religion.

The ensuing public outcry has been around the notion of ‘Australian values’, but this focus on Australian values is an effective tactic to divert attention from the real intent of these changes.

The most immediate of these is citizenship delivers the most important of democratic powers which is the right to vote. A right which is exercised across all three jurisdictions, a right which has clearly affected the composition and role of locality-based constituencies, and a right that migrating communities hold dear.

A substantive increase in the waiting time for citizenship will indeed have a blunting effect on any real or perceived migrant voting pattern. It could be argued that immigrants and refugees seek citizenship for expediency, but any involvement in citizenship ceremonies delivers many stories of individuals who are making a weighty decision not only about the country they choose to live in but more the country they choose to belong to. For anyone going through it, it is emotional.

The second consideration is that naturalised citizens receive protection from deportation if they are convicted of any crime. Section 501 of the Migration Act empowers the Minister to deport non-citizen residents who commit crimes. The current Minister has exercised this power frequently and at high volumes. It is interesting that when he has done so publicly it has been again couched in highly emotive language around the protection of Australians and again the catch up for the righteous, ‘Australian values’. This makes resident non-citizens vulnerable.

Thirdly this patriotic narrative fuels the existing concern and sensitivity around cultural and religious diversity. Rather than work to continue an Australian multiculturalism which will serve to protect against radicalisation, the Prime Minister insults our intelligence and delivers a challenge to the multiculturalism he lauds as a defining feature of modern Australia. The hypocrisy and blantant contradiction in his words is staggering.

So indeed, the government is playing the race card no matter how strongly it is denied. In doing so it:

wedges the opposition who fall into line as strident opposition would not be palatable to the ‘Western Sydney ’vote;

placates the right-wing voices in the government;

creates an ambiguity in which other hardliners can deliver the blunt message;

confuses and conflate any informed discussion about immigration and thus deliver a misinformation and an ensuing moral panic;

achieves short-term electoral popularity lifts, but plant the seeds for growing societal divisions and an increasing the ‘us and them’ dichotomy.

This is not the result of spontaneous or random acts, but rather the planned and strategic delivery of backroom thinking to achieve at best a short-term political gain, and at worst significant tears in Australia’s multicultural fabric.

For my part I will post this blog as my small protest against a negative, cynical and unpalatable debate. I will then don my red-and-white tribal clothing and make my way out to Allianz Stadium. I will stand amongst the wondrous diversity of the club’s membership with heads covered in caps or scarves turned towards the commemorative activities. I will share in the respectful silence that not only acts to honour those who have lost their lives in wars, but also for those escaping war, persecution and poverty.

There is a lot that we should not forget.