EDITORIAL: Finally, some sense around immigration debate
The realisation that people do not like to be lectured, hectored and talked down to is taking hold.
Physicist Sir Isaac Newton told us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It is a theory that has been mined by South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas in attempting to explain the factors driving both the immigration debate and the associated rise of One Nation.
In an address to the Sydney Institute, he argued for a strong skilled migration program and warned against “appeasement” of “anti-immigration politics and populists” in a “race to the bottom”.
Sign up to The Nightly's newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.But he also explained that concern about immigration was understandable, and based not on racism or prejudice, but because of people’s justifiable worries about their economic future.
Mr Malinauskas argued the accusatory language of elements of the Left in the immigration debate had resulted in a push back from the Right.
“Immigration has not become such a flashpoint this year because Australia is a racist country,” he said.
“People are rightly worried about their economic future. That’s not prejudice. It’s a perfectly understandable response to a challenging economy.
“Where people are anti-immigration, it is overwhelmingly because they think immigration hurts them economically.
“For most fair-minded Australians, just anxious about house prices and inflation, calling them racist — explicitly or implicitly — is just plain daft”.
He said the far-Left would “do well to engage in a moment of self-reflection”.
“Maybe, just maybe, the intense self-righteousness, sanctimony and piety that underpinned the ‘great awokening’ tilled the soil for the inevitable countercultural movement on the far Right,” Mr Malinauskas said.
The SA Premier’s assessment evoked memories of the infamous 2016 description by US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of Donald Trump’s supporters, half of whom she said belonged in a “basket of deplorables”. That slur just helped Mr Trump.
The realisation that people do not like to be lectured, hectored and talked down to is taking hold.
Mr Malinauskas backed up his argument for a strong migration program with some worrying numbers.
“In the next three years, the number of Australians over the age of 70 is going to go from 3.5 million to more than four million,” he said.
“In less than ten years, over-65s will outnumber under-15s for the first time in our history. If the number of people leaving our workforce exceeds the number of people coming into it, our expenses grow, our income falls — we have less and less capacity to generate the resources we need.
“Skilled visa recipients arrive in their prime working age, immediately able to support themselves in well-paid work. Not only is migration not a drain on our public services, migration is part of the reason governments can afford to provide those services.
“Skilled migrants are big net taxpayers,” Mr Malinauskas said.
He has contributed a sensible and well-calibrated argument.
It stands in contrast to the performance of the Albanese Government, which has failed to properly address the nation’s hot-button issue and is yet to land an immigration policy.
The void it has left has been filled by other voices.
Anthony Albanese would do well to learn from the leadership Mr Malinauskas has shown.
