Immigration fears caused by poor government policy, not by racism

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke.

It was a bad week for national self-loathers with news that the masses were not craving a return to the White Australia policy after all.

Far from it. The annual Scanlon Social Cohesion Survey, the most authoritative longitudinal study of this kind of thing, found that xenophobia was in retreat. Only 15 per cent of respondents thought that ethnicity was a valid reason for turning down an immigration visa, down from 19 per cent three years ago.

So much for the assertion that racism “is rearing its ugly head” or words to that effect, a claim made in the past 12 months by, variously, CNN, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, retiring race discrimination commissioner Tim Soutphommasane and others.

The Scanlon survey contains abundant evidence of rising tolerance and magnanimity, even as the population has grown more ethnically diverse.

Only 12 per cent thought multiculturalism had been bad for Australia, a figure that has remained more or less constant since 2015. Those welcoming multiculturalism nudged up from 83 per cent in 2016 to 85 per cent this year.

It is safe to conclude, then, that increasing anxiety about high immigration is not driven by racial prejudice but by factors that politicians can and must be addressing.

The reasons given for lowering migration stem from pragmatism rather than ideology. Overcrowded cities tops the list (73 per cent) followed by poor government management of population growth (66 per cent), house prices (65 per cent), crime rates (58 per cent), the environment (51 per cent) and the perceived threat to jobs (50 per cent).

The portion who believe the immigration level is too high has risen from 34 per cent to 43 per cent in just two years. Those who think the size of migration is “about right” has fallen from 40 per cent to 35 per cent in the same period.

By any reasonable measure, this is not yet a collapse in confidence in the migration program. The majority of Australians (52 per cent) still believe the migration level should be increased or remain the same, compared with only 39 per cent of British voters. Immigrants make up 14 per cent of the British population compared with 28 per cent in ­Australia.

There are unmistakeable signs, however, that views on immigration are dividing across a familiar cultural fault-line, making it a far from easy issue to address for a party seeking a national majority.

The view that immigration levels should be cut is held most strongly in NSW (51 per cent) closely followed by Queensland (48 per cent). It is at its lowest in Victoria (38 per cent), Western Australia (36 per cent) and South Australia (36 per cent).

Low-migration sentiment is stronger in the regions (50 per cent) than in the capitals (39 per cent). It is higher among ute-driving tradies and apprentices (55 per cent) than among graduates (23 per cent). It is higher among those struggling to pay their bills (65 per cent) than among the prosperous and comfortable (27 per cent). It is higher among those who intend to vote for the Coalition (56 per cent) than among those who intend to vote Labor (36 per cent) or the Greens (13 per cent). One Nation, predictably, scores 91 per cent.

The response of the major parties depends on the votes they wish to cultivate. If they crave the support of quinoa salad-eating graduates under 35 in the capital cities, then they should soften their asylum-seeker policy, call Pauline Hanson a xenophobe and let immigration rip. If they want to appeal to voters who aren’t much bothered about overcrowding, managed population growth, jobs, rising house prices or crime they should throw the doors wide open.

If, on the other hand, they want to appeal to outer-suburban and regional voters in NSW and Queensland who didn’t go to university, who come from English-speaking backgrounds, who are over 55, struggling to get by and inclined to vote One Nation, then they should show they are listening. They must understand the frustration of tradesmen in the seats of Lindsay and Forde crawling along the M4 or across the Gateway Bridge listening to Alan Jones, disgusted at official impotence in dealing with ethnic crime gangs, fearful that their kids will never be able to afford to leave home and believing that politicians have lost the plot.

If the challenge of straddling the divide for the Coalition is considerable, for Labor it is intolerable. The transformation from the workers’ party to the progressive party is almost complete, leaving Bill Shorten little choice but to bow to the intelligentsia’s conceit on the treatment of asylum-seekers and other immigration matters.

In an uncharacteristic move in October, the Opposition Leader wrote to Scott Morrison calling for a joint-party population blueprint on immigration, infrastructure shortfalls and immigration-related quality-of-life concerns.

It was the same ploy used by Kevin Rudd before the 2007 election: close the gap with the Coalition on so-called issues of national importance and hope that voters ignore the dangerous anti-nativist sentiment running through the ranks of your own party. The position is unsustainable. Voters have been wise to this trick ever since Rudd broke his promise to turn back the boats and green-lit an arm­ada of unseaworthy ­vessels to head for Christmas­ ­Island.

Shorten’s mistake in siding with independent Kerryn Phelps last week in a move to outsource migration selection to doctors is a clear indication of the way things are heading. Whether elections can be won by dog-whistling remains a contested point. What is clear is that they will never be won by virtue signalling.

Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre