Peter Dutton ‘God-like’? GetUp!‘s political analysis

GetUp!’s Shen Narayanasamy says Peter Dutton has "God-like powers".

Did you know the government’s proposed changes to the citizenship test announced last week are all about xenophobia and eradicating the history of multiculturalism?

That’s about as sophisticated as it gets if you are foolish enough to rely on ABC’s The Drum for an analysis of government policy, particularly the requirements for migrants’ proficiency in English.

The proposed competencies, announced GetUp!’s Shen Narayanasamy, specified an “English level which you require to enter university.” Actually, they are roughly equivalent to TAFE requirements. The government’s changes, including allowing the immigration minister to overrule the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, were giving “God-like powers” to Peter Dutton, stated Narayanasamy. “It allows him to sit above the law.”

Sit above the law? God-like powers? Bear in mind Narayanasamy is a lawyer. She would be aware that the AAT is not a court, and that unsuccessful applicants for citizenship will still have recourse to the Federal and High Courts.

But you would be mistaken if you thought Narayanasamy had reached peak hyperbole. Having drawn parallels between these English proficiency tests and the White Australia policy, the human rights director for GetUp! could not help but imply the government’s policy mirrored that of the Nazis.

"Dutton's saying migrants' contribution & place in our history isn't valid" Shen slams the proposed English standard changes #TheDrum @GetUp pic.twitter.com/eCv2PHgRhf

— ABC The Drum (@ABCthedrum) June 16, 2017

“First they came for the asylum seekers, the boat people, then the Muslims, and now they’ve come for everybody else,” she said, paraphrasing German theologian Martin Niemoller.

Now you wouldn’t need a PhD in history, as Drum host Julia Baird has, to know those analogies were offensive and absurd. At the very least she should have challenged Narayanasamy. But Baird merely nodded. Perhaps instead a co-panellist would have the gumption to call out this nonsense? Unfortunately, no. The composition of this panel was such even Dorothy Dix herself would have looked contrarian by comparison.

“Do you think it’s effective dog-whistle politics?” said author and Fairfax columnist Peter FitzSimons, before adding ironically “I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.” That’s right, the first reaction from FitzSimons, who promotes himself as an objective historian, was to indulge Narayanasamy with her baseless claims.

“Well it’s simply dog-whistle politics,” agreed Narayanasamy. As for the English proficiency requirements, FitzSimons enthusiastically condemned the government. “It denies our history,” he proclaimed, observing that many post-WWII migrants could not speak the language when they arrived.

"It denies our history. Post WW2, so many millions came here not speaking a word" - Dutton's English standards for migrants #TheDrum pic.twitter.com/3w1C6n8S86

— ABC The Drum (@ABCthedrum) June 16, 2017

That’s all very well to hark back to the times of the Snowy Mountains scheme, when the demand for unskilled labour was unprecedented. Does FitzSimons really believe that non-English speaking migrants have the same employment opportunities in 2017? Also, it’s a bit rich for the chair of the Australian Republican Movement to suddenly invoke tradition as a trump card, especially when FitzSimons has spent the past few years publicly sneering at and ridiculing those who want to preserve the Australian flag and our constitutional monarchy.

The answer is somewhat more complicated than handing a pickaxe and a shovel to every migrant who steps off the plane. Data released this last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms the necessity of migrants having sound English skills. In respect to recent migrants, 31 per cent experienced difficulty finding employment. A quarter of those affected cited language difficulties as a factor.

A study commissioned by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in 2009 concluded that skilled migrants who spoke English in the category of “very well” were 3.7 times more likely to obtain employment than those with “poor English”.

A 2015 NSW Parliamentary Research Service report noted that the improvement in technology had grave implications for “large numbers of low skill workers” who could be “forced out of the workforce entirely.” The report also noted that male blue collar workers would be disproportionately affected — a trend that would be exacerbated among patriarchal migrant families given that men are far more likely than women to be the breadwinner. As for those lucky enough to retain their positions, the future is not much better with predictions of a “rising income inequality between skilled and unskilled labour.” Taking these factors into account — especially in the context of Australia’s gradual transition from a commodity economy to a service-based one — the implications for the welfare state alone are enormous.

Already the consequences of mass influxes of non-English speaking migrants are obvious. In January 2017, ABS figures revealed a third of Middle Eastern and North African migrants were unemployed. A primary factor was their poor English levels. Even leaving aside employment considerations, it is clear that learning English is essential for social cohesion and integration.

A lunch date with Shen Narayanasamy in the Sydney Morning Herald.

In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald last year, Narayanasamy revealed a seemingly innocuous fact, but, in light of the above, it must be a terrible shame. “My parents were typical ethnic parents,” said Narayanasamy as she chatted over lunch. “On holidays Dad would say that, every time he came home from work, we’d have to memorise a page out of the dictionary.”

Memorising a page out of the dictionary? What was the motive behind his instructions? You might insist he was a dutiful father merely attempting to expand young Shen’s English vocabulary and improve her chances of studying at university (which is exactly what occurred), but that would be naive. Make no mistake, this man clearly harboured ultranationalist tendencies for his adopted country or at the very least was trying to eradicate any trace of multiculturalism.

The third member of the ABC panel, marketing strategist Toby Ralph, might as well have been reading from a script. “This is a carefully researched piece… of dog-whistling to the bush and the Hansonesque right,” he concluded. None of the above factors that supported requiring greater proficiency in English were even remotely mentioned in this segment.

But that’s the ABC for you, which is very keen to embrace diversity provided it doesn’t conflict with progressive orthodoxy. Watching that Drum episode, particularly the panellists’ and the host’s duchessing of Narayanasamy, one could be forgiven for thinking it was a directors’ meeting for GetUp!

As for those who see merit in the government’s changes to immigration policy, they are apparently responding to “dog-whistling”. That’s wryly amusing, as it is plainly obvious that those who make such accusations are the ones running in a pack.