The REDUCE IMMIGRATION team has made the following submission to the Australian Government’s consultation on the size and composition of the Humanitarian Programme for 2016-17.
As we alerted our readers last month, the closing date for submissions is Sunday 27 March. We are grateful to those who have copied us in to their emailed submissions. There is still time, so don’t miss this opportunity to have your say!
And if you have any comments on our submission below, then please let us know.
We applaud the Australian Government for making available this opportunity to comment on the size and composition of the Humanitarian Programme for 2016-17.
Our short contribution to the consultation can be expressed in these three words:
Look at Europe.
The contemporary media provides more than ample explanation as to why these three words are important.
An older but still informative resource is the chillingly prophetic novel by Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints, 1973. (Reprinted 1995 by The Social Contract Press). Reviewed here by Denis McCormack in the mid-90s.
Our longer submission responds to your six questions:
(1) IN YOUR VIEW, HOW MANY PLACES SHOULD AUSTRALIA ATTRIBUTE TO THE OFFSHORE COMPONENT OF ITS HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMME?
The current intake is too high.
We note that the Government has already committed to increase the size of the Programme from the current level of 13,750 places up to 16,250 places in 2017-18 and 18,750 places in 2018-19. In addition, in September 2015 it announced an extra 12,000 places to resettle people displaced by conflicts in Syria and lraq.
We propose an immediate 50% reduction in this Programme, to complement the 50% reduction to the Migration Programme that Bob Carr recommended. (See: James Robertson, ‘Bob Carr calls for Australian immigration to be cut by one half’, The Age, 17 February 2016.)
Many others over several decades have recommended a reduction in both Programmes because immigration adversely affects Australia’s environmental and economic sustainability, social cohesion and cultural integrity. Please see the extensive list of references in the Select Bibliography on our website, addressing the question, ‘Why should immigration be reduced?’
(2) WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE THE PROPORTION SPLIT BETWEEN THE SPECIAL HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMME AND REFUGEE CATEGORIES IN THE OFFSHORE COMPONENT OF ITS HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMME?
We believe that the SHP is vulnerable to corruption and coercion and therefore recommend that it be cancelled, and that the Refugee categories be allocated 100% of the offshore component.
(3) TO WHICH REGIONS (AFRICA, ASIA OR MIDDLE EAST) DO YOU THINK MOST PLACES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED?
Assimilation and integration into Australian society and culture has proven to be very difficult for immigrants and refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, evidenced by the articles in our Select Bibliography (see above) and the most recent ethnic gang riots in Melbourne on 12-13 March 2016. We therefore recommend that preference should be given to people from the Commonwealth countries, given that they are more likely to speak English and be attuned to democratic systems of government than applicants from non-Commonwealth countries.
(4) IN YOUR VIEW, HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WOMAN AT RISK PROGRAMME?
(5) SHOULD THE AVAILABLE PLACES UNDER THE COMMUNITY PROPOSAL PILOT BE INCREASED?
No, the number of places should not be increased at all. In fact, the CPP should not be continued. We believe that the CPP is a dangerous vestige of the last Labor government. It fails to take into account the feelings of the greater Australian community. The CPP is vulnerable to corruption and coercion through bodies such as churches, mosques and the refugee advocacy ‘industry’, and we therefore recommend that it be cancelled.
In the year 2000 at the Australian Demographers’ Association conference, the then Immigration Minister, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, said in his keynote address that refugees were the most expensive component of Australia’s immigration program. He costed them at $20 million per thousand per annum, back then. With inflation, increased expectations and expanded services, these costs must surely have increased substantially.
We believe that communities would be well advised to spend their resources locally rather than on refugees. We also believe that the Australian Government should maintain full control of its immigration programs and refugee selection, regardless of ad hoc community pressures.
(6) DO YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY ON THE OFFSHORE COMPONENT OF THE 2016-17 PROGRAMME?
Many politicians and prominent commentators have long suggested that Australia should push for a radical revision and update of the UN’s Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its later Protocol. (See, for example: The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention (2000).) We concur.
If reform of the Convention is not possible, then Australia should withdraw from it.
We look forward to learning the results of your consultations.
The REDUCE IMMIGRATION team