Australia is both a large and a small country: a vast, continent-size landmass with a population less than that of Delhi. Due to its wealth Australia has some capabilities to exert influence internationally, but Canberra lacks the real power to negotiate the world with strength, sophistication, and confidence. In an era that has rapidly become the most dangerous since the 1930s, Australia seeking to enhance its security and efficacy through a larger population should be an easy sell.
But, of course, it is not this simple.
Last weekend saw a series of protests take place in Australian cities against immigration. The organizers claimed that the events were merely a protest against the scale of migration to Australia – or “mass immigration” as is the shibboleth (a scale about which they are misguided). But, of course, Neo-Nazis and other fringe groups recognized the opportunity the protests presented to stamp their own branding upon them.
Despite the explosion of wealth and reduction in poverty that has followed the significant rise in the number of people on Earth in the past century, human beings are hard-wired to think about humanity as a zero-sum game. The belief in the “finite pie” – where one’s share is diminished by the needs of others – is persistent, and impervious to the explanations of every credible economic theory. When people divide themselves into ethnic or racial groups this thinking then intensifies into humanity’s darkest impulses.
Aside from extreme examples like North Korea, very few countries have more control of their borders than Australia. Part of this is geography, being a fairly isolated island continent almost impossible to reach by boat. But another part is the country’s skills-based migration system, and the slow bureaucratic maze and offensively expensive visas that govern it. The hurdles one has to clear to gain entry into Australia are Olympic in difficulty. Anyone who does should have the enduring respect of the Australian public.
However, at the same time, Australia has pursued a significant migration policy due to a birth rate below the replacement level – and the need to protect against having too few workers to pay for an aging population. It has also sought to enhance its skilled workforce, both filling current labor shortages, and seeking to find the highly complex skills that the country lacks and needs.
Australia has also sought to steadily build the size of its population in order to enhance its ability to defend itself and to have greater diplomatic, economic, and cultural reach. To attempt to be a serious player as the global center of gravity shifts to the Indo-Pacific, Australia will need a population to match.
It’s not just a suspicion of Australia’s shifting demographics that has fueled the recent protests. There is also something deep within the national character that is suspicious of this global ambition – and thus the structural changes necessary to fulfill it. The idea of Australia being a serious international player is deemed unnecessary and above the country’s station. At worst there’s a strong desire to shrink from the world.
Australia has been able to safely maintain this mindset due to a global hegemon that shared its values. However, as the United States has now shifted its values, and the People’s Republic of China has become more powerful and assertive, Australia’s comfortability with its lack of capabilities is a luxury it can no longer afford.
This means that Australia has to find a way to give its immigration policy a new social license. This should involve structural initiatives that enhance social cohesion – like national and community service, and practical programs for migrants on how Australia functions and its values – even if these go against Australia’s liberal instincts of being less “hands-on” with building national integration and purpose.
This also means that governments in Australia have to think seriously about the messaging they use. Progressive politics, especially, has difficulty speaking outside of in-groups. This is why its messaging falls flat with others, and often creates backlashes. Pointing fingers and calling people racist simply doesn’t work. It builds resentment and entrenches views. Highlighting differences, rather than highlighting unity across demographics, is also counterproductive.
If emotional insecurity is what drives people’s suspicion of new Australians or those with non-majority backgrounds, then Australia’s immigration program has to be sold as a policy designed to enhance the country’s security. It needs to be made clear that a smaller Australia is a weaker Australia, one less independent, less capable of handling difficult global conditions, and a country susceptible to bullying and submission.
It is not just global conditions that have become more dangerous, it is internal conditions in countries like Australia as well. The two are intimately linked. This requires a recognition that Australia’s social cohesion is essential to its capabilities as an international actor. For this cohesion to be enhanced, Australia needs to think seriously about how to persuade those suspicious of immigration that it is an essential tool to bolster the national interest. As the protests last week have demonstrated, the status quo isn’t working.