Terrorism, Immigration, and Multiculturalism

Abstract

Three defining events have shaped public policy in Australia towards the war on terrorism. The September 2001 attack on New York was obviously the first. This prompted legislation in the following year that expanded the powers of the main intelligence body, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and expedited its move from intelligence collection to security operations. The second was the bombing attacks in London in July 2005, which shifted the emphasis from immigration control to domestic vigilance. The third was the major race riot at Cronulla, Sydney in December 2005. This alerted authorities to the deterioration in ethnic relations created by these previous events and led to increased penalties against violence. No terrorist attacks have happened in Australia. Only a handful of arrests have been made, most awaiting trial. Loss of life has been confined to the Bali bombing of October 2002, which was not directed specifically against Australians. This resulted in greatly improved cooperation between Indonesian and Australian security and police, something that had started to develop in response to the prevention of unauthorised asylum seeker arrivals, most of whom came through Indonesia. Thus the major policy shifts were from border protection to internal security. But the public debate was more concerned with immigration, multiculturalism, and the integration of the Muslim population. Both the 2001 and 2004 elections were fought essentially on security, to the advantage of the ruling Liberal-National coalition led by John Howard.PLANNED, SELECTIVE, AND CONTROLLED IMMIGRATIONThere is nothing random about Australian immigration. Everyone entering for whatever purpose must have a with the exception of New Zealand citizens. New Zealanders receive a nominal visa on arrival. Others arriving without a valid visa may be returned to their place of origin or given a visa, which allows them to remain while their status is determined. Those seeking asylum under the UN convention and protocol on refugees (1951/1967) will also be given a bridging visa if they arrive on another visa. If they have no they are mandatorily detained until their status is determined. This has been the case since 1993.1Those asylum seekers arrested at sea were often deported to two Islands (Nauru and Manus) under the now suspended Pacific solution of 2001-02 Refugees and humanitarian settlers are processed overseas mainly through the UN high commissioner for refugees or by Australian migration posts. Ideally, then, nobody enters Australia other than in transit without the permission of the Australian government. If they do, they are interned. This was clearly stated by Prime Minister John Howard during his victorious 2001 election campaign: We will decide who comes to this country and under what circumstances. While this implicitly breached the UN convention of which Australia is a signatory, the principle of national sovereignty has been rigorously asserted ever since. This was easily sustained. Regular passenger access to Australia is now exclusively by air and there are fewer than 20 regulated points of entry.3This tightening of admission criteria follows a long history of planned and financially assisted immigration (1831-1982) that allowed Australian authorities to select those immigrants they favoured. Steadily over the years, the visa system was extended until it became one of the tightest in the world. But state intervention also involved actively encouraging immigration, usually with financial inducements such as paid or subsidized passages. Just as few other developed societies so rigidly imposed visas, so no other so generously encouraged those it wanted to settle. This degree of state control is not fully understood in Australia even now. In public debates that break out from time to time, many seem to think that anyone can come to Australia. This is far from being the case. …