Britain is in the grip of a crisis. Apparently. Last week the home secretary, Sajid Javid, declared the number of people attempting to cross the Channel a “major incident”, though the numbers don’t support such a claim. But that didn’t deter the newspapers.

'This is the only way now’: desperate Iranians attempt Channel crossing Read more

“Home secretary brings back two Border Force cutters to tackle migrant crisis,” says the Metro. “Sajid Javid recalls two Border Force boats to patrol English Channel amid migrant crisis,” the Evening Standard reports. “Migrant crisis,” the Sun shouts in capitals. “Two Border Force boats redeployed from the Med to patrol the Channel for migrants.” The Daily Express joined in: “Migrant crisis: 12 migrants detained at Kent beach ahead of Sajid Javid talks.” And the Times: “Migrant crisis: Sajid Javid sends extra boats to Channel.”

Scapegoating people fleeing violence and poverty is an all-too-familiar political sport in Europe and the US. But its wellspring can be found in Australia, and it’s worth joining the dots – there are lessons for the UK government as it flirts with exploiting a “migrant crisis”.

Let’s step back to 1901, when the Immigration Restriction Act was passed in Australia. The law formed the basis of the “White Australia” policy, intended to exclude all non-Europeans from immigrating to the country. Support for this policy, in subsequent years, delivered electoral success.

In the 1903 election campaign Alfred Deakin, leader of the Protectionist party – and one of the architects of the White Australia policy – argued for the preservation of Australia’s “complexion”: Deakin was elected. Stanley Bruce, in the 1925 federal election, supported White Australia: he was re-elected, with an increased majority.

But the policy came under scrutiny after indigenous soldiers defended the nation in the second world war and, after several changes in immigration law since 1947, White Australia was legally ended in 1973.

In the following decade the nation’s ethnic and cultural diversity increased, and it suited Australia. Until it didn’t.

In 1988, as leader of the Liberal opposition, John Howard called for a curb on Asian immigration. Later he publicly apologised, and admitted in 2002 that he had been wrong.

Six months earlier, though, in November 2001, Howard had been re-elected as prime minister, in the wake of 9/11 – and the Tampa episode.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Rescued asylum seekers on board the Norwegian cargo ship MS Tampa, August 2001. Photograph: Wallenius Wilhelmsen/PR Image

In August 2001, the captain of the Norwegian freighter Tampa defied Canberra’s instruction to stay outside Australian waters with his cargo of 433 asylum seekers who had been rescued from a sinking Indonesian boat, and headed for Australian waters. SAS troops seized control of the ship, and Howard introduced legislation to remove the Tampa and future unwelcome vessels. The opposition Labor leader Kim Beazley, having initially supported the government, opposed the new law and accused Howard of “wedge politics”. The bill was defeated.

But the “Pacific solution” was born: islands were cut from the Australian migration zone; detention centres were established on Manus Island and Nauru; the navy was deployed to intercept vessels carrying asylum seekers. Howard declared: “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” He was elected for a third term. It was ugly but effective, and supported by the opposition. The die was cast, and it is shaping events today.

Fear of immigration worked for the leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, and now it appears Britain is returning to the theme. On Monday the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, accused the government of exploiting the issue in the lead-up to the parliamentary Brexit vote this month.

Still, while the UK government flirts with an old Australian electoral trope, history shows it’s possible to do the right thing. In 1989, while Labor prime minister, Bob Hawke made a tearful promise to allow Chinese students to stay in Australia after the Tiananmen Square massacre. He had not consulted the cabinet. “I was told: ‘You cannot do that, Prime Minister.’ I said to them, ‘I just did. It is done.’”

The core principle of the 1951 refugee convention states that “refugees should not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay” and recognises “that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules”. Desperate people will take desperate measures to secure safety. But an individual’s dignity is denied when a government resorts to posturing against weak opposition. Amid the political bluff and bluster, it’s easy to lose sight of what’s real. Humanity.

• Russell Cunningham is a production editor on sport for the Guardian