Analysis: the principle of non discrimination, particularly in the humanitarian program, seems to be eroding

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Since the abolition of the White Australia policy, the fundamental basis of Australia’s immigration policy has been proudly, declaratively “non-discriminatory”.

All of this week and last, the prime minister, home affairs minister and foreign minister all felt obliged to reconfirm this as controversy swirled over what was meant by Australia’s “special attention” for white South African farmers facing violence.

“It is non-discriminatory and it is a very generous program,” Malcolm Turnbull reiterated on Wednesday.

Julie Bishop advised South Africa to ignore Dutton's comments, Pretoria says Read more

But the evidence emerging suggests that the principle that has guided Australia’s modern migration – that it be avowedly blind to race, ethnicity and religion – appears to be eroding, particularly in the application of the humanitarian program, where the need for protection must be the foremost selection criterion.

White South African farmers face violence in a country that is beset by widespread violence. But are they at demonstrably greater risk of attack than other citizens of that country? Authorities on South Africa’s crime statistics argue “young black males living in poor urban areas … face a far greater risk of being murdered”.

The home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, said white South African farmers were hard-working and would contribute to Australia. He said his department would apply “special attention” to their case.

“We want people who want to come here, abide by our laws, integrate into our society, work hard, not lead a life on welfare. And I think these people deserve special attention and we’re certainly applying that special attention now.”

South Sudan, Somalia and Iran excluded from one of Australia's refugee programs Read more

The Rohingyan ethnic minority in Myanmar are largely farmers too. By any assessment hard-working, they face a persecution from their country’s military that “bears all the hallmarks of genocide”, according to the UN.

Might “special attention” be considered for the Rohingya as well?

Australia’s additional humanitarian intake of 12,000 refugees displaced by the long-running Syrian-Iraqi conflict was a successful intervention into a sustained humanitarian crisis.

But 80% of those settled under the special program were Christian, from a part of the world that is overwhelmingly Muslim.

It is undoubted that Christians have suffered persecution in the oppression of Daesh (Isis) and the conflicts that have benighted both countries. But Muslims have been persecuted too, and in far greater number.

Christians make up less than 1% of the Iraqi population, and 10% of the Syrian.

Australia’s intake is disproportionate too compared with the proportion of Christians among the region’s displaced. The UNHCR estimates the number of Christian refugees from Iraq at 15%, from Syria it is less than 1%.

South Africa hails 'retraction' of Australian minister's offer to white farmers Read more

It would appear vanishingly unlikely that a cohort so overwhelmingly Christian could be randomly selected from that population. That its selection occurred after significant agitation from the government’s backbench, and amid coded promises of helping “persecuted minorities”, makes its happenstance even more improbable.

The Community Support Program is a minor element of Australia’s broader humanitarian intake. It allows community groups, businesses, families or individuals to sponsor and support a refugee to come to Australia. This year there are 1,000 places.

But certain nationalities that previously had been able to access the program (when it was a pilot) have now been excluded. As community leaders from South Sudan, Somalia and Iran argue, it is hard to draw any conclusion from that exclusion beyond discrimination.

Particularly when it comes to the humanitarian program, Australia’s selection of migrants must be based not on nationality or religion or ethnicity but on need. Those who need protection most must be provided it.

There is no suggestion that Australia’s migration program is headed back to the explicit racism of White Australia. But that was a policy begun with a specific focus, then incrementally and steadily broadened.

Australia must guard against a creeping measure of discrimination in how it selects migrants, particularly those invited to the country on humanitarian grounds.

“Non-discriminatory” must mean precisely that, always.