[lg policy] Australian Immigration debates and policy

[Harold Schiffman]

[ ...]

V. 4 No. 1 THE PARTICIPATION OF NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING-BACKGROUND
PERSONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Ian Dobson, Bob Birrell and Virginia Rapson

Current equity plans for Australian higher education are based on
research which claims that non-English-speaking-background (NESB)
people are under-represented in the universities. The problem is held
to be particularly acute for recent arrivals and equity plans are
currently in place to rectify this situation. The background research,
however, is inaccurate. Young NESB people have higher participation
rates than English-speaking-background people. In some cases, such as
the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese speakers, the level of
participation is striking.

Has anyone thought the positive, i.e. it is because those of NESB
value education and will do everything possible to achieve? Conversely
“Anglo Australians” are not so motivated, receive less than optimum
advice and encouragement in their formative years, while choosing
“easier” subjects? Tennis player Pat Cash when asked why there were
now very few internationally competitive Australian players versus
more significant numbers of Central Eastern Europeans, stated that the
latter “would crawl across cut glass” to achieve while Australians
would not.

V4 No. 2 RECENTLY ARRIVED MIGRANTS AND SOCIAL WELFARE Bob Birrell and
Samantha Evans

This article explores the impact of the Coalition Government’s
proposals to limit recently-arrived migrants’ access to social welfare
benefits. It concludes that while the short-term consequences for
these migrants will be severe, the proposals do not address the more
significant long term welfare costs of family migration.

Implies, that “Australians” who were formerly migrants have not been
punished enough in first generation and we should start focussing upon
future generations of migrant family reunions as well? Fits the
stereotype that immigrants of NESB only migrate for benefits, return
home and/or get their families out to follow suit.

V4 No. 3 THE IMPACT OF LANGUAGE TESTING ON THE REGISTRATION OF
IMMIGRANT DOCTORS Lesleyanne Hawthorne and Julie Toth

Before non-English-speaking background doctors holding overseas
qualifications can begin the medical and clinical examinations
required to practise in Australia they must first pass an English
language test. This has proved to be a severe hurdle for some language
groups, in many cases delaying their progress and, in others,
preventing significant numbers from proceeding to the medical and
clinical examinations.

Effective cross cultural communication is not simply a language issue,
it is generally a two way negotiation where participants need to be
sympathetic and aware of related communication issues within a
cultural context. This is exemplified by body language, use of
slang/argot, Australian accent can be incomprehensible (even to other
native speakers of English), tests such as IELTS were designed for
formal study entrants, both VET and university, not workplace
communication culture and proficiency. Further many health/medical
personnel of NESB are not provided with training, orientation nor
ongoing support for the Australian workplace, which is then compounded
by Australian colleagues without other language and cross cultural
skills e.g. empathy regarding pitfalls and misunderstandings that can
occur in workplace communication.

V.4 No.4 IMMIGRANTS AND THE PROFESSIONS Bob Birrell and Lesleyanne Hawthorne

Migrants have made a major contribution to Australia’s
professionally-qualified workforce. Those arriving pre-1980s and early
1980s have largely been able to convert their qualifications into
professional level employment. However, later arriving migrants have
been far less successful..

Is this a coincidence that the authors are focussing upon arrivals
since the early 1980s, i.e. higher numbers of Asians? Have they
offered any solutions? How welcoming have predominantly “skip” or
Anglo workplace and employers been?

V.4 No. 4 NATIONAL IDENTITY AND SOCIAL VALUES F.L. Jones

This paper identifies different groupings of Australians according to
their views about what really matters for being ‘truly Australian’. It
also characterises these groupings in terms of their attitudes on
other issues and their socio-demographic background.

Why should such a question even be considered, is it not highly
suggestive in a supposedly sophisticated and multicultural society
that Australia represents? When similar questions have been raised in
other countries, and enacted, it has led to cultural exclusivity and
by its nature excludes those who are different, e.g. Nazi Germany,
Apartheid South Africa etc..

V.4 No.4 PATRIOTISM, IMMIGRATION AND THE 1996 AUSTRALIAN ELECTION
Katharine Betts

In March 1996 there was a gap between political candidates and voters
on the question of immigration and (with the exception of Coalition
candidates) on the question of pride in Australia’s history. On both
questions Coalition candidates’ opinions were closer to those of the
voters. Concern about immigration is unlikely to have cost Labor the
election by itself, but this concern is linked to feelings of national
pride. Both attitudes are strongly associated with a vote for the
Coalition and may well have swung the tide against the Keating
Government.

With Australia’s history of racial prejudice toward Aboriginals and
Asian migrants manifested since Federation by official “white
Australia” policy informing all society and political parties, plus
the media, it is hardly surprising. This was compounded further by
Pauline Hanson then John Howard’s (re)claiming of the racial vote with
concurrent “dog whistling” (as opposed to his public anti Asian views
of the 80s). Not only did it give licence to racists who would prefer
a return to “white Australia” policy but fair minded Australians
unconsciously espoused incredibly patronising attitudes, if not
implicit prejudice, towards immigrants and NESB Australians.

V6 No.2 POPULATION POLICY: MAJOR PARTY POSITIONS Katharine Betts

The author outlines recent developments in the politics of population
policy in Australia. Many Australian conservationists and scientists
are concerned about the demographic future of their country. Their
focus is on the numbers and they are thinking for the long term. The
politicians, and perhaps many of the voters, may think the numbers are
a secondary issue. They may be confused by them and have little
understanding of what they are or what they mean. Voters and
politicians are more likely to feel that they understand the question
of the Australian identity, and to respond to political messages about
whether this identity should or should not be considered as source of
pride. Environmentalists will have their work cut out to persuade the
people and their leaders to maintain a clear focus on the next half
century and the overall trajectory of the country’s future.

Firstly population growth figures have been skewed by scare stories
leading to surges of temporary entrants due to mooted migration
changes in the media (and those who applied some years earlier during
economic boom), and is an issue of greater Melbourne, Sydney, Perth
and Brisbane, not Australia. Rather than focusing upon the abstract or
external factors get out of cars, more public & intercity transport,
smaller houses, more apartments, real energy and service costs. No
matter what environmental policy Australia moots or implements the
majority of Australians are not prepared to compromise in any way, yet
many have solutions not considered by state governments.

The real issue is Australian obsession of urbanisation compared with
the USA and Europe. Why are we not paring back capital city resources
that attract further population and maintaining state governments
beholden to local city based power? Implementation of real regional
development policy could include weakening of state borders (and
related anomalies), taking power from state governments e.g. health
funding direct to regions, education to federal (with a national high
school certificate of education), merging state & federal government
departments and moving to regional cities, giving regions power to
offer incentives for direct international investment (internet and
local communities already preclude the need for state capital based
advisory and other related bodies)

Why is there no attention paid to real issues and problems in
Australia concerning our population and urban centres:

Under use or ignorance of our multicultural NESB resources in
workplaces and regions i.e. community links, languages etc. for
marketing, provision and support of Australian international trade,
services etc.?

Lack of positive non Anglo Celtic European stereotypes in the media
and advertising e.g. ABC’s Australian Story features predominantly
skips and token Aboriginals?

What is Australia doing to deal with ageing population, retiring baby
boomers, decreasing tax base and related problems in future such
funding health care, aged care and pensions?

Widespread use of temporary employment contracts leading to job
insecurity, lack of innovation etc. while predominantly ageing baby
boomer permanents amble into retirement…at the expense of generation
X, Y and NESBs?

Airline security re. “War on Terror” since 9/11 as highlighted by
whistle blower Kessling? While resources are used to give more
authority to Customs etc. to inspect majority of Australians and
international visa holders after disembarking aircraft upon arrival,
bikies can brawl, and much air cargo departing on aircraft avoids
inspection? Surely nothing to do with agenda at worst of breeding fear
and obedience, or at best window dressing?

Damage to the Australian brand and character in the eyes of the
international community, regional trading partners, tourists and
international students?

Lack of any serious policy and discussion of regional development?

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

    * Australian Immigration Policy Debate

http://aiecquest.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/australian-immigration-policy-and-dr-bob-birrell/

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list