Australians rightly embrace ethnic diversity, yet concern about immigration is justified

While Australians have rightly abandoned the White Australia policy since the 1960s, unwound its heavy reliance upon European immigration, and currently support multiculturalism (85%) while rejecting the selection of immigrants by race (80%) and religion (74%), I do not believe that all is well with Australia's recent immigration intake.

My concern exists despite most Australians overcoming any stupid notion of racial supremacy after longstanding interaction between people from different ethnic backgrounds, and exposure to business, sporting and entertainment excellence from many nationalities (including black, African, Jewish and Asian).

While the concept of multiculturalism promotes shared fundamental values that enable different cultures to co-exist on a complimentary rather than competitive basis, I too hold some fear that multiculturalism in Australia has the potential to be divisive if any preferential treatment is given to migrant groups which may undermine the dominant culture.

In line with such concern, I reject any argument that liberal democracies should give ethnic minorities representation in line with a belief that democracy is "a plurality of constituent democracies".

Thus far, I believe that Australia's multicultural experience has proven largely successful by upholding three sensible aims better than most other nations. As discussed in 2015 by Kenan Malik they include 1) Welcoming mass immigration, but not formally institutionalising cultural differences; 2) Treating everyone equally as citizens rather than as bearers of specific racial or cultural histories, yet never ignoring discrimination against particular groups; and 3) Overcoming debates about culture and common values by embracing diversity and avoiding any construct of a nation which alienates some "in a tribal fashion that presumes a clash of civilizations".

In other words, while many Australians do have considerable affinity with a British and Western legacy, its policy mix towards different ethnicities has been vastly different from the national examples of other liberal democracies that "enacted either multicultural policies that place communities in constricting boxes or assimilationist ones that distance minorities from the mainstream".

However, history shows that Australia too must always take heed of public opinion when it comes to immigration.

For example, the Howard government's initial reduction of immigration numbers in the late 1990s followed a June 1996 AGB McNair poll which found that 65% thought the immigration level was too high given the current level of unemployment, with 60% also concerned over the number of migrants settling under the family reunion component.

And with other polls from the late 1980s expressing more opposition about 'cultural maintenance' by immigrant groups, including a survey by the Office of Multicultural Affairs, the Howard government's 1999 and 2003 statements upheld the concept's social and economic benefits yet promoted a commitment by new citizens and residents to Australia and the basic structures and values associated with Australian democracy.

By 2020, however, given recent trends, there are again legitimate reasons of concern about Australia's recent immigration program, albeit numbers are currently stalled in response to the coronavirus epidemic

For example, the recent heavy reliance on Chinese and Indian migrants has the potential to create greater domestic resentment as many Australians are denied housing and employment opportunities.

With both China and India having both huge populations (nearly 3 billion between them), including large pools of professionals seeking employment overseas, Australian governments have relied on such sources to a greater extent for housing and employment needs. In 2018-19, migrants from China and India numbered 24,282 and 33,611, around 40% of Australia's 160,323 total immigrant intake combined.

In terms of housing, while it has been previously argued that most of the rapid housing price rises in Sydney and Melbourne by 2014 could not be attributed to foreign investment, one real estate player in 2019 noted the absurdity of allowing high foreign ownership of domestic housing (then mainly Chinese and Indians) given his estimate that around 500,000 of Australia's 10 million dwellings were now owned by foreigners.

At the same time, various sources estimate that home-ownership rates have already fallen for most age groups within the Australian population, especially for the 25-to-34-year-olds which fell from 60% to 45% between 1981 and 2016.

In 2020, while one source indicated that Chinese investment in Australia real estate halved from $12.6 billion to $6 billion in the 2018-19 financial year (albeit dwarfed by US and Canadian investment which exploded to a combined $32.8 billion), Chinese interest in Australian property remains despite tougher internal policy settings by the Chinese Community Party (CCP) and Australian governments introducing foreign investment application fees while doubling stamp duty in Victoria and NSW.

Another 2020 article notes that Chinese buyers were returning to the Australian property market, despite the coronavirus crisis, in order to secure their wealth from the CCP. According to George Chmiel from the Chinese property portal Juwai, inquiries from Chinese buyers only dipped 14% in the first quarter compared with 40% for local buyers with demand still strong because of Australia's successful handling of the coronavirus crisis, a lower Australian dollar, and Australia remaining "very attractive for students, investors and retirees" given its lifestyle and resilient property market.

In employment terms, despite Australians of Indian ancestry (both born here and abroad) comprising just 2.8% of the Australian population (675,658) by 2016, albeit with 58% of the Indian-born population holding a bachelor's or higher degree compared to 22% of the wider community, the impact of Indian immigration has been profound in recent years

As Tim Colebatch argued in 2017, at a time when the Turnbull government rightly replaced/modified the 457 visa program, there is indeed a major policy problem when just one in six full-time jobs between 2008 and 2016 in net terms went to people born in Australia (74,000 of 474,000 full-time jobs created) with almost half of the full-time jobs to foreigners (168,000) going to workers born in India and its neighbours.

Again, while Indian immigrants benefited most, the same is not true of the Australian population. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of unemployed Australian-born increased from 338,000 to 507,000 (54%) with the number of them in full-time jobs growing by just 1%.

In terms of school leavers, those finding a full-time job between 2008 and 2016 shrank by a massive 214,000 (21%). While some of this figure was due to many staying in full-time education longer, the number of education leavers in part-time work jumped by 29% while their unemployed number grew by 36%.

In the decade to June 2015 it is easy to see just who benefited. With 371,000 "temporary workers (and families) arriving in Australia on temporary 457 visas to fill jobs for employers that could not be filled by Australians, around 60% of them (226,000) got to stay in Australia by "mostly swapping their temporary visa for permanent residency".

Given my added concern that Australia's dynamic culture will best evolve from the interaction between its domestic population and migrants that is not undermined by large ethnic minorities arriving too quickly, I argue that migration numbers from China and India should be limited with Australia ensuring a diverse migration intake from a greater number of foreign national sources.

However, in line with the aim of not formally institutionalising cultural differences yet treating all citizens equally, Australia must continue to make sure that no migrant group experiences racism.

For example, given current Cold War tensions, with Australia rightly siding with the US against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within the battle for influence between liberalism and authoritarianism, Australia must take every measure to respect and protect its Chinese Australian population which the 2016 census estimates comprises around 5% of Australia's population (1.2 million).

It is precisely the Chinese migration story which now provides Australia with an opportunity to promote leadership through a progressive sense of universal values that is not racist as the real enemy is the CCP and not the Chinese contribution to Australia and humanity.

As one Chinese Australian suggests, with most Chinese Australians also concerned about foreign interference (including from China) and supporting legislation that protects Australia's way of life and national interest, Australian governments should "involve Chinese Australians at the highest level to help reset and redefine bilateral ties" rather than "assuming that some Chinese Australians are agents of influence secretly in thrall to Beijing".

Such an approach would help avoid the previous sentiment by elite Chinese Australians abandoning their earlier hopes of inter-ethnic "equality" and "liberalism" in Australia when they turned to racial nationalism following Australia's anti-Chinese legislation which saw the rapid decline of the Chinese-born population from 29,000 in 1901 to 6,000 by 1947.

Hence, while the CCP endeavours to use the Chinese diaspora abroad "to do Beijing's bidding" by organising "hundreds of faux community or friendship or patriotic associations", while even threatening harm to families if they do not contribute to the CCP effort to obtain any desirable information (including scientific, technological or military), Australian governments must take every measure to protect its own values and Chinese people who embrace Australia.

This is already evident in Australia with the Morrison government rightly exploring alternative pathways to residency for people in Hong Kong under threat by the CCP crackdown on its freedoms, and Australians being made aware through media reports that several Hong Kong students in Australia had been pressured by Chinese loyal to the CCP through death threats, having their address and personal information disclosed in WeChat (social media for Chinese people), and being followed home by Chinese nationals who ignored police warnings to leave.

Of course, with Australia now facing a likely future with considerable economic and security difficulties, compounded today by the coronavirus epidemic and an increasingly aggressive CCP, we all have a responsibility to make our society work. This may include Australians doing much more to fill employment vacancies rather than relying on immigration, Australian governments doing much more to promote employment and housing opportunities for Australians, and Australia putting some limit on foreign ownership levels (regardless of where the foreign buyer comes from).

Australian governments cannot simply rely on opinion polls that suggest all is well with Australia's acceptance of ethnic diversity, and use this tolerance to take easy economic policy options that rely greatly on immigration for our economic growth and future social needs.

For instance, 2019 research (Breen and Birrell) suggests that international medical students may be denying Australian born their opportunities given that over 600 international medical students are now enrolled at Australian medical schools each year (a 242% increase since 1994) compared with approximately 3200 local students.

Breen and Birrell reveal that many universities have charged international medical students around $80,000 per year for their medical education, while receiving an average $32,912 for each domestic student ($22,472 from government and $10,440 from the student), and that most international student graduates will obtain permanent residence. This is in line with student surveys which indicate that the majority of such international students seek to live in Australia permanently with a government workforce planning committee also assuming that 70% will remain here.

To conclude, yes Australians can be proud of living in a relatively successful multi-ethnic nation, one where all cultures are respected and protected by law, but there is always a need for an appropriate policy mix that also addresses Australian employment, industry and cultural needs.