Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Integration or disintegration: a test for immigrants

By Bill Muehlenberg - posted Friday, 22 September 2006

Prime Minister John Howard has been receiving some flack (expectedly) from the left, the multicultural lobby, and the forces of Political Correctness (PC), over some rather sensible remarks he made recently concerning immigration.

Speaking at a Greek community event, he suggested that would-be immigrants to this country seeking Australian citizenship should meet several simple demands: they should have lived here for four years; they should know a bit about Australian history and values; and they should be able to speak English.

Nothing too hardcore about all that, it seems to me. In fact, it sounds perfectly sensible. If a person wishing to live in this country is not willing to learn the language (and four years should be plenty of time for that) and understand a bit about what Australia stands for and believes in, including some of our history, then a good case can be made that that person is not fit for citizenship.


All this makes perfect sense. No country can long survive if it does not rest on a shared set of values and beliefs. While there certainly can be diversity, there also needs to be a core of unified values and convictions that all can agree too. Assimilation and integration, in other words, is vital to any nation seeking to survive and thrive. No country will succeed for long if it allows a million competing values, beliefs and languages to run unchecked, with no social and cultural glue to hold it all together.

Of course it is always difficult to get the right mix. Some nations, like Japan, achieve stability and integration because of its strong homogeneous make-up. Other countries, like Australia, that have a much more heterogeneous makeup, must work harder to achieve unity and cohesion. With so many different cultural, ethnic and racial groups all living in this continent, a core set of beliefs, a common language, and a shared view of what it means to be Australian are minimum requirements to achieve some sort of cohesion and stability.

It is simply national suicide to expect that a nation cannot discuss and seek to agree upon some common themes and core beliefs as to what that nation stands for and believes in. To expect unchecked diversity without some unity is a recipe for disaster. Yet many on the left seem to want just that.

Consider some of the reactions to Mr Howard’s proposals. Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said the Government was scaring people for cynical political advantage. What is so cynical about seeking national cohesion and unity? What is so horrible about wishing that assimilation, not disntegration, be the way ahead? Why are such common-sense steps opposed here?

The Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria condemned the proposed “draconian” changes as “cruel, unfair and against the national interest”. What is so draconian about this? Many European nations have much stricter rules, and much longer waiting periods. Indeed, a 10-year waiting period is not uncommon in Europe.

Incredibly, some described the proposals as “divisive”! For example, Australian Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said the proposed changes “will be a waste of time at best - and socially divisive at worst - if it just involves shallow jingoistic nationalism and prejudice about Vegemite, mateship and the Melbourne Cup”.


But what is really divisive is coming to another country and refusing to even try to become part of it in various ways. Learning the language is the first obvious attempt that needs to be made. Division will certainly occur if the immigrant not only rejects the host nation’s values, but cannot even communicate in the country. That is real division. Unity comes when everyone can communicate with each other, and certain agreed-upon values are maintained.

Thus we need to reject this Orwellian doublespeak that suggest that such proposals are somehow divisive. Quite the opposite.

And Federal Labor seemed to be hyprocritical in its denunciation of the plan. This is because just a few days ago the opposition leader Mr Beazley had proposed an even more stringent test, not just for would-be immigrants, but even for those simply visiting here! He suggest that everyone coming here sign a values pledge. So it is a bit rich for him to now condemn Howard with his less strict proposals.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

91 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Bill Muehlenberg is Secretary of the Family Council of Victoria, and lectures in ethics and philosophy at various Melbourne theological colleges.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bill Muehlenberg

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Bill Muehlenberg
Article Tools
Comment 91 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy