foreign students

Larry Schlesinger, in the Financial Review (May 26, 2020) wrote a article entitled “Rental market rocked by insane student exodus.” It pertained to the “grave” concerns that a clique of high-profile property developers in Melbourne have with the cessation of massive international student migration, due to COVID 19. Property sector denizens mentioned in it were, third on the Fin Review’s “Young Rich List”, Tim Gurner; Caroline Viney, previously of Grocon, currently the chief development officer of Vicinity Centres; and Shane Quinn, a partner with the commercial property group, Quintessential Equity. The Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Sally Capp, who was until recently the Victorian Executive Direct for the Property Council of Australia, added her angst.

Tim Gurner apparently described the treatment of foreign students as, “The most insane thing,” he had ever seen in his career.

The article reports that:

“An exodus of students drove a tripling of residential vacancy rates in the inner city of Melbourne in April.”

Tim Gurner is quoted, saying,

“The rental market has taken a massive hit. It’s my biggest concern.”

We are also informed that these circumstances have led to rents falling between 10 to 30 per cent which, if sustained, would affect residential values.

Gurner related that his firm just completed a building with 140 apartments with 100 of them in the letting pool.

“We normally lease them all in two hours with one inspection. Tragically we’ve leased only half of them in six weeks. Clearly, that is a gross disparity.”

The Lord Mayor of Melbourne then gets a run, saying,

“The city is the place where people come together. Our economy is based upon the city being a meeting and gathering place.”

Such partisans of ‘growth’ have cooperated over the past decade, but particularly so since 2014, with making the international student sector a prime aspect of Victoria’s economy. The foreign student population has ballooned in the CBD of Melbourne, in recent years, as part of the supposed $40 billion bonanza to Australia’s economy.

Quite simply, these increasing numbers of international students, flooding into the CBD over the past few years, haven’t, as some like to imagine, created a cultural and material nirvana. Foreign students and Australians have all suffered from the resulting rise in rents and associated costs. And now COVID-19 has placed students in shocking situations, without employment, not qualifying for welfare payments, and often unable to return home to their families.

Maybe the property development sector should give them all free accommodation, since it has been the primary driver and beneficiary of the situation that led to this disaster.

The covert cooperation of politicians and property developers has culminated in a mass migration program that has enriched a small group of focused beneficiaries, but, in the process, has caused the world’s highest property and rental prices, with utilities, energy, and education, following suit. These skyrocketing basic costs affect employees and employers, reducing profit margins and placing pressure on salaries, whilst enriching corporate mortgage-lenders. Furthermore, this situation has made COVID-19 so much more costly than it ever needed to be. Government has had to provide income support to cover extortionate property prices, often costing the taxpayer-funded welfare sector more in rental support than in income payments, ironically whilst compensating the property industry that caused the problem in the first place.

It would be fitting if the property development sector were required to give free accommodation to Australia's homeless and unemployed.

Developer desire to profit, combined with population pressure, has also compromised planning laws and courts, permitting high rise slum prototypes in the urban areas, and mean little lots in new rural slums, as people accept ever lower standards of accommodation.

So, predictably, we have Tim Gurner, Caroline Viney, Shane Quinn, and Sally Capp, along with the collective of property groups (like the Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce and the Australian Business Council), vigorously attempting to re-establish affairs as they were, prior to COVID 19 undermining their game. They want the rental demand in the CBD of Melbourne once more from foreign students; who will occupy the real estate that they control.

How in the world did Victoria end up with being dependent upon selling education and renting property to foreigners as its most important revenue source?

Why have all of the State governments colluded with the Federal government to implement this agenda to make educating foreigners, not just Victoria’s largest export industry, but the country’s too?

The international student sector is touted as a great economic boon for Australia, when, in reality, it has put Australians in competition with high-fee-paying foreign students, for higher education - a precious national resource, with limited capacity. The crass monetisation of this sector has depressed academic standards in order to lower the admission bar, and more and more of us, foreign and locally-born, are becoming slum-dwellers. How much lower can the property sector drag us?

NOTES

*This article was developed around an edited comment from "Mary" - who did not leave her contact details, so we could not get in touch with her. We now know her as Mary Defoe.

"The greatest threat to our environment is not carbon dioxide but unsustainable immigration. As the son of a farmer, I was taught from a young age about carrying capacity and never to overstock your paddocks. Yet immigration is doing just that, causing major city congestion and overdevelopment on our city fringes. Meanwhile, regional communities are struggling as opportunities, from the lack of infrastructure, go begging. While I agree with the government's wind-back of permanent visa places to 160,000 annually, the almost two million temporary visa holders living in Australia should also be reduced." "All war is a failure of diplomacy. The current military intervention in the Middle East has lasted almost as long as World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War combined. It has gone on for too long and needs to end. Bin Laden is dead, Saddam is dead and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ISIS will only be defeated when the world calls out the Milo Minderbinder who is funding them."

First Speech: Chamber Senate on 10/09/2019 [1]
Mr President, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues in the chamber and special guests in the gallery who are here today. I would also like to thank the people of Queensland and the LNP for the faith they have placed in me to represent them over the next six years.

Self-belief is the conviction that leads to achievement. It is the optimism that inspires hard work, that turns adversity into opportunity and convict colonies into countries. From humble beginnings modern Australia has overcome immense challenges to become one of the world's great liberal democracies. Few countries epitomise the power of self-belief and the ethos of 'a fair go' better than Australia, a country that remains a beacon to those fleeing persecution and those who seek a better life for themselves and their children. Gratitude towards our forefathers who built this nation and in doing so gave us so many opportunities is what drives me to see this country continue to provide opportunities for our children. It is that aim that brings me here today.

Of all the issues faced by Australia, few are more damaging to our country than the fiscal imbalance and ambiguous responsibilities between state and federal governments. You've really got to ask why Australia, a country of 25 million people, has nine growing health bureaucracies while maternity wards are being closed in my home state of Queensland.

Our Constitution was designed to hold government to account by the people, yet 120 years of compromise has rendered it ineffective. It is time for COAG to hold a constitutional convention to clearly define and separate these responsibilities, with proposed changes put to a referendum. The blame game needs to end. Australians deserve accountability.

People pay taxes in return for essential services, not more regulation. They expect governments to build infrastructure, not sell it. Despite this, governments have privatised much of the infrastructure that delivers those services. At the same time, they have marched into the family home, the bedroom and the classroom, telling people how to live their lives, parents how to raise their children and owners how to run their businesses. The jackboot of bureaucracy is suffocating everyday choices, the very thing liberal democratic governments are meant to defend. Is it any wonder that people are cynical about governments when they walk away from providing services while imposing more regulation? Australians smell a rat when it comes to asset sales. At almost every opportunity, they have rejected it. Foreign owners, superannuation funds and corporations aren't elected, so how are they held accountable to the Australian people if they fail to provide essential services? They aren't. As such, privatisation undermines accountability, the bedrock of democracy.

The sale of critical assets to offshore entities also undermines our security and sovereignty. Just look at the Darwin Port, neoliberal economics at its finest. It seems ludicrous that Australian super funds invest $580 billion in offshore equities and bonds, yet critical national infrastructure has to rely on foreign capital for funding. This is a classic case of ideology gone mad. Our founding fathers Barton, Deacon, Isaacs and Higgins—all members of the Protectionist Party—would be turning in their graves. My forefathers left Ireland during the great famine, when powerful foreign landlords exported wheat rather than selling it to feed the starving population. National interest should always take precedence over vested interests.

Most infrastructure assets are monopolies that aren't subject to competitive market forces that drive efficient outcomes. Australia's high energy prices are one example of what happens when a market is artificially manipulated to achieve a predetermined aim. Only six per cent of superannuation is invested in infrastructure. This needs to increase.

Today, more than ever, governments need to build income-generating infrastructure such as dams, power stations, rail and ports. Just as Governor Macquarie funded an ambitious building program through the issue of the holey dollar, a government owned infrastructure bank should be created to do the same. Funding could come from infrastructure bonds and superannuation. These measures would provide essential services, employment and fixed income for retirees. It is a much better option than interest rate manipulation, which has only punished savers and prospective homebuyers. If dairy farmers can't set the price of milk to earn a fair return on their efforts, then why does the RBA, an unelected body, get to fix the price of money on behalf of the money markets? Why is there one rule for one industry and not the other?

Australia is endowed with vast natural wealth, yet until the last quarter it has run current account deficits for the best part of 50 years. In the last financial year, despite a trade surplus of $50 billion, Australia plunged further into debt, with a current account deficit of $12 billion due to capital profits paid to offshore entities. Because of the tax treaties, most of these profits are taxed at around 10 per cent or less, while profits retained in Australia are taxed at 30 per cent. Our own taxation system acts as a reverse tariff on entities domiciled here in Australia, sending profits and business offshore because of the regulatory and taxation burden placed on them. The solution to this is to ensure that the withholding tax rate on profits transferred offshore is the same as the tax rate on profits retained in Australia. Given there is $2.8 trillion in super, tax concessions for foreign investors need to stop. Australia has no shortage of capital. Increasing withholding tax revenue could fund cuts in both payroll tax and income tax. This would give workers more money in their pockets, increase business turnover and boost productivity. It's a win-win.

Ultimately, markets are a mechanism for buying and selling goods, not for producing them. The mechanism for that is the Australian people. When the convicts got off the boat, all they had was their will to survive. There were no financial instruments, regulations, scoping studies or subsidies in sight. Our prosperity has come from the hands of our carpenters and mechanics, the minds of our scientists and engineers, the hearts of our teachers and nurses and, most importantly, the persistence and innovation of small business owners. Yet today financial rewards go to the paper shufflers—bureaucrats who impose red tape, lawyers who argue semantics, fund managers who trade financial instruments and universities who sell degrees.

A true market economy is a system in which individuals own most of the resources and control their use through voluntary decisions. It is a system in which the government plays a small role as regulator. This is no longer the case in Australia, where combined government spending accounts for around 37 per cent of GDP. Our remaining GDP is becoming more concentrated between a handful of oligarchs and superannuation funds where there is very little competition or innovation. Australia will not continue to prosper while such a power imbalance continues. Innovation and productivity are driven from the ground up by individuals' hard work, not top-down by vested interests shuffling paper. As Adam Smith said:

The directors of … companies … being the managers … of other people's money … it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which … partners … watch over their own … Negligence … must always prevail …

While economic growth is important, it should not come at a cost to our quality of life. It is time immigration levels were reduced so communities can deal with infrastructure, the environment and skills shortages. Despite almost a doubling of the population in the last 30 years, state governments have built very few base-load power stations or dams. They need to address declining services to everyday Australians before the population increases any further.

The greatest threat to our environment is not carbon dioxide but unsustainable immigration. As the son of a farmer, I was taught from a young age about carrying capacity and never to overstock your paddocks. Yet immigration is doing just that, causing major city congestion and overdevelopment on our city fringes. Meanwhile, regional communities are struggling as opportunities, from the lack of infrastructure, go begging. While I agree with the government's wind-back of permanent visa places to 160,000 annually, the almost two million temporary visa holders living in Australia should also be reduced.

Skills based training through TAFE should take precedence over non-vocational university studies. Too many young people are graduating from university with massive debts but no employment prospects, while business import labour to fill skills shortages. The government's incentive payment schemes for apprenticeships are a step in the right direction. Sending everybody to university has not resulted in a well-educated population. It has resulted in worthless degrees, dumbed-down standards and vast amounts of student debt. It is a sad indictment of our education system that Australia, a First World country, has to import skilled labour, especially doctors, from developing countries.

There are over 600,000 foreign students studying in Australia, who use infrastructure funded by the taxpayer. They can also work up to 20 hours per week, competing with unemployed Australians looking for work. It is time universities, and not the taxpayer, funded the economic cost of hosting them. Universities should also underwrite student loans, which total over $60 billion. Why should the taxpayer underwrite this without a guarantee from universities that their graduates will get a job and repay their debts?

Almost 20 years ago, I finished a seven-year journey around the world that took me to most corners of the globe. The Elamite tells in Iran, and the Aleppo souk and Palmyra ruins in Syria were some of the more spectacular places I saw. It would be almost impossible for me to travel to those places today, which is a shame. As the birthplace of writing, irrigation, astronomy, algebra and our major religions, the Middle East is the cradle of our civilisation.

All war is a failure of diplomacy. The current military intervention in the Middle East has lasted almost as long as World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War combined. It has gone on for too long and needs to end. Bin Laden is dead, Saddam is dead and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ISIS will only be defeated when the world calls out the Milo Minderbinder who is funding them. As Eisenhower said:

>
No nation's security and wellbeing can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow nations.

Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible. Twenty-first century foreign affairs have been characterised by belligerent rhetoric and an unwillingness to seek peace through diplomatic channels. This needs to change. Sound diplomacy and strength of position is the foundation of peace.

Of all the foreign policy achievements in my lifetime, none was more inspirational than Reagan and Gorbachev in ending the Cold War. Their willingness to work together is the example that world leaders should follow today. As Reagan said:

People want to raise their children in a world without fear and without war. They want to have some of the good things over and above bare subsistence that make life worth living. They want to work at some trade that gives them a sense of worth. Their common interests cross all borders.

Australia needs to continue the good work the government is doing by building alliances with our Indo-Pacific neighbours. We are only as strong as we are united and as weak as we are divided. We also need to strengthen our defences here in Australia, using superior technology that will protect Australians and not line the pockets of vested interests.

The undeniable truth I learnt from my travels is that we're all the same. We all want a roof over our head, food in our stomach and a better life for our children. What binds us together is much more than what drives us apart. We must promote a unified Australia, rather than ideologies that seek to divide us. To rephrase Reagan, our common interests cross all identities. Cicero once stated: 'Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.'

There are so many people I have to thank for being here today, but first I would like to acknowledge a special place—my home town of Chinchilla. As a small agricultural town of around 6,000 people on the Darling Downs, it has played a major role in the development of the gas export industry in Queensland. Despite this, there has been a gradual erosion of essential services to it and many other small towns in Queensland. Worst of all was the loss of its maternity ward. When I grew up, Chinchilla had at least three midwives, one of whom was my mother. Despite a much larger economy today, it has none. The people of Chinchilla deserve better.

A rural upbringing has given me a deep appreciation of the land, its people and the challenges they face. I will stand up for our regions to ensure that they receive their fair share of government funding and services. Their contribution to this country has been the foundation of our success.

I would not be standing here today if it wasn't for the support and hard work of the party members. The LNP, as a volunteer organisation, only survives thanks to the tremendous hard work of its grassroots members. When the media ask, 'Who is the "base" of the party?' the answer is simple. It is the members and volunteers, who give up so much time and effort to run election campaigns, organise meetings, write up the minutes and keep the books. Without volunteers, the party and our communities go nowhere. They represent the silent majority who are proud of their country and their way of life. Thank you for your support.

Special thanks to my fellow Senate candidates Paul Scarr, Susan McDonald, Amanda Camm and Nicole Tobin, and to my fellow LNP Queensland colleagues for their invaluable advice and support. I also acknowledge all the candidates who ran in the federal election for having a go. Our democracy is only as strong as the courage of the people who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in.

To my mates here today, thanks for taking the mick! God forbid we ever take ourselves too seriously!

To my elder siblings, Michelle, Jim and Caroline, thanks for guiding your little brother here today. I know mum would be proud of us all.

To my in-laws, Robyn and Darcy, thank you for all of your support and help over the years.

To Dad, you've been my political mentor throughout my life, and your values and views I will carry with me in this chamber.

To Mum, I wish you could be here. Your unconditional love has, without a doubt, made me the person that I am today.

Family and self-reliance are values I hold strong. The family unit is the foundation of a stable society. As a father of three, I believe in the saying, 'It is not what you do for your children, but rather what you teach them to do for themselves.' We need to teach our children that with self-belief comes self-reliance.

That same attitude is one all Australians should adopt. We should not take our success for granted. To remain self-reliant, Australian control of our infrastructure, defence and natural wealth is vital. How can we teach our children to be self-reliant when we've left them with nothing in the cupboard for them to rely on?

For the last four years, I have had the pleasure of staying home and raising my young children. So I know how important it is that parents are with their children at such a young age. There is no greater bond than that between the parent and the child, and it is one that governments should seek to preserve. There is no substitute for mum and dad.

This brings me to my two great loves, my wife and children. Lauren, you are a wonderful mother and a fantastic wife. I couldn't ask for anything more. To my children, Sean, James and Scarlett, staying home to help raise you for the last four years has been the greatest pleasure of my life. And, while I will miss you, always know that, just as I have found strength and support from my family and friends, you will too. We live in a great country that with self-belief and hard work will reward your efforts.

In the words of Henry David Thoreau:

… if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavours to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected … He will … pass an invisible boundary … solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty, nor weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.

To that end, I look forward to serving the Australian people to help nurture their aspirations so they too can build their castles in the air. Thank you, Mr President.

NOTES

[1] This speech is published in Australian Hansard, Tuesday, 10 September 2019, p.68. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/fa4eb7cb-4d6f-4c8d-9f9d-61609bc1003a/toc_pdf/Senate_2019_09_10_7134.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22chamber/hansards/fa4eb7cb-4d6f-4c8d-9f9d-61609bc1003a/0146%22">

In November 2018 The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) published an analysis of the higher education overseas student industry. It was framed around the remarkable growth in the share of commencing overseas university students to all commencing students over the years 2012 to 2016. This share increased from 21.8 per cent in 2012 to 26.7 per cent in 2016.

Bob Birrell and Katharine Betts
(This post is republished from John Menadue’s site, Pearls and Irritations, 27 December 2018.)

In November 2018 we published an analysis of the higher education overseas student industry. It was framed around the remarkable growth in the share of commencing overseas university students to all commencing students over the years 2012 to 2016. This share increased from 21.8 per cent in 2012 to 26.7 per cent in 2016.

Since publication, higher education statistics for 2017 have been released. They show  that the share of commencing overseas students to all commencing students have increased to 28.9 per cent. In the case of the Group of 8 (Go8) universities, by 2017 this share had reached well over 40 per cent in the University of Sydney, ANU, and the University of NSW (Table 1).

The following brief summary indicates why such extreme reliance on overseas students should be of concern. We then explore another issue, not canvassed in the November report. This is the implications of the rapid growth in overseas student commencements for access to higher education on the part of domestic students.

This a highly topical matter because in December 2017 the Coalition government announced that it would henceforth cap the level of domestic higher education enrolments. Since that time, Australia’s universities, including the Go8, have mounted an offensive against this decision on the grounds that it limits opportunities for domestic students. Yet the enrolment data examined below indicates that, at least since 2012, the Go8 have effectively enforced just such a cap on domestic enrolments.

A summary of the November report’s findings
The November report argued that the overseas student industry was in a precarious state because of its increased reliance on overseas student enrolments. The share of overseas commencing students to all commencing students at Australia’s universities increased from 21.8 per cent in 2012 to 26.7 per cent in 2016.

We concluded that the tail was wagging the dog. That is, such was our universities’ reliance on overseas students, that most were prioritising the health of the overseas student industry over the educational needs of domestic students. In the case of research, the universities’ focus was primarily on basic research. This is because it is this that is relevant to their aspiration to achieve a place in the top 100 institutions in the global university ratings systems. As documented in the November report, research of this kind is the most likely to be accepted by the top international journals that drive the ratings system. Research focused on local priorities wouldn’t make the cut.

Australia’s overseas student industry is split into two distinctive markets. The first includes most of the Go8 universities, where overseas students were charged some $40,000 a year, mainly for courses at the undergraduate and post-graduate-by-coursework level in business and commerce. Most of the students are Chinese. Indeed, between 2012 and 2016, the total increase in overseas student commencers at Go8 universities was 13,738 . Of these 12,198 were Chinese.

Students’ (or parents’) willingness to pay for such high priced courses can be attributed to the fact that they deliver credentials from a university rated in the international top 100. (This includes almost all of the Go8.) Qualifications from these universities appear to be highly regarded in the Chinese labour market. Relatively few of these Chinese students stay on in Australia after completing their studies.

This enrolment pattern helps explain the universities’ focus on basic research. In order to maintain enrolments from China, they have to promote such research because it scores best on the metrics used by the international ratings systems.

The second market is composed of almost all the other universities. The number of overseas students enrolling in these universities also increased significantly between 2012 and 2016 (though at a slower rate than occurred in the Go8). However the countries of origin were primarily located in the Indian subcontinent. Most of these students were attracted to Australian universities because of the access their enrolment gave them to the Australian labour market and thus to the potential of a permanent residence visa.

We concluded that the overseas student industry was in a precarious state. In the case of the Go8, overseas enrolments were vulnerable on three points.

First is the risk of reputational damage on account of the poor quality of the education overseas students are receiving. In the business and commerce faculties at the Go8, where Chinese students often constitute the majority, such courses have had to be made less demanding so that the many Chinese students with relatively limited English language skills can cope with their requirements. Then there is the risk from geopolitical tensions that threatened Chinese enrolments. And finally there is the risk of competition from other countries.

For the other universities the main issue is current changes in the rules governing overseas-student access to the Australian labour market and to long-term employment contracts. This means that their chances of obtaining a permanent residence visa are contracting. As a consequence we argued that these changes would diminish the attraction of enrolling for higher education at a non-Go8 Australian university.

Table 1: Per cent share of commencing onshore* overseas students to all onshore commencing students, Go8 universities and all Australian higher education institutions, 2012, 2016 and 2017

Source: Department of Education and Training, Higher Education Statistics, Table 1.10, Commencing Students by State, Higher Education Provider, Citizenship and Residence Status.
* The term onshore is used to distinguish overseas students being educated in Australia from those in Australian campuses set up overseas. The latter are not included in these figures.

Higher education opportunities
Australia’s universities repeatedly assure the Australian public that increased enrolments of overseas students are not damaging the prospects of domestic students aspiring to a university education. Rather, they state that the two sets of enrolments are independent of each other; opportunities for locals are not being crowded out.

How could this be? Well, according to a 2014 policy document from the Go8, international students actually ‘directly facilitate domestic participation in higher education’. This is achieved, the document claims, because revenue from overseas student fees contributes to the costs of domestic education. It asserts that international student fees ‘subside each domestic student by around $1,600’.

This might seem plausible given that domestic enrolments have increased since the removal of enrolment caps for domestic students in 2009. Over the years 2012 to 2017 (years in which overseas enrolments expanded rapidly) the number of commencing domestic students at Australia’s universities increased from 370,314 to 416,371.

The result is that a very high share of the cohort of university age are currently enrolled as higher education students. In fact, university competition for potential domestic students is such that some universities have seen a drop in their domestic enrolments over the past couple of years. Concern that this enrolment scramble had gone too far (and was costing the Commonwealth government too much in funding) prompted the Coalition government in December 2017 to announce that it would re-impose enrolment caps in 2018 (caps which Labor promises to withdraw should it win government in 2019).

The universities have responded to these caps by insisting throughout 2018 that they amount to a reduction in opportunities for domestic students. According to Margaret Gardiner, Vice Chancellor at Monash University, the cap acts as a funding freeze which ‘will limit the share of highly-skilled well-paid jobs in our economy that can be done by qualified Australians in the decades ahead’. Or, in the words of the newly appointed (in June 2018) Chief Executive  of Universities Australia, the reinstating of caps puts an end to the ‘unearthing and unleashing’ of talent that has occurred since the caps were removed, starting in 2009.

If expansion of overseas student enrolment was helping to create opportunities to increase domestic enrolments you would expect that more domestic students would be gaining places in Go8 universities. Over the period 2012 to 2017, when there were no caps on the number of domestic students that any university could enrol, domestic student commencements at Go8 universities barely moved. They were 87,939 in 2012 and 87,930 in 2017. By contrast, over these same years the number of overseas student commencements at the Go8 increased from 30,320 to 56,363. (The data are drawn from Higher Education Statistics releases, various years.)

Given that there were no caps in place, the Go8 could have taken more domestic students over these years. Many more thousands of these students would have jumped at the opportunity to attend a Go8 university. They were precluded from entry by the high ATAR  entry thresholds imposed by Go8 universities. Such is the Go8 universities’ prestige that they attract the best domestic performers in secondary school exams. Like the overseas students, domestic students know that a credential from a Go8 university gives them a competitive advantage in the labour market (in this case within Australia).

The stabilisation of domestic enrolments was not because the Go8 lacked the capacity to increase their student load. They did have the capacity, but all of it has been taken up by increased enrolments from overseas students.

Clearly, the Go8 universities preferred to enrol overseas students. In effect, the benefits of the allegedly superior education that these universities offer went to overseas students rather than to local students. This was not because overseas students had superior potential to take advantage of what the Go8 offers. The contrary is the case. The Go8 do not preference high performing overseas students. There are minimal entry barriers to their enrolment other than the ability to pay the huge fees required.

Conclusion
Australia’s universities, especially the Go8, are caught in a vicious circle as their reliance on overseas student revenue deepens. This reliance means that they cannot prioritise teaching which benefits the vocational needs of their domestic students, to expand enrolment opportunities for domestic students or to focus on research activities relevant to Australian industry or the well being of Australian citizens.

Report authors
Bob Birrell (mobile 0413 021 126) is the Head of the Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI), an independent, non-profit research organisation. Katharine Betts is deputy head.
This paper is based on two TAPRI research reports:
Australia’s higher education overseas student industry revisited, December 2018  and Australia’s higher education overseas student industry: in a precarious state, November 2018.

In early April, Monash University ran a television advertisement, promoting itself as an institution that challenges the ‘status quo’. The advertisement sarcastically ‘thanks’ and therein belittles ‘contented and settled’ conventional people in different walks of life; they are accused of ‘closing down ideas’ and ‘accepting things the way they are’. It is inferred that the pathology of social conformity, which presumably blights the great majority of us, is the antithesis of life at Monash, where students are admitted to an enlightened elite that is supposedly unconstrained by social norms and conventions. Implicitly, being unfettered by the mental torpor of the majority, this elite becomes the rightful moral guardian of the unenlightened crowd.

At first glance, this may not seem altogether unsurprising from an institution of higher learning where, most people would expect, there should be robust social and cultural critique, a contest of ideas and the creation of new knowledge.
On reflection, however, the Monash advertisement requires closer examination. Aside from its crude and arguably un-Australian appeal to snobbery and pretence, the advertisement reflects a deeper intellectual and cultural malaise that has come to characterise Australian society over recent decades. The advertisement says much about the way in which Australian universities and the intellectual class more broadly have, in effect, seceded from Australian society and are now hostile to notions of the national interest that remain meaningful to mainstream Australia.

An ironic outcome of this secession from the nation is that, rather than being a powerhouse of unconventional intellectual enterprise and free-thinking, as the Monash advertisement piously would have us (the cultural sleep walkers) believe, Monash now represents a straightjacketed orthodoxy of a new kind.

Over several decades, the university-trained intelligentsia has increasingly identified with a set of attitudes which has set it apart from the values and expectations of a large part of the general populace. Central to this political and cultural divide is an inflexible and increasingly authoritarian commitment to a borderless, cosmopolitan world view, expressed through support for high immigration, support for elements of the free-market right deregulatory economic agenda, and an ideological fixation with cultural pluralism or ‘social inclusion’.

Underpinning the cosmopolitan orthodoxy of the intellectual class is a barely disguised contempt for the general populace, whose political instincts are stigmatised as basely parochial, inward looking and un-inclusive. Any hint of national interest in public discussion or government policy is immediately condemned as a form of resurgent xenophobia.

This estrangement of the intellectual class from the values and aspirations of those who still believe in a social mainstream has been a long time coming. Former advisor to Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, observed in the early 1990s the emergence of a class of workers involved in the intangible and abstract processes of problem identification and non-routine information management. In context of the disruptive impact of global economic integration – manufacturing decline, enterprise off-shoring, precarious employment and ascendant neo-liberalism, the class of ‘symbolic analysts’, as Reich called them, prospered as the national economy declined. Reich correctly identified the risks for US society: growing social disparities and weakening social cohesion combined with an ascendant class with an ever more tenuous commitment to the social mainstream. Reich correctly concluded that the “laissez cosmopolitanism” of the new class was socially dangerous.

There have been similar developments in Australia. “Laissez cosmopolitanism” now thrives within the Australian university system. A self-proclaimed global university, Monash is a foremost example. Monash has been increasingly dominated by a corporate, business management logic and a cosmopolitan commitment to the inculcation of global citizens who engage with an unbounded world and exhibit cross-cultural competence. Monash effectively functions as a transnational corporation for which the Australian national interest is largely a troublesome anachronism. John Monash’s creed that people should not only equip themselves for life, but for the benefit of the “whole community”, now seems strangely incongruous – what community?

Of course, the cosmopolitan high morality which is the raison d’etre of Monash as an institution, and of the intellectual class which occupies it, reflects a great deal of crude material self interest. As the umbilical cord of gold to the public purse weakens, Monash has invested heavily in attracting an overseas student clientele. Any pretence to serve a ‘national’ interest has become ever more tenuous. At the same time, its intellectuals’ careers and status hinge upon the institution’s global market strategy. ‘Social inclusion’ has material benefits. One consequence of this is that, we are reaching the point where the ideal of universities like Monash being ‘public’ institutions is losing its factual basis.

In one sense the main message of the Monash University television advertisement is quite honest. As an institution, it has become host to an ascendant intellectual class who have largely divorced themselves from the aspirations and values of the broader community, which they view with mistrust. In another respect, however, the advertisement is dishonest. The groupthink of the elite which now dominates Monash University is not intellectually unconstrained and open, but straight jacketed by a cosmopolitan dogma; an ideological immune system which rapidly identifies and purges from within its ranks any non-conforming interpretation of society. Anyone who thinks that cosmopolitan idealism and intellectual tolerance go hand in hand may be in for a rude surprise at Monash University.

"France isn't in the business of stealing educated elites from developing countries that need doctors and engineers." (French Minister responsible for immigration) In France, university education is free for citizens and for foreign students - but there are quotas on foreign students and preference is given to French citizens. In view of the global financial crisis, the French Minister in charge of immigration now aims to cut the number of work visas for foreign student professionals by half.

French policy on Foreign Student visas and Change of status in marked contrast to Australia's

Claude Guéant is the Minister for the Interior in France, a position that traditionally carries the immigration portfolio. At the moment he is attempting to reduce the opportunities for legal immigration to France. One of his targets is to reduce by half the list of 30 occupations open to non-Europeans. (France has an open-door policy to other European Union nationals, who almost automatically acquire ten-year visas and permits to work. For people outside the EU, including Australians, Canadians, Americans, non-French Africans, Chinese and Indians, visas rarely extend over three months. A 'permanent visa' only lasts up to one year. No visa comes with an automatic permit to work. The latter must be sought independently from local prefectures. Although policy 'memos' (known in France as 'circulars') emanate from the Minister for the Interior from time to time, the interpretation and execution of these policies is carried out at local and regional level. On November 18, 2011's France 2, 8pm news, there was a report on protests and complaints from international students who had gained their qualifications in France but who were either being refused work permits or work permit renewals and being asked to leave the country. Guéant has said that "The right to study in France does not equal the right to work in France." Note that, in France, universities are free to French and foreign students with visas, but there are quotas on numbers, with preference given to French citizens.

Claude Guéant's Memo on skilled migration to France

France: 31 May Skilled Immigration Policy memorandum to Regional and Departmental Prefects from Minister of the Interior:

"Objective: Controlling skilled immigration"

"Summary: The Government aims to adapt legal immigration to French society's needs and her capacity to welcome and integrate it. Taking into account the impact on employment of one of the most severe economic crises in history, this objective implies a reduction in immigration numbers, in line with the national objective recently announced, by adopting a qualitative and selective approach. In effect, priority must be given to the employment of professionals already legally resident in France, whether they be French or foreign. It is therefore your responsibility to exercise vigilance to ensure that applications for work permits are rigorously informed. You should be all the more rigorous where the employment in view is not particularly highly skilled. The procedure for change of status (students applying for professional work permits) should be closely supervised. Exceptions for students applying for a provisional visa in order to look for work must remain rigorously limited. Having lived legally in France as a student, salaried worker, or holder of a card of "competencies and skills" does not carry a right to any special consideration in the procedure of granting a work permit. These rules also aim to reinforce the fight against employers who misunderstand regulations protecting the right to work. To ensure that these instructions are properly executed, you should organise a meeting of specialists in these matters at your level." Source: http://www.circulaires.gouv.fr/pdf/2011/06/cir_33321.pdf - Translated by Sheila Newman from original French.)

This 2011 French immigration policy is interesting because it denotes a policy reaction that is very similar to one taken during the 1974 oil shock by the then Minister for the Interior responsible for immigration in France, Andre Postel-Vinay. Similarly, today, in 2011, the global financial crises that repeatedly threaten are probably symptoms of the rising cost of petroleum and other energy sources - like nuclear, plus the huge cost of wars currently being fought to regain power over oil producing states that won independence through OPEC.

The rationale which accompanied the ministerial recommendation to reduce immigration to France in 1974 was clearly based on the perception that economic hardship would be long lasting, blow out of population in the Third World would be inevitable, and that France could not save the world's poor by taking them all in.

André Postel-Vinay was the Minister responsible for immigration at the time. He had also previously been the main person responsible for administering foreign aid funds[1] for 27 years and was well aware of the burgeoning populations and economic and political problems in the third world. As well as this familiarity with external events, from 1963 to 1974 he had overseen the administration of an organisation for immigrant housing in France. His knowledge of the situation which had created the bidonvilles was extensive. His "Immigration Policy" recommendations were copiously studded with statistics about the gravity of immigrant housing problems. Whilst urging diversion of funding to improve housing for those immigrants already in France, he also advocated publicising the appalling housing situation and poor economic outlook overseas to the traditional sending countries in order to discourage both prospective immigrant workers and their families.[2]

Postel-Vinay said that three factors made ceasing immigration a preventative necessity: the doubling of third world population by late in the 20th Century; the likelihood of profound and lengthy economic crisis; and the problem of the public housing shortage for both French and foreigners.[3]

“The doubling of third world population that we are led to expect by the end of the century, gives rise, in my opinion, to considerable danger. [...] Unless development skills and technology were to improve at an astonishing rate, unless the spirit of human solidarity were to spread in a quite novel way, the proliferation of the human species will increase poverty and malnourishment over vast territories...

To reject, on principle, the idea of stopping or limiting the entry of new immigrants, would mean that we must allow immigration to increase, even if it adds to unemployment and the peopling of slums. This is indefensible. [...] I am aware of the shocking character of any kind of interruption to or limitation of arrivals, the inhumane quality of sending people back to poverty; but that poverty, alas, is likely to constantly increase and to reach geographical regions ever further away: we cannot take in an unlimited amount. We would perish without relieving it.” (André Postel-Vinay in an interview with Le Monde, 29/9/74, translated by myself.)[4]

This was to become long-term policy in France and the EEC.

The French immigration writer, Weil, theorised that shifts in French power-elites' bipartisan positions were based on fundamental economic changes, rather than on democratically expressed resentment of immigrants. (Immigration theorist, Money, maintained the latter.)[5] Weil's theory finds support in contemporary documents and interviews with Postel-Vinay in France and I found corroboration of these in opinions later expressed by Postel-Vinay to myself.[6] Postel-Vinay said that the situation with immigrants was reaching crisis proportions of homelessness and unemployment. I asked him if anything in particular had influenced him to believe that the oil shock related recession would be especially long and serious. He replied that he had been particularly influenced by the head of the CNPF (Confederation nationale du patronat français - National Confederation of French Employers)[7] at the time who had told Postel-Vinay that the recession was likely to be long and hard, with materials shortages, and that, since industry would be unable to employ immigrants it would be advisable to stop immigration.[8] Postel-Vinay then recommended the reduction in immigration. He also gave me a copy of the original document, "Immigration Policy" which alluded to advice from the CNPF.[9]See "The Growth Lobby and Its Absence," Appendix 6, "Copies of Original Documents from André Postel-Vinay.

Was ceasing immigration a logical economic decision arrived at independently by Germany, France and Belgium?[10] André Postel-Vinay told me that it had been his own idea to suggest it, but that persuading the government was helped considerably by the fact that Germany had already made the decision.

More on Foreign Students and French employment from Claude Guéant in 2011

Guéant further precised that there has been absolutely no reduction in the number of foreign students admitted on French territory, which remains at around 60,000 per annum. [...]

But I say that in a country [...] where each year 110,000 more people people arrive on the job market, you have to start by concentrating on local demand for work. You have to recognise the differences between several kinds of countries (...) We have to be very careful about some countries. France isn't in the business of stealing educated elites from developing countries that need doctors and engineers." [11]

NOTES

All notes come from "The Growth Lobby and Its Absence," except for note [11]

[1] From André Postel-Vinay, Minister responsible for Immigration from May 1974, in an interview in Le Monde 24/9/1974, cited by Weil in La France et ses étrangers, pp.83-84.

[2] See "The Growth Lobby and its Absence," Appendix 6, Document 'B', p.A6-3 for a copy of the original in French: André Postel-Vinay, "Politique d'immigration", (Note de M. André Postel-Vina pour le "Comité restreint"), 1 July 1974 (8 pages, numbered to 9, with pages 2 and 3 cut and stuck together and then photocopied. For instance, he wrote that "Whilst our housing program has never exceeded 117,000 dwellings in total, for the entire population, French or foreign, the number of families of foreign workers arriving each year in France has risen, on average, to 38,000 since 1970. In a country like ours, where there are a considerable number of slums, the comparison between the two numbers - 117,000 and 38,000 - gives an idea of the tensions and social oppositions that can arise in response to such a high rate of family reunion." Patrick Weil, La France et ses étrangers, op.cit., p.86, contains details of the anouncement that was circulated immediately to sending non EEC States warning them of France's decision to stop immigration and of the problems intending immigrant would encounter if they attempted to find work, housing and visas in France.

[3] From André Postel-Vinay, Minister responsible for Immigration from May 1974, in an interview in Le Monde 24/9/1974, cited by Weil in La France et ses étrangers, pp.83-84.

[4] Postel-Vinay gave me a copy of this interview himself, commenting that he had just re-read it and wanted me to know that it was an extremely accurate journalistic account of his reasons for ceasing immigration. He told me this on the occasion of a visit to his Paris apartment to collect copies of documents on the morning of Saturday 13 January 2001. The quotation is of André Postel-Vinay, Minister responsible for Immigration from May 1974, in an interview with Jean Benoit in Le Monde 24/9/1974, pp 19-21.. Here is the original of the text translated above. “Le doublement de la population du tiers monde que l’on nous promet pour la fin du siècle, présente, à mon avis, des dangers considérables. [...] À moins que l’art et les techniques de développement ne réalisent des progrès d’une étonnante rapidité, à moins que l’esprit de solidarité ne se répande d’une manière imprévue, cette prolifération de l’éspèce humaine aggravera la misère et la sous-alimentation sur de vastes territoires ... “Rejeter, par principe, l’idée d’une interruption ou d’une limitation des entrées de nouveaux migrants, cela reviendrait à soutenir que nous devons laisser se développer l’immigration, même si elle contribue à l’accroissement du chômage et au peuplement des taudis. Ce n’est pas défendable [...]. Je n’ignore pas les aspects choquants de toute mesure d’interruption ou de limitation des entrées, le caractère inhumaine de ces refoulements de la misère; mais cette misère hélas, risque d’affluer toujours davantage et d’arriver à des secteurs géographiques de plus en plus lointains : nous ne pouvons pas l’accueillir sans limites. Nous en périrons sans la soulager.”

[5] See Chapter 4, thesis, "The Growth Lobby and its Absence," for my literary review of these authors.

[6] During a visit to his Paris apartment to collect copies of documents on the morning of Saturday 13 January 2001.

[7] The CNPF is the National Federation of French Employers.

[8] In response to a question that I asked Postel-Vinay during a visit to his Paris apartment to collect copies of documents on the morning of Saturday 13 January 2001. See other documents supporting these recollections of Postel-Vinay further on in my thesis, where I go into the events of 1974 in more detail.

[9] See "The Growth Lobby and its Absence," Appendix 6, Document 'B', p.A6-3 for a copy of the original in French: André Postel-Vinay, "Politique d'immigration", (Note de M. André Postel-Vinay pour le "Comité restreint"), 1 July 1974 (8 pages, numbered to 9, with pages 2 and 3 cut and stuck together and then photocopied. On page 7 he has written: "Dans la conjoncture présente, il y a tout lieu de croire que cette décision d'interruption serait bien vue des grandes organisations syndicales et, même, sans doute, du CNPF, au niveau supérieure." "In the present situation there is every reason to believe that this decision to stop [immigration] will be looked upon favorably by the big unions and, even, without doubt, by the CNPF, at a high level."

[10] As claimed by Georges Tapinos in "The Dynamics of International Migration in Post-War Europe", in G. Luciani (ed), Migration Policies in Europe and the United States, 1993, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, Chapter Six, p.133.
[11] "Étudiants étrangers : Guéant défend sa circulaire"

Gigi Foster of UNSW is a researcher whose analysis of the marking of international students' work provided for the first time evidence of universities passing their work despite inadequate English-language skills.

Foster says her statistical analysis reveals that international students are being allowed to underperform and this is being camouflaged to an extent by grade inflation. The dumbing-down of our universities is due to an over-reliance on foreign students, and they will eventually be victims of their own success in luring overseas dollars. Standards will fall, and with tighter restrictions on PR, our universities won't be so attractive internationally.

At the same time, these poor English skills weigh on the results of domestic students in the same tutorials. It would also prohibit the level of conversations for native English speakers.

The research by Dr Foster raises important issues about university grading, especially whether lower language fluency affects grades received.

According to a report in The Australian , an academic in the business faculty at a Victorian university said Dr Foster's concerns were "spot on". The academic, who asked not to be named, said three-quarters of his classes tended to be made up of international students, of which half "could barely hold a conversation".

Gigi Foster has done a study looking at the marks of students of different backgrounds in different classes. The variation she can work with is the performance of international students relative to domestic ones in courses that have varying degrees of these two types (at UniSA and UTS). She consistently found that the internationals do worse but, because courses are graded ‘on the curve’ (the distribution of marks is almost mandatorily the same across large courses in university) international students do better when there are fewer domestics in the course to pinch the higher marks. So their results are relative to the standard of the contemporary students. Thus, our university standards will "improve" (on paper) with more foreign students enrolled!

Amanda Vanstone says .."we have a wonderful system that allows you to get a tertiary education and to pay later . . . much later. So the remaining two-thirds of school-leavers just have to make the best of their lot". It would be interesting to know what study-loan debt Amanda had. She probably did her university education in the days when people could got to university for free, or at least when they were paid a living allowance.

Those studying at TAFE in Victoria, and who already have tertiary qualifications, are also charged with HECS-like loan fees, to deal with "skills shortages". Without parental support, the costs of studying are prohibitive.

There is no "free ride" for university students. The costs are tremendous - in the study-load, the stresses of juggling living and working, in long-term commitment, and financially. The outcome does not always guarantee wealth, or career certainty.

Ironically, while our universities and educational institutions are being touted overseas as of high quality, it is also being publicized that we have "skills shortages". Australians are dumb or lazy?. It means that our government is failing to provide quality affordable education to our young citizens, potential professionals and skilled employees. They are being bypassed in favour of those who are trained overseas, at their own expense. They are also being disadvantaged by foreign students who could be compromising the standard of our own tertiary education system, and the number of supported students in our universities.

Australians have found it very hard to protest against high immigration because of constant subtle messages from government and media implying that they had no right to object. They have been given the idea that there was nothing special about them that gave them the right to object. They only lived here. Although only Australians might vote in governments, the importance of this was subsumed to a cult of plutocracy, where governments prioritised commercial and corporate demands over the wishes of the actual electorate. The mainstream press (the ABC, the Murdoch Press, the Fairfax Press) promoted a cult of elite authoritarianism and the official alternative press never really encouraged questioning of this process on issues of real dissent. And the elite authorities all endorsed 'multiculturalism'. One has only to glance at the membership of the Multicultural Foundation of Australia to realise how true this is.

Pino Migliorino, Chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, cited by John Marlowe in "Immigrants calling for more immigrants - dare one criticise and we will brand them 'RACIST'!", says:

"In 1989, we showed international leadership and created a National Multicultural Policy, the principles of which are still relevant. We then retreated from this vision and began a discourse about integration rather than about dialogue, which, similar to the principle of assimilation, implies that one side has more rights than the other simply because they were there first, or what is worse, because they are superior."

For me there are two problems created through the policy of multiculturalism as practised in Australia, and they are not really about 'culture' in the sense of 'ethnicity'.

They are both political problems to do with democracy and the civil rights that should go with citizenship.

Citizens rights

1. The first problem is that, in a democracy, the incumbents -"those who were here first" - the citizens - are members of a community which should have the right to self-government. The right to self-government should not be limited, except by the citizens themselves. I believe that multiculturalism has been used as a way of blurring the fair expectation of civil rights for a citizen by implying that citizenship - or 'being here first' - carries no special rights.

Citizenship should be clearly different from the state of being an immigrant, tourist or visitor. In many countries (such as France) even being a 'permanent immigrant' means having the right to stay in that country only for up to one year. To be a 'permanent immigrant' with the same sense that term has in Australia, the person needs to become a citizen. It is problematic that being a permanent immigrant, according to the Australian definition, carries similar rights to citizenship in Australia, if it does not also carry the expectation of membership of a community that recognises itself as a political entity of members sharing responsibility for their community and its territory and is able to act to preserve these. An approach to this ambiguity is made in this article Rubenstein, Kim “Constitutional issues associated with integration: the question of citizenship,” Bureau of Immigration and Population Bulletin No 11, 1994, pp 41-43.)

Although citizens in Australia have far fewer straightforward rights than European citizens (who mostly have Civil Codes setting out their rights at law), an Australian citizen can vote. can run for office, (although our corporatised media dominates elections) has a right to primary and secondary education, and to hospital and medical treatment.

Australian citizens also did have, until recently, relatively good industrial relations laws. Premier Kennett in Victoria in 1996, allowed Victorian State industrial Awards to be dismantled and turned over to the Federal system, then Primeminister Howard undermined Australian industrial rights to conciliation and arbitration under s.51 xxxv of the Australian constitution, with his WorkChoices, which sought to bring as many people as possible under s55xx of the constitution, applicable to corporations and thus outside the jurisdiction of s.51xxxv. With this protection gone, Australian working conditions can now be easily undermined by labour hired overseas at lower wages and imported here as immigrants.

Australians used to own most of the resources in this country, as a group of citizens. Increasingly, many of these resources, assets and commodities have been privatised. This takes them out of effective control by citizens, see Justice Michael Kirby's skilful argument, here, in "Why privatisation is wrong." Population growth, in raising demand for resources, assets and commodities, makes them attractive acquisitions for corporations, political parties and wealthy elites. This is why those elites defend high immigration and why their media attack its critics.

Australians once also had chief rights to study in Australian universities, with only limited places allocated for foreign students, who were usually on scholarships, not coming as 'cash cows'. The commercialisation of universities contributed not only to lower ethical standards, but it also caused a preference for high fee-paying foreign students. This created competition for Australians who found that they had to borrow more to meet higher fees themselves. Where fees for Australians remained lower than those for foreign students, the numbers of places available for Australians declined.

In France and other European countries, universities are still free to citizens, places for foreign students are still limited, and they still come on scholarships.

Australians also used to have exclusive rights to purchase 'built property' , i.e. houses, in Australia. This right protected them from having house prices bidded-up by foreigners with better currency, such as happened with Japanese buyers in Hawaii. Unfortunately we have lost this protection recently as well. Just have a look at the National Foreign Investment Review Board's Annual General Reports over the years to see how much Australian Real Estate has gone into foreign hands. Over the past twelve years particularly, loosening of the foreign acquisition, land and house-buying laws, (begun under Primeminister Fraser) has seen Australian property flogged mercilessly via the Murdoch and Fairfax press property dot coms on the internet, and has also seen a huge number of solicitors, migration agents, bankers, real-estate agents, property developers and schools and universities touting property, migration and education in Australia over the internet.

Much of this seems to have been achieved by bringing in lots of immigrants to raise demand for Australian land, housing, jobs and education, thus pricing these things more and more beyond the reach of the majority of local people, who should be in control of what is happening to them.

Australians have found it very hard to protest against this high immigration because of constant subtle messages from government and media implying that they had no right to object. That there was nothing special about them that gave them the right to object. They only lived here. Although only Australian citizens may vote, a growing cult of elite authoritarianism - of a plutocracy - was promoted by the mainstream press - the ABC, the Murdoch Press, the Fairfax Press - and the official alternative press never really encouraged questioning of this process on issues of real dissent. And the elite authorities all endorsed 'multiculturalism'. One has only to glance at the membership of the Multicultural Foundation of Australia to realise how true this is.

In its turn, the policy of multiculturalism had been used to make citizenship ambiguous. The statement quoted above, from Pino Migliorino is typical in questioning the idea that "one side has more rights than the other simply because they were there first." This kind of introduced ambiguity has stifled protest by angry citizens at this obvious erosion of their rights, and the power of Australian citizens to govern their own country. To call the citizens of a self-governing community, "those who were here first," is to diminish the role of the community and thereby of its right to democratic self-determination; to imply that those who come here do not come to join that community, but some other community, governed perhaps by big business and the elite authorities, (who tend to own the very assets, commodities and resources for which population growth inflates the prices).

Erosion of democratic expression

2. The second political problem is the use of multiculturalism as a foil for growing the population without democratic consultation and implying that those who do not want more people must be anti-'multicultural' /racist.

As if it were not bad enough for Australian citizens to have their legitimate expectations of citizenship thus belittled and put aside, a second prong has been found for multiculturalism by the creation of a racist straw-man. The racist straw-man is trotted out and set on fire by the corporate press, the ABC, and the elite authorities any time that Australians object to population growth because of environmental and cost-of-living concerns as they see green spaces filled with houses, expensive and unwanted desalination plants replace clean and free running water, and native animals trapped by expanding infrastructure. And the elite authorities reliably receive support for this destructive process from the oddest sources.

Here is an example

Damien Lawson, FoFA [Friends of the Earth] National Climate Justice Coordinator, signed an open letter declaring that: 'We are shocked and angered that the ACF has supported Labor MP Kelvin Thomson's calls to cut Australia's migration rates". The letter concludes by calling on 'the ACF and Kelvin Thomson to withdraw their anti-migrant statements'. (28) The issue has since been addressed by the group's National Liaison Officer, Cam Walker:

[A]s always happens when population and the environment comes into the mainstream debate, it becomes a useful smoke screen for people
and organisations with racist agendas who can then call for limitations on population growth, while purporting to be concerned about the environments. [Source: Walker, Matthew P.A., "Population growth in Australia: how environmental groups are responding," People and Place, April 1, 2010.

If multiculturalism were simply a policy for giving people a fair go, no matter where they came from, whilst preserving the democratic rights of citizens to self-government, it would be a fine thing. But isn't that the purpose of human rights and citizens' rights in a functioning democracy anyway? And, can you enforce human rights without citizens' rights? No, you can't. So, why not have a policy for citizens' rights?

Australian-based Japanese students mistaken possum for cat!

I recently received the photograph above with the following email message:

"Subject: Lost Cat found........... posted by Japanese students renting in Brunswick,VICTORIA

AND FEEDING IT CAT FOOD TOO !"

The students had apparently posted a picture of a possum they had found in the street, believing it was a lost domestic cat. Admirably, they were feeding it and looking after it, whilst seeking a rapid return to its owner. Perhaps even more incredibly, the possum seemed to have adapted to its new role as a rescued domestic cat.

Incredible - yes!

Incredible, eh? What cute naivety on the part of those Japanese students. What must the possum think of the whole thing, you wonder? Did it stay with the students? Did it manage to get them to enlarge its diet to include seaweed salad and radishes? Did the students eventually realise that what they had was not a cat, and change the possum over to its rightful diet of gum-nut flowers and coastal tea-tree, perhaps with the occasional desert of red geraniums?

The real story

Actually, this poster is a fake. Sandy Fernee writes, "The possum is one that was in a shelter over 10 years ago, in fact the picture was stolen from the shelter operators' posting."

But the real story is a nice one too. "The possum was released 10 years ago and has probably had lots of babies in the wild [...] This fake poster has been going around for about 2 years now."

She adds, "Please remind people with injured possums that they should call their local wildlife rescue group."
Sandy is the Executive Officer at Wildlife Victoria www.wildlifevictoria.org.au and a licensed wildlife carer.

Photo by Julia Buch

Totoro or Pokemon possums

Come to think of it, while we are on the subject of Japanese view-points, possums look a bit like Tortoro, a giant friendly Japanese wood-spirit made famous through the Japanese anime, film, My Neighbour Tortoro.

And Tortoro looked like a great big Pokemon, the Japanese cartoon animal hero.

It would in fact be nice if the Australian Brushtail Possum were to have the same support that Pokemon has, world wide. As it is, in many places in Australia our brushtail possum wood spirit look-alike is atrociously treated and disrespected. Anyone who has formed a relationship of mutual trust with a brush tail possum - through raising one or looking after an injured one for a long time, knows what fun they are - and how cute - as well as courageous and social. They are, however, mistreated by many councils in Australia, treated as 'pests' by the state government, and seen as a target for cruelty by some members of the public.

The possum is a powerful suburban advocate for all Australian wildlife and so many Australians and Australian visitors miss out on possum magic. Tortoro was a kind of animal god who made friends with some children and protected them and was remembered all their lives. How much richer our lives in Australia would be if we gave that kind of respect to that curious and sociable, playful and mischievious, but independent creature, who tries to get along with us in the suburbs - our friend - the common brush-tail possum.