Coalition's migration plan draws accusations of dog-whistling and comparisons to Trump

The Coalition has outlined a new migration policy aimed at reducing immigration and strengthening the vetting of visa applicants, but the plan has sparked immediate criticism from Labor, the Greens, and refugee advocates, with some comparing it to Donald Trump's approach to immigration.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor unveiled the first phase of the policy at the Menzies Research Centre in Canberra, proposing to make the existing Australian values statement a legally binding condition of any visa. Under the plan, a breach of the values test would enable refusal or cancellation of visas, and those who do not respect Australian values would be "booted out of Australia." The policy also includes a requirement for permanent migrants to learn English, and a new "safe country list" to fast-track refusals for asylum claims from countries deemed safe to return to.

Taylor argued that migrants from liberal democracies are more likely to subscribe to Australian values, "compared to those migrating from places ruled by fundamentalists, extremists and dictators." He also proposed an "Enhanced Screening Coordination Centre" with intelligence, screening, and enforcement capabilities to stop "radicals, extremists and terrorists from entering the country," and did not rule out an ICE-style enforcement force to crack down on those overstaying their visas.

Criticism from Labor and the Greens

The plan has drawn sharp rebukes from Labor ministers. Home affairs minister Tony Burke accused Taylor of "desperate dog-whistling" and said millions of Australians would be asking why the Liberals have a problem with their parents who do not speak great English but are great Australians. Burke challenged Taylor to name a single person who cannot currently be refused or have their visa cancelled under existing laws, arguing the plan is "a discussion and a meme" rather than a real policy.

Labor's broader concern, as stated by Burke, is that the policy will fundamentally change the character of the nation by favouring migrants from liberal democracies. The Greens likened the approach to a modern revival of the discriminatory White Australia policy, while the race discrimination commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman, and immigration advocates have also voiced opposition.

Former minister warns against law enforcement approach

Amanda Vanstone, a former Howard government minister and immigration minister from 2003 to 2006, warned Taylor against turning immigration into heavy-handed law enforcement. She said most migrants from countries run by dictators and extremists move to Australia to escape authoritarianism, telling Guardian Australia, "people who want to get away from authoritarianism come here to escape it, not to reinstitute it." Vanstone did back the requirement for permanent migrants to learn functional English, but argued that immigration should not be treated as a law enforcement portfolio.

Hanson claims credit, but says plan won't win back voters

Pauline Hanson claimed credit for the Coalition's shift, saying she had no doubt that One Nation's surge in the polls pushed the opposition into adopting a hardline immigration policy. However, she also said the plan would not be enough to win back voters abandoning the Liberals and Nationals. Hanson's comments came as Taylor was also criticized for preferencing One Nation above the independent community candidate, Michelle Milthorpe, in the upcoming Farrer byelection.

Comparisons to Trump and Howard

Although Taylor did not directly reference Donald Trump, his policy has drawn comparisons to the US president's immigration agenda, particularly the focus on "bad countries" and the emphasis on screening for ideological compatibility. Taylor told the ABC's Insiders program that "there is a higher risk that some bad people come from those bad countries," citing Iran as an example. He sought to distinguish his approach from a discriminatory framework, insisting that Australia's non-discriminatory migration system would remain intact.

The plan has also been compared to John Howard's rhetoric from 2001, when he said Australia should "decide who deserves protection" and under what circumstances. Taylor acknowledged that comparison was deliberate, and Howard, seated in the audience at the Menzies Research Centre, reportedly smiled.

Lack of detail raises questions

Former Immigration Department deputy secretary Abul Rizvi said "just about every Australian" would support a greater emphasis on Australian values, but he was concerned about the lack of detail in the proposal. "The real challenge is how does he operationalise all this? Now, on that, he has given very little detail. What would be the cost? How would the legal issues be addressed? How effective would this be?" he told the ABC.

The policy also includes a measure to limit the government's 5% first homebuyers' deposit scheme to Australian citizens, blocking permanent residents from accessing help to purchase a home. Taylor took the plan to housing estates across Queensland in a bid to link migration to housing affordability.

Perspectives

  • Labor and the Greens criticize the plan as dog-whistling and a revival of discriminatory policies, arguing it targets specific communities and fails to address existing legal powers.
  • Former minister Amanda Vanstone backs the English language requirement but warns against turning immigration into heavy-handed enforcement, citing the importance of immigration to Australia's national identity.
  • Pauline Hanson claims credit for forcing the Coalition's shift but doubts it will win back voters, suggesting her own party remains the primary beneficiary of anti-immigration sentiment.