There are two laws for how to get out of a hole: the first is to acknowledge you are in one. The second is to stop digging.
I suspect Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton won't care too much for this advice. He is clearly enjoying his job, playing the populist card with great aplomb. His advocacy of special consideration for white South African farmers facing non-compensated eviction from their land, follows on similar concessions that continue to be made to Zimbabwean farmers.
To my knowledge, this humanitarian largesse hasn't been extended to many of the farm labourers, many of whom are not Zimbabwean citizens but sons and daughters of Malawian and Mozambican immigrants and were left without work and terribly vulnerable. It is never good to conflate humanitarianism with other motives.
Dutton's comments drew predictable criticism of his being racist. Perhaps more unusually he also drew criticism from members of his party who accused him of undermining the humanitarian system. This issue plainly works at a number of levels and demands more considered reflection.
In promoting Dutton to the new 'super-portfolio', the Prime Minister closed the loop of ensuring the securitisation of the so-called humanitarian program, and has left the door open for the mixture of values and motivations behind it to increasingly reflect the single minded pursuit of national interest narrowly understood.
The minister is doing nothing more than performing to a carefully and long-time prepared script. Let us be clear: the issue is not about the plight of South African white famers or any other singled out group of would-be refugees. It is about what kind of society the people of Australia see themselves as becoming and which constituencies government is representing, and the values that form the foundations of policy.
The government's vision, at least on Dutton's lips, is one-dimensional and fundamentally divisive for the existing Australian community, and it is at these levels that his statements must be critiqued.
"The murder of white South African farmers is real, horrific and underreported. But to privilege one worthy group over others speaks of another agenda entirely."
Two years ago, as then Minister for Immigration, he stated that it was a mistake of the Fraser government to have accepted people of Lebanese Muslim background who arrived during the years 1975 to 1983. He had counted up the crime statistics of terrorist related incidents involving this 'community'.
Missing was a balanced assessment of the costs and benefits of this immigration, and analysis of the causes or background to the incidents. Nothing but a series of comments guaranteed to alienate a select group of people — and especially its young — with the attendant risk of escalating the problems about which the Minister purported to be concerned.
More recently, Sudanese-origin gangs were similarly targeted. Dutton's comments were not on the issues that this relatively new refugee group might be facing as they transition from a deeply rural, often conflictual and trauma-inducing set of backgrounds to a functional, sophisticated large city such as Melbourne. Rather Dutton focused on individuals' criminal records and the fears that those incite among 'good, law-abiding Australians'. The only solution he could provide was another form of exclusion: summary deportation of all gang members.
The Lebanese, in particular, had been in Australia for 35 years, most of them being now second generation Australian citizens and many making quiet but valued contributions to the community. That some of their young felt alienated enough to turn to violent ideologies speaks as much about Australian society's failure to include them than anything else.
The Sudanese, who mostly have been in Australia for less time, are recipients of a generally well regarded humanitarian program, but this has not translated into lasting development and integration. Both are Australian issues, the solutions for which we are all in part responsible.
Pope Francis describes four action words as necessary to any process of absorbing migrants and refugees into a new country: they should be welcomed, protected, promoted and integrated. The extent to which a country exercises these actions speaks to the disposition of the society and its openness to be changed by those it welcomes, as well as asserting appropriately its own cultural norms.
The murder of white South African farmers is real, horrific and underreported. The new government of Cyril Ramaphosa has surprised with its announced intention to amend the constitution to allow for expropriation of land, thus opening the question that this might well qualify as persecution under refugee law. If this is the case, there should indeed be a straight humanitarian response to their plight. But to privilege one worthy group over others speaks of another agenda entirely.
The key question remains: What kind of society do we want Australia to be? Do we want a society that, within its capacity, welcomes, protects and develops people in genuine and serious need regardless of their creed or colour, allowing us to be subtly changed by the diversity that they bring? Or will it be people who are chosen for the supposedly right characteristics in order to reinforce an increasingly brittle hegemony?
If government and the media cannot address such important questions more seriously, with an eye to the next generation of people inheriting this country, we urgently need to start asking ourselves who will.
Australian Jesuit Fr David Holdcroft is higher education specialist for Jesuit Refugee Service International.