Never let it be said that John Howard doesn’t know his Australian history. Yet again our patriotic Prime Minister has displayed his sound grasp of the traditions and values of this great nation, which, as he well knows, do not include the kind of lily-livered wetness that welcomes such undesirables as filthy aliens and diseased libertines. His righteous defiance of informed criticism and international opinion has, once again, done Australia proud.
Despite the ignorant claims of some foreigners that Howard’s
call to prohibit the immigration of people with HIV/AIDS and leprosy is ill informed, and that such “unilateral and isolationist measures belong to the 19th century”, Howard’s plans are in fact supported by Australian political history, and derive from
20th Century legislation: the
Immigration Restriction Act of 1901.
Alfred Deakin called the Act, which was known as the White Australia Policy, “…part of the first principles upon which the Commonwealth is to be administered and guided”. After decades of un-Australian leaders who put such exotic concepts as human rights and equality ahead of our national interest, how refreshing it is to have a Prime Minister who’s willing to stand against the tide of civil enlightenment to preserve the standards of our founding fathers!
The 1901 legislation unequivocally prohibited the immigration of “any person suffering from an infectious or contagious disease of a loathsome or dangerous character”, so Howard’s
declaration that he wants “no-one with those sort of ailments....allowed into the country” is clearly validated by the cutting-edge philosophies of the early 20th century.
What’s more, despite the accusations of the Chair of the European AIDS Treatment Group, Wim Vandevelde (and how foreign is that name?!), that Howard’s comments are driven “purely by populism”, this latest measure to preserve the purity of the Australian people is obviously part of a carefully constructed policy to return us to the halcyon days of early federation.
Any move to stop an influx of lepers and lechers would be the logical next step after the reintroduction of the dictation test, the legislation for which was presented to Parliament last week. OK, so it’s been dressed up as a “citizenship test” this time, obviously as a sop to those bleeding heart lefties who’d have us show compassion to every ne’er-do-well with the audacity to think he can just waltz on in to the best country in the world (nice election slogan, by the way, Johnnie!) without proving that he’s, you know, the right sort of chap. But even with the revised wording, our wily PM knows his English language exam will keep the miscreants from our midst.
Surely the next phase of the policy will target “any prostitute or person living on the prostitution of others”, which should clean up King’s Cross and St Kilda in a flash. We might have to have a little training scheme in place for our immigration officers, of course; as the embarrassing case of Vivian Solon showed, it’s just not as easy to identify immigrant sex workers as it was a hundred years ago, and mistakes can be costly. But getting rid of all those Asian brothels from the inner suburbs should free up some prime real estate for real Australian families, while at the same time showing that Howard is taking action to solve the housing affordability crisis – genius!
Of course, there are a couple of clauses in the Immigration Restriction Act that could cause the PM some trouble. The inclusion of “any idiot or insane person” in the prohibited categories might restrict the growth of his party’s natural constituency, but worry not: that will probably be Peter Costello’s problem soon.
More problematic is the last category of restriction: “any persons under a contract or agreement to perform manual labour within the Commonwealth”, which is clearly aimed at preventing any lowering of the Australian rate of pay. This is positively union-esque, and plainly at odds with Howard’s Industrial Relations “reforms”, although the continued careful manipulation of the 457 Visa should go some way towards resolving the dichotomy. Nevertheless, that clause will need to be carefully re-written if the entire 1901 Act is to be successfully reintroduced. But I’m sure the Prime Minister’s already on to that.
And, in case anyone was worried that Howard might use these entirely sensible provisions to discriminate against good Australians who, through no fault of their own, have fallen into one of the abhorred categories of undesirables, let it be known that the Act also includes a series of exceptions. These cover all the categories of people whom Howard has identified as essential to Australian culture: anyone who has served in the armed forces, any government minister and, of course, “a wife”. We might need to add the Australian cricket team to that list, just to be on the safe side.
So let this latest policy idea from our esteemed Prime Minister be a lesson to that upstart Kevin Rudd. There’s no need for
fresh thinking in Australian politics; our forebears had all the answers. Thankfully, John Howard knows that the best way forward for Australia is a return to 1901.
