762: 移民不只是數字：我們要選擇怎樣的澳洲

一國黨最近提出，要把澳洲人口淨增長限制在每年13萬人，並要求澳洲社會「回到單一文化」。面對這個主張，工黨與聯盟黨至今都沒有具體回應。隨著民調顯示一國黨支持度持續高企，社會漸漸出現一種錯覺——彷彿一國黨的主張已得到普遍認同。

直到日前，內政部長伯克（Tony Burke）在國家新聞俱樂部，以「誰能抵達？誰能留下？誰要離開？」為題發表演說，才終於表明了政府的立場。

伯克認為永久移民不是問題，臨時居民才是。他指出，過去數十年，永久居民移民計劃在調整下每年吸納十八至二十萬人，一直維持經濟與社會發展，並非問題所在。真正需要處理的，是已接近三百萬人的臨時或長期臨時居民，對社會資源、房屋、樓價、就業與物價都構成壓力，因此政府對部分臨時簽證類別作出調整。

這個區分很重要——「移民問題」從來不是一個籠統概念，政府與反對派各自強調哪個部分，往往反映他們真正的政治盤算。

移民一直被看成數字，但社會對於多元文化社會卻是沒有深思。

多年來，政府談移民，談的往往是數字——經濟發展與勞動力需求、社會消費、房屋需求、社會福利開支，以及基礎設施需求的數字。但這些數字該用甚麼角度理解，澳洲社會其實從來沒有真正共識。今天的多元文化澳洲，早已不能與八十年前——當時只有5%人口並非英國國民——相提並論，也不能與四十多年前、非歐裔白人不到6%的澳洲同日而語。今天實際運作的多元文化政策，本身已長期過時，追不上人口結構的實際變化。

上週一，財政部發表自2002年以來第七份跨世代報告，預測未來四十年經濟前景，提到人工智能革命、地緣碎片化、能源轉型、人口老化與照護經濟、產業轉型五大趨勢，整體對澳洲處境持正面看法。

然而，報告有一個明顯盲點：它假設澳洲經濟能穩定發展，前提是多元文化社會——但這個前提如今正受一國黨挑戰，報告卻完全沒有觸及。展望未來四十年的文件，對眼前最具爭議的結構性議題視而不見，值得警惕。

面對一國黨支持度上升，執政黨與反對黨都不應只顧搶奪其支持者的選票，而罔顧一個基本事實：過去八十年來，澳洲早已是一個多元文化社會，這不是可以隨意逆轉的政治立場，而是社會的現實構成。

我相信，每一位澳洲人都應該用手上的選票，提醒執政黨與反對黨：澳洲不能走回頭路，回到單一文化。

周偉文 社長

Migration is not just about numbers: What kind of Australia do we want?

One Nation has recently proposed limiting Australia’s net population growth to 130,000 people a year and called for Australian society to “return to a monocultural society.” In response to this proposal, neither the Labor Party nor the Coalition has so far provided a specific response. As opinion polls show One Nation maintaining a high level of support, a perception is gradually emerging in society—as though One Nation’s position has already gained widespread acceptance.

It was not until recently that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke finally made the government’s position clear in a speech at the National Press Club, titled “Who Can Arrive? Who Can Stay? Who Has to Leave?”

Burke argued that permanent migration is not the problem; temporary residents are. He pointed out that, over the past several decades, Australia’s permanent migration program has been, with adjustments accepting between 180,000 and 200,000 people each year, supporting economic and social development and not being the source of the problem. The real issue, he said, is the nearly three million temporary or long-term temporary residents, whose presence places pressure on social resources, housing, property prices, employment and the cost of living. This is why the government has made adjustments to certain categories of temporary visas.

This distinction is important. The term “migration problem” has never referred to a single, clearly defined issue. Which aspect the government or opposition chooses to emphasise often reveals what lies behind their respective political calculations.

Migration has long been viewed primarily in terms of numbers, while Australian society has not seriously reflected on what it means to be a multicultural society.

For many years, when governments have discussed migration, the focus has generally been on numbers—the numbers associated with economic development and labour demand, consumer spending, housing demand, welfare expenditure and infrastructure requirements. Yet Australian society has never truly reached a consensus on how these numbers should be understood. Today’s multicultural Australia can no longer be compared with the Australia of eighty years ago, when only around 5 per cent of the population were not British nationals. Nor can it be compared with Australia more than forty years ago, when people of non-European backgrounds made up less than 6 per cent of the population. The multicultural policies currently operating in Australia have themselves become outdated. They have failed to keep pace with the reality of the country’s changing population structure.

Last Monday, the Treasury released the seventh Intergenerational Report since 2002, projecting Australia’s economic outlook over the next forty years. The report identified five major trends: the artificial intelligence revolution, geopolitical fragmentation, the energy transition, population ageing and the care economy, and industrial transformation. Overall, it took a positive view of Australia’s future prospects.

However, the report has one significant blind spot: it assumes that Australia’s economy can continue to develop steadily within a multicultural society—yet this very premise is now being challenged by One Nation, and the report makes no mention of it whatsoever.A document looking forty years into Australia’s future that overlooks one of the most contentious structural issues facing the country today should give us a cause for concern.

As One Nation’s support rises, neither the governing party nor the opposition should focus solely on competing for its supporters’ votes while ignoring a fundamental fact: Australia has already been a multicultural society for the past eighty years. This is not simply a political position that can be reversed at will; it is a reality embedded in the composition of Australian society.

I believe every Australian should use the vote they hold to remind both the government and the opposition: Australia cannot turn back the clock and return to a monocultural society.

Mr. Raymond Chow, Publisher