In 2005 in the Sydney Morning Herald Michael Duffy asked the rhetorical question: ‘Is it perhaps the first time in history that a nation’s elite have invited another group to come in and replace it?’
Now Dr Peter Wilkinson has collected together both readily available and hitherto unpublished data to show that indeed traditional Australia is being displaced from the professional and managerial classes. This is the enduring legacy that Prime Minister John Howard’s regime has bequeathed to the future of Australia.
How has this come about?
It arises from a complex web of policies, largely bipartisan, particularly the selective immigration policies which favour applicants with an Australian university degree. Recent arrivals, i.e. the overseas born and non-English speaking background resident students, predominately Chinese, are now in a majority in some fields of education in the universities. They are concentrated in the lucrative and prestige careers. At the UNSW they are the majority overall.
The Chinese presence in Australia has been analysed: numbers, distribution, school and university enrolments, social attitudes and political influence. With near one-fifth in the electorates of the Prime Minister and the Shadow Minister for Immigration, they are influencing immigration policies. The conclusion is that on present policies Australia will have a Chinese minority dominating the economy.
Dr Peter Wilkinson is a scientist by training: BSc and MSc, The University of Western Australia, PhD Bristol University. He started his career in applied research, where he published a number of scientific papers and patents. He moved into corporate planning in a large Australian company, finishing as Business Environment Manager, responsible for short term economic forecasting and identifying long term trends affecting the business. Since retirement he has published a refereed paper on professions and economic advantage.
He is a past president of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute and a past president of the Association of Professional Scientists of Australia. At one time he was president of the local high school advisory council and on an Education Department Capital Review Committee. He is a long standingmember of the Australian Conservation Foundation, whose policy of sustainable immigration he supports.
Print-on-demand and distribution by digitalprintaustralia.com, 138 Gillies Street, Adelaide, SA, 5000. Order via their website digitalprintaustralia.com. Credit card facility available, $25, postage extra.
Or from Independent Australian Publications Pty Ltd, PO Box 8, Essendon, Victoria, 3040. $25 post free Australia. If overseas inquire about postage email@example.com.
(Please make cheques/money orders payable to Independent Australian Publications Pty Ltd. Apologies, no credit card facilities.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Cognitive Ability and Economic Advantage in the Knowledge Nation
2 Australian Selective Immigration Policies
3 Schools and University Entrance
4 Economic Advantage and the Professions
5 University Fields of Education
6 The Universities run as Businesses
7 The Overseas Chinese
8 The Chinese in Australia
9 Chinese in Australian Politics
10 Unity Party -Say No To Hanson
12 The Future - continuation of present policies
- measures to change direction
University Fields of Education - details.
End Notes and References
In 1994 the acerbic Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister of Singapore, forecast that Australians were destined to be the poor white trash of Asia. Today one can say that white Australians are destined to be the poor trash of Australia.
What is the enduring contribution that Prime Minister John Howard’s regime has made to the future of Australia?
The scope and nature of taxation, industrial relations and so on can be changed, all in the space of a few years. There is one change that can not be reversed in less than many generations. That is demographic change.
This book is about the impact of the Coalition’s selective immigration policies. In selecting skilled immigrants, those who have done a degree in Australia receive bonus points in the criteria for acceptance for residency. In effect the policy selects those Asians who have higher cognitive ability, predominantly ethnic Chinese. In the ‘knowledge economy’ of today a premium is paid for qualifications and cognitive ability. They and their children (who will inherit their higher intelligence) will fill the professional and managerial ranks in Australia. They will dominate the cognitive class and hence have disproportionate influence in the country. This has important ramifications for both internal and external policies as ethnic demographic change continues.
The Chinese have been described as the Jews of Asia, but they are more than that. Throughout SE Asia and Oceania they are overwhelmingly dominant in the commercial and financial fields, less successful in the professional fields, because there is often discrimination to offset their superior performance in examinations. They form the ‘market dominant minority’, a term used by Amy Chua (Chapter 7). In this book the term ‘economy dominant minority’ is used to describe the equivalent in advanced knowledge economies. In such nations, and in underdeveloped ones where they have the opportunity, the Chinese have moved smoothly into the professions.
Affluent established nations over the centuries have allowed in unskilled manual workers at the expense of the host countries’ own cohort of people who have least economic advantage in terms of skill and/or IQ. Aggressive reaction can occur. In many underdeveloped countries where immigrants, who have above average commercial and cognitive ability, have been introduced, usually by a colonial/commercial power, violent reaction has occurred frequently and continues to do so.
Under John Howard Australia has become the first ethnic European nation to openly invite in distinct ethnic groups to provide the skills required in today’s knowledge economy. The need arises because governments have not been prepared to provide the necessary finance and motivation to sufficiently educate our own children. They have allowed ideologues in the education system to persuade parents and children that achieving certain skill levels does not matter. Recent arrivals are not fooled, they exploit existing Australian human and physical capital at the expense of the long standing Australian families in our schools and universities. The intergenerational transfer which has been an integral part of our society has been denied to many long established families without them realising it.
How has this come about when Prime Minister Howard has been stigmatised as ‘racist’ by the multicultural/left lobbies? There are no reports of groups participating in a ‘grand plan’1 to introduce a dominant ethnic minority. It seems to have happened through the combination of a number of Government policies, at both the Federal and State levels. Maybe the need for Howard to hold on to his own seat is a contributing factor. Significant changes in selective immigration policies happened over the period when Philip Ruddock, another hate figure of the Left over immigration matters, was the Minister responsible for immigration (1996 to 2003). Ruddock consistently opposed having a population plan. It is difficult to believe that Ruddock and the highest levels of DIMA were not aware of the implications described in this book.
Political correctness has meant that these topics are rarely raised2. Silence on the issue occurs because key players such as the universities, and increasingly the schools, are financially locked in. Few staff raise the question because they will be censured or sacked, since cries of discrmination/xenophobia/racism will be raised, leading to the fear that foreign enrolments will fall creating financial disaster for their institution.
After only five years of the selective immigration policies the results are apparent. In the 18 selective schools in NSW, 12 have more than 50% non-English speaking background, one over 90%. At the UNSW, students who are recent arrivals, Asian or Chinese, are 52%, 44% and 35% respectively. With recently announced increasing immigration and higher skilled quotas this disproportionately high over-representation will accelerate throughout the entire education system. It is true that signs of a significant number of Chinese were moving into the cognitive class before the Coalition took office, largely as a result of the Hawke decisions to allow students to stay after the Tiananmen massacre. But now it is a flood.
Australian politics has a set of largely unspoken bipartisan beliefs and policy directions whereby:
• We believe that our own citizens do not have sufficient innate ability to make Australia a prosperous knowledge economy, so we need immigrants of high cognitive ability.
• We can skimp on educating our own children and compensate by bringing in immigrants with the advanced education which is necessary for the knowledge economy.
• Even better, they must pay for that education in Australia, so that the government can cut grants to the universities for educating Australians.
• We are comfortable with letting the children of recently arrived immigrants have unfettered access to our premium schools and universities, displacing children of long standing Australians from the prestige universities and the lucrative professions.
• We are not concerned that universities discriminate against Australian students by lowering the standard for overseas students, who can then apply for a visa on the basis of the conceded pass.
• We are comfortable with introducing an economy dominant ethnic minority at the expense of long established families.
• We are not concerned that the combination of the economy dominant Chinese and increasing trade pressures will place Australia under the influence of super-power China rather than the USA.
The ALP has a policy to further discriminate against Australians. They would not allow them to enter fee-paying courses leading to prestige and lucrative courses, while overseas students would be free to do so and then apply for residency.
These are issues which need to be discussed prior to the election. We are already at a stage where the Chinese community is influencing immigration policy. In the seats of Bennelong (Prime Minister John Howard) and Watson (Shadow Minister for Immigration, Tony Burke) nearly one-fifth claim Chinese ancestry. Indeed, with less than one-third of his constituents speaking English at home, Burke is better styled the ALP Shadow Minister for Immigrants.
The crucial hold that the ethnic Chinese have over Howard in Bennelong means that the Coalition is unlikely to proclaim any changes. Indeed Howard has promised his Chinese constituents more of the same (see Chapter 12). Burke has no option but to remain silent, in keeping with the ALP strategy of bipartisan-ship on major issues leading up to the election. Kevin Rudd spent time in China, is a noted sinophile, Mandarin speaker. Is Rudd the Manchurian candidate3 to lead us under the Chinese sphere of influence?
The Abandonment Of Intergenerational Transfer And Displacement Of The Traditional Australia.
‘If ever there was a migrant success story, the life of 19 year old Tianhong Wu must be it.’
So starts an article by education writer Chee Chee Leung in The Age 13 December 2006.
Tianhong Wu had just scored a perfect ENTER and had applied to Monash University to do medicine. As she had just received citizenship, she would be eligible for HECS. She came to Australia from China five years ago and attended Glen Waverley Secondary College (which is a de facto selective high school). Her English was poor on arrival, and her mother is less fluent. There is no mention of the father in the article, but the mother, a computer science teacher in China, works part time in a fashion house and has applied to do a laboratory skills TAFE course next year. She is applying for citizenship. The tone of the article is that by applying language skills tests to prospective migrants we would be denying Australia the benefits of having Tianhong Wu.
Let us look at her story from another perspective.
Taxpayer subsidized places at medical schools are Government limited. Somebody missed out. Since nobody can specifically claim to have missed out, let us construct a picture of a candidate who just missed out.
Jenny Smith is member of a family long established in Australia. Jenny lived in an outer suburb, one where the school facilities are run down, freely admitted by the Victorian Government. Students in schools in these suburbs are disadvantaged in following academic pathways as shown by declining success of such schools in university enrolments4.
The top matriculation teachers had transferred to de facto selective schools like Glen Waverley. Jenny’s parents did not have a tertiary qualification and did not realise the necessity to shift to another school zone. Besides, they had other kids and relocating costs are considerable. At Monash University, at equal ENTER, students from ordinary public schools perform better than those from selective schools (see Chapter 3), so Jenny was innately superior to some of those who made it, but she didn’t get a chance to prove it.
Jenny’s parents (maybe grandparents, and even further back) have dutifully paid their taxes for many decades, funding the considerable capital, human and financial, that has gone into building up the first class institutions such as Glen Waverley and Monash University. Tianhong’s mother has contributed virtually nothing to this during her short stay. Furthermore the medical course, and the TAFE course for her mother, will be part paid for by Jenny’s parents. Tianhong Wu will study medicine at a Group of 8 university, which guarantees her a very comfortable income for life. Her mother will build up very little super and so will be eligible for a pension.
If Tianhong Wu had never come to Australia, her position would have gone to Jenny. Maybe Jenny is committed to the health professions; then she can apply for the lower status, less well paid profession of nursing.
In effect the traditional Australia is being displaced. Their birthright is being handed to the overseas born on a platter. Not one letter published in The Age made this point in response to Leung’s article.
Comment By Monash Student 8/6/2010
Someone recommended your website to me, so I had a quick look the other day.
I briefly read over the page on "The Howard Legacy".
I was just curious about the conclusion that Asian students are being "handed our birthright on a platter".
At least at my university, they tend to be more intelligent, and certainly work harder, than what you identify as "traditional" Australians (which, at least in the context of business elites, has always been white Anglo-Saxon males like myself). That's why more of them are getting further. Those that don't work harder, don't get further.
I'm not sure what "birthrights" have to do with it. I don't have a "birthright" to be where I am now. I just worked hard. Most of the kids I grew up with in rural Australia didn't work hard. Of course most of the poor buggers didn't know any better - education certainly isn't much favoured in the bush - but still, that's why most of them didn't get far. They know this, and they don't mind (uni isn't their thing). But I think they'd find it a little strange that an Asian bloke who worked much harder at school didn't deserve to get further for his efforts just because he wasn't born over the same patch of dirt.
Aside from all that, I'm white Anglo-Saxon rural fourth-generation Australian male. But the only reason I can afford university (apart from working damn hard in a slaughterhouse) is because foreign students pay massive fees to support our unis.
So how on earth is the right to go places in life a "birthright"? If you work hard, you go places. If you're a lazy bastard, being white Australian shouldn't help you.
Oh, and one last question. Why on earth do you present your views as "alternative"? I've spent most of my life in the country. There's nothing "alternative" about your views. Shit, it's hard to find any different ones.They just don't find their way into mainstream newspapers because they'd be pulled apart and laughed at by any reasonably educated reader.
Thank you for opening up a discussion. I have published your contribution on the website under the pseudonym ‘Monash Student’. Please encourage others to join in.
Your background sounds similar to mine - fourth generation Australian, brought up in a rural community where university was not on the horizon and while I cannot claim to have worked in a slaughterhouse I can remember at the age ten getting up in the frost to get the rabbits out of traps and skinning them for the fur which was my only pocket money. I have now detailed on the website my academic and professional achievements to demonstrate that I also worked hard. However I have not developed an intellectual contempt for the members of the community in which I was raised.
To take up your point on ‘ foreign students pay massive fees to support our unis’, the Howard Government actually reduced spending on universities in real terms and education spending as a proportion of GDP fell. It hit on the idea of selling permanent visas for the price of a university degree. The universities are so desperate to maintain this income flow, that they have become corrupt in allowing overseas students conceded passes. A great many examples are detailed in THL, including a refereed paper surveying academics who freely (anonymously) admit it. If an academic raises the matter publically discussion is stifled.
While your observation that Asian students are more intelligent is anecdotal there is no doubt that on average Asians will be more intelligent is true. This arises from the Howard Government policy favouring university educated migrants for permanent visas. ( I hope you believe that cognitive ability is hereditable, this is accepted by even those who refute that it is race related, see THL for discussion.) It is true that household discipline ensures that the Asian children work harder, but that is a necessary but not sufficient recipe for success, which must start with superior cognitive ability. It is obvious that the current influx of Asians is centred around the inner eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Why? Because that is where the private schools and the de facto selective public schools are found. Many public schools in those affluent areas become well-to-do and attract the best teachers, becoming de facto selective schools due to zoning. Wealthy immigrants can buy in. Read the estate ads to to see which zones are favoured. On the other hand Chinese and Indians are scarcely seen at schools on my side of the Yarra. THL quotes research which shows the students from private and selective schools have an advantage in Enter ranking, but their subsequent university performance belies that ranking.
I ask does it matter if we have a dominant ethnic minority and the evidence right through SE Asia, where the Chinese hold that position, shows that it does matter. In THL I rely almost entirely on the books of two distinguished ethnic Chinese academics.
When I die my house will be the birthright of my children. My taxes have helped create institutions like Monash. I regard them as a birthright of my grandchildren and frankly I resent wealthy outsiders coming in and displacing them. Admissions are limited into the prestige and lucrative professions, for every new arrival that succeeds it is one less for traditional Australians, white, indigenous or other long standing.
THL presents a written alternative because the politically correct media rarely discusses such issues, as you rightly observe. I haven’t found any reasonably educated reader that laughs at my book. However, some are so blinkered that they refuse to read it and there is the usual response of the politically correct to ignore inconvenient truths.
Please read THL; it is not a polemic, it is packed with statistics. If your municipal library does not have a copy they will borrow one from another library.