GWYN REES is bemused that what Labor calls “racist” is common across Asia, saying: “Many of our neighbours pursue migration and citizenship policies far more protective of national identity than anything contemplated in Australia.”

Anthony Albanese recently questioned whether One Nation’s Pauline Hanson could deal with Australia’s Asian neighbours.

The prime minister was suggesting her record on immigration would make it difficult to engage with countries such as Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, China, South Korea and Japan to secure vital resource supplies during regional crises. 

Several Labor figures have gone further, reaching for the familiar accusation of racism whenever immigration becomes politically uncomfortable.

It raises an awkward question. If concern about borders, citizenship and social cohesion is evidence of racism, what exactly does Labor make of much of Asia?

I have a Malay grandfather, am in a mixed-race marriage and have spent enough time in Asia, including training and fighting in Thailand, to know the region through more than airports and resorts. Spend even a little time looking at the politics of our neighbours and one thing becomes obvious, Australia’s approach to immigration, citizenship and national identity is not the regional norm.

In fact, many of the countries Albanese named take a far more protective view of national identity than Australia does.

Malaysia has Bumiputera policies that provide preferential treatment to ethnic Malays in areas such as education, housing, business and public-sector opportunity. Brunei is built around the national ideology of Malay Islamic Monarchy. Singapore is economically open but actively manages social cohesion and demographic balance. Japan and South Korea remain among the most culturally and ethnically cohesive advanced societies in the world with tight citizenship rules and strong expectations of assimilation. China grants citizenship exceptionally rarely and places national unity above any Western-style model of multiculturalism.

These countries do not all pursue identical policies and their methods differ. But many appear to be seeking similar ends: social cohesion, cultural continuity, managed demographic change and the preservation of a shared national identity.

Let me be clear, this is not an endorsement for Pauline Hanson. I don’t support a monocultural Australia. Nor do I suggest Australia should copy Malaysia, China, Brunei, Japan or South Korea. Australia has a different history and a different constitutional tradition.

Nevertheless, the comparison exposes the shallowness of the rhetoric when many of our neighbours pursue migration and citizenship policies far more protective of national identity than anything contemplated in Australia.

Australia, along with countries such as Canada and NZ, is unusual in having a largely civic rather than ancestry-based immigration and citizenship framework. We do not give legal preference to people of Anglo-Celtic, Welsh, Scottish, Irish or broader European ancestry. We do not have a Korean-style diaspora preference or an Indian-style overseas ancestry framework. Whether that is desirable is a matter of political philosophy. 

When politicians lean into arguments of racism when discussions about immigration levels, integration, demographic change or national identity arise, they are not making a serious regional argument. They are making a domestic rhetorical one.

It is self-evident that immigration levels affect housing, infrastructure, labour shortages, schools, hospitals, social cohesion and the character of communities.A mature democracy should be able to debate those matters without immediately reaching for moral denunciation.

The question is how these policies are framed, whether they are fair, lawful, evidence-based and whether they serve our national interest.

Hanson’s past comments about Australia being “swamped by Asians” understandably remain part of the political record. Albanese is entitled to criticise that history and to disagree with her vision for Australia. We are equally entitled to test that vision or his, against the assumptions and policies of our neighbours.

But if the argument is that concern for national identity, stronger migration controls or cultural cohesion makes a politician unfit to engage with Asia, then the prime minister has created a problem for himself. Many of the countries he invokes place a far higher value on precisely those things than Australia does. Albanese has stopped short of calling Hanson racist on this point, but many in his political orbit have not. For Labor, this might just need a “please explain”.

If immigration restraint and concern for national cohesion are automatically racist when raised in Australia, what does Labor say about Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, China, South Korea and Japan?

Are they all wrong? Are they all racist?

Or do we simply accept that nations are entitled to pursue social cohesion and demographic stability in ways that reflect their own history and interests.

If it is legitimate for them, why is even discussing it here treated as beyond the pale.

Gwyn Rees is a Canberra-based business and social advocate.

News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.