Duplicity, p.20
Duplicity, page 20
A number of positive interjections from the audience interrupted Jaya’s flow and she paused for a moment, calming further comment.
‘Australia is tough on so-called boat people who pay top dollar to smugglers to skirt the regulations and process of immigration. These are the people who take advantage of our laws and courts by using litigant lawyers who increase their own wealth, generously funded by the Australian taxpayer. By gaming the system, these people fraudulently seek to position themselves ahead of legitimate immigrants. As a result, we see a developing queue of wasters, leaners, and people who don’t care about Australia and its people – rather, they only care about plundering the taxpayer riches it offers.
‘Yet, if anyone deigns to speak about these matters in a considered way, we are branded to be racist or phobic in some way. It is not racist to protect our people. It’s not racist to help our people. It’s not racist to call out wrong government policy, and it is not racist to ensure new immigrants earn the right to live in this great country.’
Scribbling quickly, Anita tried to get the words down. Photographers were now sitting on the floor in front of her snapping the professor, checking ISO and white balances before snapping more from different angles. The Greens candidate stopped looking at his notes and seemed stunned by what he was hearing.
‘Australia is duty bound to provide sanctuary, but we are not duty bound to let this sanctuary become a haven for the unscrupulous, the dishonest and the fraudsters.
‘Government statistics clearly indicate there is a wave of migrants we have welcomed for the last twenty years, under the management of Andrew Gerrard, spiralling into a ghetto of welfare recipients taking advantage of the free and easy social security system we have created.
‘Why wouldn’t you want to come here? Free education, free health, subsidised housing, subsidised utilities, subsidised public transport. We offer funding incentives to have more children so that a family can live comfortably on welfare and have no-one work for generations. We offer free child care support, aged care support, and support for carers on this merry-go-round of taxpayer subsidy. My country provides too much to these cheats and we place zero requirements for these phony Australians to contribute to our nation.’
Someone interjected, ‘Hear, hear.’ Anita swung around to see how the audience was reacting. Many seemed captivated by the professor’s words as there were plenty of smiles, surprising her. The paradox of a migrant criticising immigration was compelling, and yet Anita wondered if this was the language the community should be listening to.
‘I would like to see the government place a cap on international students trashing our universities, demanding academics like me to pass them in their subjects no matter their academic standard. I would like to see a cap on social welfare benefits for new immigrants set at three years – either contribute to Australia or go home.’
One or two audience members clapped enthusiastically.
‘I would like to see the reduction of suburban enclaves and criminal ghettos springing up in various suburbs and regions across the country.’ Jaya paused for a moment and looked out into the audience. ‘Friends, if we are appalled by many of the grand European cities with their noble history being trashed by immigrants from countercultures, then see the early signs of this silent invasion happening right here in Australia. I do not want to fear going into a suburb because I’m female, yet this is how I’m made to feel by these ugly enclaves. I encourage the government to get actively involved in settlement planning and allocate new arrivals to cities and regional towns that are not deluged with the leaners and takers of our society.
‘These issues of immigration, segregation and cultural change are not new. They were here thirty years ago when I arrived, and there has been much political debate and community hand-wringing over that entire period since. Yet there is very little change to government policy and action to resolve the many critical issues within the community that face us all.
‘I was a victim of racism and ostracised from the Australian community when I first arrived here, but I was able to do something about it and change my world. I did not become a victim. The difference between talk and action is significant, and for me it has been very rewarding. My country supported me, now I give back to my community in many ways.
‘While Andrew Gerrard has talked, I have acted.
‘I’ve contributed to this great nation yet I started with absolutely nothing. No support, no family and no future. Friends, if I can help myself, why then cannot others? If new immigrants won’t use their God-given skills like I did, why then do I, as an Australian taxpayer, pay their indulgences and put up with their conflicting cultural attitudes?
‘Australia should not be a soft target for those who come to take advantage. Yet sadly, this is the position of the government and it is also the stated policy of the Greens. We must all earn the right to live here. There should be no free rides in the name of human rights and racial discrimination.’
The Green candidate said something to the professor, but Anita could not hear him. His supporters tossed a few interjections disputing her claims, but Jaya ignored them.
‘Of course, we must care for those among us who need our support. But all of us must work together to grow this fine country and ensure we are all rewarded for our efforts. It’s not just the taxpayers who have that responsibility; it’s everyone.
‘It ought to be hard to be an Australian citizen – it’s tough work and for those wanting to come here, it should be earned. Yet evidence suggests we are a very soft touch when it comes to immigration. Evidence clearly shows we are losing our culture to those who take advantage of our willingness to provide help – evidence confirms we turn the other cheek when the worst of society rages against us by continually demanding more from us. They take our money and soon they will take our culture and then Australia will be left as a failed experiment. England sent us their dregs over two hundred years ago and we built a great nation. We cannot allow the dregs of other nations to drag us down to their lowest common denominator.
‘Friends, I weep for my country. Australia has been taken advantage of by those who see us as an easy prey for the charlatans and cheats. As our national anthem says, if we are to provide wealth for toil, then we must stop this sit-down money concept Andrew Gerrard and his government wants to continue. This namby-pamby hand-wringing policy on immigration is supported by the regressive left, who have taken my dream for my country and turned it into a nightmare.
‘Ladies and gentlemen, I seek your support as your member of parliament so that I may bring sense to policy and reject this notion of taking before ever giving back to the community.
‘American President John F Kennedy said it well in his inauguration speech long ago. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”’
‘I am sad to say we have stopped asking what we can do for our country because these ungrateful leaners have started demanding from us. Unfortunately, political correctness drives us to ignore what is happening because we’re too afraid to speak out, too afraid to say no, and too afraid to demand a review of our immigration policy.
‘I ask you now, send me to Canberra to be your voice so together we can ask the questions that need truthful answers.
‘Thank you.’
The audience immediately exploded as Jaya backed away to her seat. Many in the crowd got out of their chairs clapping, cheering and whistling salutation. A minority sat stony faced, intimidated by the response. Instinctively, Anita knew this was a front-page story and dashed to the back of the room looking for any Rukhmani staff who may have a copy of her speech. ‘Provocative, Robert,’ she said as he handed her sheets of stapled paper. ‘Whose idea was this?’
‘All part of the strategy to unseat Gerrard,’ smiled Wong.
‘My guess is Jaya’s speech will move beyond this seat and create a significant national story. Good luck – she will be hung out to dry for it.’
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
DAY TWENTY-FOUR – SATURDAY
Wolff arrived at campaign headquarters early to read the media editorials about his candidate’s speech. The cramped office didn’t allow him to kick his feet on the desk, so he sunk back into his chair with a big smile on his face. All the major newspapers were reporting the speech with expert political commentary denouncing the xenophobic tone and the damaging message the obscure candidate had delivered to the government and even her own party.
One editorial implied Jaya Rukhmani was a racist and recommended she should be stripped of her tenure as professor of politics. Apparently, it was an affront to humanity and the ideals of tertiary education to have such an unqualified person talk about the culture of other countries.
While Wolff was pleased with the editorials, he was more interested in what the prime minister had to say. Gerrard was condescending in suggesting the public meeting went ahead without his appearance. Apparently, he could not remember receiving the invitation and would not have hesitated in making time to come and speak if he had received it.
He further asserted the meeting was organised by right-wing groups who want to stain the fabric of Australian culture and had used their puppet to provide a voice for the deplorables within the community. Gerrard also claimed the speech was outrageously racist in tone, delivering racist intent, by a racist.
He also said it was no worse than a fascist totalitarian diatribe with little foundation to support her claims, instead focusing on the most marginalised who were unable to defend themselves. He also suggested Rukhmani was loose with the truth about her background and implied her credentials should be checked.
A perfect result.
Wolff read Anita Devlin’s column with interest. She claimed nothing in politics is ever spontaneous, and the speech was delivered with passion and grace with no hint of racism. ‘How could it be racist?’ she questioned. ‘The person delivering it had the authority to speak on these issues due to her own history of discrimination and the manner she was mistreated as a child by her family and her own culture.’ Devlin described nefarious activities in politics were always evident at every event and questioned why the community should blame the candidate when it may be the conservatives raising immigration wedging against the government.
‘She is too smart this girl,’ said Wolff as he flicked to the cartoon to see Rukhmani raging from a pulpit with a stylised Nazi flag draped behind her yelling for equality.
Perfect.
At the prearranged time, Wolff moved to the boardroom for a regular campaign meeting, hoping a decision about the speech could be made without his input. He wanted the party to act decisively without his influence but didn’t hold out much hope.
After Stanley called the meeting to order, Harry Lester asked for the results of overnight polling. Andres Jorges reported there had been a significant spike in the primary votes with the over forty-five demographic toward the party, and away from the government. He wasn’t able to say why this was the case but did advise calls were made after all the news programs had reported Rukhmani’s speech.
‘This is unbelievable,’ said Stanley, a quizzical look on his face. ‘Voters support us more because we are racist? I’m not sure this is the party I lead.’
‘It’s not an act of racism to question immigration,’ Lester affirmed. ‘The party does not have racist policies, never has and we would never ascribe to anything remotely culturally intolerant.’
‘Maybe that’s our problem,’ sighed Messenger, sparking Wolff’s immediate attention as he sat quietly in a darkened end of the table in the windowless room. ‘We’re too soft when we should be making bold statements about culture, immigration and the misuse of social welfare. We’re too scared to upset the minorities, so we let it pass, getting smashed in the media because of it.’
‘I would have thought that was good politics,’ suggested Christopher Hughes on a speakerphone from Sydney. ‘Anything to do with immigration scares the electorate.’
‘You mean it mobilises the vocal left, who tag every considered comment as racist, stifling debate,’ chided Messenger.
‘How the fuck did our candidate get that speech approved?’ barked Stanley.
No-one responded as they glanced at each other.
Eventually Sussan Neilson offered. ‘It wasn’t – we had no idea she was going to do it. Candidates are strongly advised to say nothing publicly unless pre-approved by the campaign team.’
‘Has anyone spoken to her?’ asked Hughes. ‘What does she have to say for herself?’
‘She has gone to ground; no-one can find her. Her campaign staff are not returning calls either,’ said Lester. ‘This could turn into a significant media crisis for us.’
‘Could?’ Stanley barked. ‘It’s the lead in every media outlet and the trolls are killing us on Twitter.’
‘We’ve done nothing, said nothing, and our polling has gone up,’ said Messenger. ‘Which could suggest she might have laid the golden egg for us.’
‘It could fry us,’ chuckled Hughes from the machine in the centre of the table. ‘Or we could all be poached.’
‘Not funny, Chris,’ sighed Stanley. ‘This is serious. It could change the campaign if we don’t respond, we can’t just continue to scramble about doing nothing. What do you think, Jack, you’re unusually quiet?’
Messenger cringed a little at Stanley’s poor choice of words.
‘Your campaign was going nowhere until this issue.’
‘That’s not entirely correct,’ ventured Lester. ‘Our poll numbers were improving before last night.’
‘That’s my community strategy gaining traction in the mind of voters, but as a broadcast message on leadership, we’re going nowhere.’ Wolff tossed Lester a vicious stare, making him feel uncomfortable. ‘If we can change the leader, we should. We would have a better chance against Gerrard if we did.’
‘Hang on …’ Stanley blurted.
‘Shut the fuck up, will you, and let me explain—’ Wolff snapped as he leaned into the table. Stanley dropped back into his chair, his jaw slack. ‘There have been too many stuff-ups from you to give you any credibility in running the country as prime minister. In fact, I wouldn’t even vote for you.’ Wolff stopped talking. No-one moved or offered a view. Stanley was defeated. ‘But you’re all we have and surprisingly you might have a chance on an issue that’ll give your personal brand traction and get your name recognition up,’ Wolff continued. ‘Any increased name recognition for the leader will help the local campaigns. My strategy, which you folks resisted, has begun to turn in our favour, according to Andres’s polling.’
‘What are you suggesting?’ stumbled Stanley softly.
‘I’m suggesting the electorate is looking for leadership on this issue of immigration. They are so desperate for leadership they will vote for anyone providing it. They want strong borders and have wanted government action for years, but what they get is soft policy and see their culture diminishing. Gerrard will justify his government’s policies, so you need to make a strong statement and leverage the issue.’
‘We could launch our immigration policy tomorrow,’ suggested Stanley.
‘What will that do other than give us crap from the media for being opportunists,’ said Hughes echoing from the speaker. ‘We need to attack Gerrard.’
‘Was he not doing something shonky with Indonesia?’ Neilson tentatively asked, looking about the table. ‘Isn’t this the reason we are having the election now?’
‘Nothing was ever proved,’ replied Messenger. ‘It was only a conspiracy driven by some in the media.’
‘Does it need to be proven he is corrupt?’ queried Wolff. ‘Just a sniff of a political fraud would be enough to show Gerrard doesn’t truly care about the security of our borders and only thinks about himself – just like any other politician.’
‘We can’t say anything; the media wouldn’t accept us raising it,’ Stanley said. ‘After all, it was our candidate who started this bushfire, not us.’
‘Maybe we don’t have to,’ Wolff smirked. ‘I hear from a reliable source Hancock Media will be running a piece on Gerrard’s alleged Indonesian fraud next week.’
‘You’re kidding? I’m not sure this is good or bad news,’ groaned Stanley as Messenger disengaged from the discussion, pushing back from the table and slowly rubbing his face.
‘This issue of immigration is the hotspot in the electorate, not so much politicians doing fraudulent things,’ contributed Jorges. ‘I would recommend we ignore Gerrard and run hard on immigration.’
‘We can do both,’ smirked Wolff.
‘How can we do that when our policies are very similar to the government’s? What line can we say that is different?’
‘We tell the big lie.’ Wolff delivered it with so much authority the other’s fell silent.
‘I don’t want to be involved in anything illegal,’ offered Julia Laretsky, the women’s division president.
‘Of course not, Julia, we wouldn’t support anything like that,’ said Stanley quickly in response. ‘It’s not illegal to politically exaggerate a statement, which is what I think Jack is referring to – it’s a common campaign tactic. Gerrard does it all the time.’
‘It might be time to return the favour,’ suggested Hughes.
‘What do you suggest, Jack?’ said Messenger, now engaged again.
‘Andres said immigration is the electoral hotspot, so what big lie could we say about that to get them excited against Gerrard?’
Lester stood and moved to the whiteboard on a stand opposite Wolff at the end of the table, ready to record notes with a marker as the others considered the question. ‘Any ideas?’
‘What about this – immigration is run by criminal organisations fronted by the immigration agents’ network,’ suggested Hughes. ‘There seems to be a lot of money being made in the market.’
‘Not bad,’ said Wolff, as Lester wrote the suggestion on the board. ‘Could in fact be true.’
‘It’s not true, is it?’ Laretsky queried Messenger, who shrugged.
