Scepticism around whether Australia should be a signatory to the UN’s global compact on migration is rife.

And it seems for good reason.

In recent days, Hungarian’s foreign minister has described the compact as “a threat to the world.”

Similarly, concerns that the document’s stipulations are an affront to our strict boarder security and offshore detention policies are unravelling, despite Peter Dutton’s reassurances that he won’t “surrender our sovereignty” by signing the deal.

Chris Merritt from The Australia says signing the deal will give the UN too much of a foothold and say so in our domestic jurisdiction.

“The good intentions behind this document have been submerged,” he tells Michael McLaren.

“The problem is that it mixes up the two concepts of irregular and regular migration and it does so in a very authoritarian and hand-fisted way.” 

“ There is even a provision requiring governments to shape perceptions of migration by taking an active role in the media and withdrawing funding, cooperation and support from media outlets if they promote intolerance.”

“Who is going to decide if a media outlet promoted intolerance? Would the coverage of gang violence in Melbourne by a certain migrant community, would that fit the bill?”

“Would that lead to criticism of Australia by the UN.”

Scepticism around whether Australia should be a signatory to the UN&rsquo;s global compact on migration is rife.
And it seems for good reason.
In recent days, Hungarian&rsquo;s foreign minister has described the compact as &ldquo;a threat to the world.&rdquo;
Similarly, concerns that the document&rsquo;s stipulations are an affront to our strict boarder security and offshore detention policies are unravelling, despite Peter Dutton&rsquo;s reassurances that he won&rsquo;t &ldquo;surrender our sovereignty&rdquo; by signing the deal.
Chris Merritt from The Australia says signing the deal will give the UN too much of a foothold and say so in our domestic jurisdiction.
&ldquo;The good intentions behind this document have been submerged,&rdquo; he tells Michael McLaren.
&ldquo;The problem is that it mixes up the two concepts of irregular and regular migration and it does so in a very authoritarian and hand-fisted way.&rdquo;&nbsp;
&ldquo; There is even a provision requiring governments to shape perceptions of migration by taking an active role in the media and withdrawing funding, cooperation and support from media outlets if they promote intolerance.&rdquo;
&ldquo;Who is going to decide if a media outlet promoted intolerance? Would the coverage of gang violence in Melbourne by a certain migrant community, would that fit the bill?&rdquo;
&ldquo;Would that lead to criticism of Australia by the UN.&rdquo;

A fast-paced show, focusing on current events, social issues, sport and entertainment.

A fast-paced show, focusing on current events, social issues, sport and entertainment.

Advertisement