Mr Murdoch told Sky News on Tuesday the way the government was talking about the visa scheme was "pretty disgraceful and racist".Murdoch and Packer aren't concerned about traditional Australia. They want open borders and the least interference possible with the movement of labour internationally. Even the smallest hint of national preference is damned by them.
"I'm a big one for encouraging immigration; I think that's the future and a mixture of people, just look at America. It's just fantastic," he said
...Billionaire James Packer last month used a speech to the Asia Society to warn politicians from all parties against sending xenophobic messages overseas.
"Some of the recent public debate does not reflect well on any of us. Even worse, it plays on fears and prejudices and is completely unnecessary. We are all better than that," Mr Packer said.
Why bother pointing this out? It's important to understand the influence of money and material self-interest on politics. If a society makes the owners of multinational corporations the most wealthy, powerful and influential members of the community, then how can that society reasonably expect to hold together? The multinational business magnates are likely to use their influence to push the idea that their own international business interests should take precedence over such matters as communal identity and continuity.
Therefore, if we are looking to re-establish somewhere a more traditional community, we have to favour a different kind of business model, one which creates a class of people who are more likely to support the traditional society.
One possible way to do this would be to emphasise smaller businesses selling to local markets. If a community gave some kind of preference to local businesses, and these businesses were reliant on local markets, then there would be a financial reason for this kind of business class to support the maintenance of communal cohesion (and not just to see people as atomised, interchangeable units of consumption or labour).
The effect of this could be institutionalised in a number of ways. The easiest would be to encourage the formation of a "domestic traders and manufacturers association" - one which could specifically represent those reliant on an in-group loyalty for the security and prosperity of their businesses. Another, perhaps more difficult, possibility would be a modified guild system in which everyone, whether an owner, manager or worker, reliant on these industries would be represented (e.g. a clothing industry guild or a computer industry guild). This guild system could have the possible advantage of drawing people to think about the larger industrial interest rather than more sectional, class-based ones (this might not work in practice, but it's worth considering).
At any rate, we need to have a business model that fits with, rather than undercuts, a traditional community.