Australian immigration policy an election issue

Press, 12 May 1984, Page 26

Australian immigration policy an election issue

By

BRUCE JONES

(through NZPA) Canberra For the first time since the early 19705, race rather than economic considerations has become the dominant theme in the debate about Australia’s immigration programme, creating a potentially divisive and bitter election issue. The Opposition Leader, Mr Andrew Peacock, is appealing to concerns in the Australian psyche first implanted during the gold discoveries of the 1850 s and manifest in Government policies until the 19605. Racism is as Australian as meat pies and tomato sauce. Scratch an Australian and there is a good chance you will find a racist. Words such as “slopes” and “boaties” are unfortunately part of the vocabulary of many to describe Indochinese immigrants and refugees. The present debate, simmering for weeks before it erupted in the House of Representatives recently, had its beginnings in remarks by a professor of history, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who said Asians were now the “favoured majority” under Australia’s immigration programme. “It is public opinion which ultimately decides whether an immigration programme will succeed. At present, the Government is shunning a vital section of public opinion,” he said in words

later echoed by Mr Peacock, who warned of a possible violent backlash in the community. The first violence against Asians in Australia occurred after the lure of gold brought Chinese in their thousands to Australia — the influx reaching 40,000 in Victoria alone by 1859. Because the Chinese kept to themselves, maintained their own and language and were frequently in a majority in some diggings, white fear and hostility was aroused, leading to demonstrations and riots. The Victorian Government introduced restrictions limiting the number of Chinese landed by any one ship and charging a head tax on each Chinese digger. South Australia also imposed restrictions, as did New South Wales after severe riots on the goldfields, notably at Lambing Flat. On that occasion between 2000 and 3000 diggers, led by a band, marched six miles to the main Chinese camp, looting and attacking the Chinese on the way and in the camp. Between 400 and 500 Chinese were injured, nearly half the total on the field. The correspondent of the “Yass Tribune” wrote, “It was a horrible sight to see the poor, almond-eyed skeletons of men dragged about and beaten across the head with half a dozen pick handles at one and the same

time . . . blood gushing at every blow.” The 1890 s saw the restrictions, gradually increased in severity over preceding years, extended to other coloured peoples and in 1901 incorporated in the Federal Immigration Restriction Act. Each of the three parties contesting the first Federal elections in March of that year gave prominence to the achievement of a white Australia; a policy the Labour Opposition Leader, Mr Arthur Calwell, was still defending in the early 19605. A statement by Mr Calwell at the time began, “I welcome this opportunity of stating concisely, and without any feeling, what the Australian Labour Party seeks to achieve by maintaining its rigid opposition to any alteration in the White Australia policy.” A quota system for Asian and African nations, he warned, while seeming to salve the consciences of some people, “could create, and would create, greater and more serious problems that would endanger the occupancy of this land.” The 1901 act controlled non-European immigration through a dictation or language test which in its first year was taken by 651 hopefuls of which only 33 passed; a better result than in 1907 when the pass rate was nil. The 1901 census found there were 38.577 “full blood

Asians” living in Australia, comprising 30,342 Chinese, 3554 Japanese and 4681 Indians “and Cingalese” (sic). The act was amended in 1904 to prevent the entry of wives and children of coloured persons already settled, while another act returned all Pacific Island labourers entering Australia after the mid-1880s to their islands of origin. The first real change came only after World War II when about 1000 Asians, who had entered as refugees during the war and established themselves with homes and businesses, refused to leave when hostilities ceased. Mr Calwell tried to deport them — passing the War Time Refugee Removal Act to give him the necessary power — but the Menzies Government allowed them to stay with a special status giving them de facto permanent residence, but no right to bring in wives and children. It was not until 1956 that the Government gave such residents full citizenship rights, and not until 1973, after the election of the Whitlam Labour Government, that non-Europeans received the same rights as other immigrants in terms of family migration and family reunion. The first serious reform of the White Australia Policv came in 1964 when

Mr Hubert Opperman, a man regarded then as a better cyclist than politician, gained Cabinet approval to allow people who were not fully European to settle in Australia. In 1966 Mr Opperman succeeded in having the White Australia policy liberalised even further: highly qualified non-Europeans, in practice mainly Asians, were also permitted to migrate to Australia. By the mid-1970s both Labour and Liberal national Governments had decided to adopt a completely nondiscriminatory policy and remove all racial restrictions in immigration laws and practices. The prime minister, Mr Hawke, appealing for consensus in the present debate, has emphasised that his Government has not changed immigration policy to let in more Asians. He also quoted figures showing that the number of Asian refugees coming to Australia had fallen, from 16,000 in 1981-82 to 10,000 in 1983-84. The Asian intake, however, is increasing because of the family reunion programme. Asians were 40 per cent of the total intake this financial- year, compared with 26 per cent in 1982-83. That is because more Asians than Europeans are bringing in their families.