' ( . l' l'lll Clare O'Neil A history that gives hope Under different leadership, in different times, changes in attitudes towards asylum seekers have been profound and swift IN Tm LA
• the success of our population policy that failure will spell national disaster.' The manner in which the DPs were settled proved important. Assimilation was the goal and the program was promoted on the basis that, in a short time, the New Australians would be the same as everyone else. The Department of Immigration developed services to assist in settlement and citizen hip. English classes and welfare support were provided to migrants. Regular newsletters supporting the New Australians were funded, along with ethnic tolerance programs. Good Neighbour Councils were established, which brought together churches and voluntary organisations to assist migrants in understanding Australian life-from essentials such as ban king and health care to helping find child care, integration into the local community and friendship. D ESPITE THE COMMON sense of the program and the almost universal view that the population should be much bigger, despite bipartisan support, government programs and a belief that the migrants would assimilate, there was still significant racism against the New Australians. But could we really have expected more Until the migration program began in earnest, Australia was one of the least diverse, most monocultural countries in the world. As is well documented, Australia had prided itself and bu ilt its national identity on the notion of a Wh ite Australia. While most of the DPs were fair-skinned, they were not racially Anglo-Saxon and their migration thus ran counter to that policy. Despite the incredible change that the immigration program brought, there were no insurrections, no massive protests, no rise of powerful, anti-immigration political parties. On the whole, the fact that the mass migration program was broadly supported is something we can be proud of. Doubtless, post-WWII refugee migration laid the groundwork for Australia's acceptance of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees after the unification of Vietnam. The first boatload of Indo-Chinese refugees arrived in 1976 and they continued in a steady flow, reaching a zenith in late 1977 when boats arrived almost daily. In contrast to the post-WWII campaign, this was a refugee program with genuine humanitarian aims. Australia had no labour shortages, a different defence strategy and a bigger population. It was the nation's first test after the White Australia years, and it passed. Many Australians felt trepidation towards these boat people. But with strong leadership and a history of providing a home for refugees, most Vietnamese refugees were allowed to stay and are s now an integral part of the Aus- tralian community. 0 WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM this history The post-war migration program, in addition to showing us that dramatic change in public opinion about refugees is possible in a short period of time, also demonstrates the challenges we face in the current debate. Support of the government was crucial. Contrast the historic campaign to assist refugee settlement with the actions of the Howard Government, which has incited fear by lying about 'children overboard', which places proven refugees on temporary visas to prevent full participation in the Australian community, which leaves people in detention indefinitely, which detains babies and small children and runs election campaigns on the theme of 'we'll decide who comes into our country and t he circumstances in which they come'. While the Government encourages and validates fear and uncertainty towards asylum seekers, any shift in favour of this cause represents the overcoming of a challenge not faced before in the history of refugee migration in Australia. Political bipartisanship has been a strong feature of the refugee debate. Both the post WWII and Vietnamese refugee migration programs had broad support from the oppositions of the day. Malcolm Fraser has noted that, had parties tried to 'make politics' over Vietnamese refugee migration, it probably would not have been supported by the Australian public. A further challenge is that the pragmatic arguments for complex. Post-war refugee migration was a tool for bringing much-needed labour to Australia. Today, we don't have full employment or labour shortages. The jobs in which new migrants might have traditionally worked are the very jobs that are disappearing. The public is being asked to support a program that is truly humanitarian. The history is, however, optimistic. In recognising the challenges, we acknowledge that public opinion in support of asylum seekers since Tampa has been gained under difficult circumstances. Any such gains illustrate the strong potential for openness and compassion under different circumstances. Because under different leadership, in different times, changes in attitudes towards asylum seekers have been profound and swift. This is reason for hope. • Clare O'Neil is a councillor in the City of Greater Dandenong, which settles more refugees than any other municipality in Victoria. She is also a history student at Monash University. Obtain your own corflute sign by calling freecall: 18oo 025 101 email christmasbowl@ncca.org.au accepting today's refugees, www.ncca.org.au as for the Vietnamese, are NOVEMBER- DECEMBER 2005 EURE KA STREET 29
Change language