0 - Eureka Street

•
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