FOREWORD
There is no more interesting study for most men, young or old, than the study of human affairs and public affairs as part of the general subject is no exception. Good government depends upon adequate study which, can penetrate the obvious and equally see the simplicity of principle that sometimes is lost in the processes of erudition.
Richard Wood has encouraged the formation of Panels of business executives and professional men to study current problems such as foreign affairs and defence on the one hand, and "fringe banking" and productivity on the other. The results have been rewarding and especially so as the approach has nearly always been informed, practical and fresh.
This pamphlet, which is the product of one of these Panels, is now published as the considered view of the leader of the particular discussion, he having had the opportunity of hearing the arguments for and against the particular propositions and the criticisms expressed by his fellow Panel members. It is, however, a useful contribution to the current discussion on the subject.
P.F. Irvine
August, 1991
"The time is ripe for an open and definite break with the past", (1) concludes a study made by the Immigration Reform Group.
"I don't care what you say. It doesn't matter how many ... before long we shall be overrun ..." (2) -- thus begins a recent series of articles in The Australian promoting new thoughts on allowing non-Europeans to settle in Australia. It matters little by whom the words were spoken -- what is important is that they could have been spoken by any of the vast numbers of people irrevocably wedded to the principle of separation of the races. This principle is all too often associated with the altitude of Australians generally. Australia's immigration policy likewise is all too frequently spotlighted with the same bias in press headlines of the World. "Inquiry on Barred Man" (3) says one, and "Australia Relentless in Barring Asians", (4) says another. Reformers are active and they too sometimes introduce an air of sensationalism in the sincere belief that their ideology will salve our conscience and enable us to step forward in peace, love and harmony with our borders open to all. The real argument against complete removal of the barriers is in the strength of the opposition which lies behind the spoken words quoted earlier. Therein is demonstrated an irreconcilable attitude not peculiar to Australia or for that matter to European communities. It is this attitude which gives rise in a mixed society to bitterness and racial tensions and it is this attitude also which provides for all governments a challenge with no easy or ready legislative solution.
It is not true to say that Australia imposes a colour bar. It is not true to say also that Australia places no restrictions on non-European immigration but no discussion of the subject generally would be complete without a look at the past.
When the first Europeans formed a settlement in Australia, the only other inhabitants were the Aborigines -- their then total numbers have been given various estimates. The general opinion is that the total probably did not exceed 150,000 to 200,000. They were not an industrious people and although they have contributed in many ways to the Australian way of life, it is true to say that the development of Australia as we know it today began with and was activated by the early European settlers. Thus it was, at the turn of the century that a nation was born, founded on democratic traditions based on a European community with its associated standards and conventions. And thus it was also that immigration laws were then enacted to meet the common resolve to preserve that way of life.
Until the 1850's, when the discovery of gold changed the scene, our development was almost entirely bound up in the pastoral industry. The early labour requirements had been more or less satisfied from Great Britain either through free migration or liberation of men from the penal establishments. In 1841, a Government Committee in Sydney rejected a proposal to introduce indentured labour from India or China. To be useful, the Asiatic immigrants would need to continue to work for low wages, and as such wages would tend to lower the wage standard throughout the Colony the Committee saw a decline, if not an end to migration from Great Britain. They concluded that it was not worthwhile introducing an element into the social system of Australia that would cause it to deteriorate.
The discovery of gold in 1850 resulted in the influx of large numbers of Chinese. They were financed principally by wealthy compatriots at home who were to share in the gold they won. Three years after the first payable discovery, there were 2000 Chinese in the then Colony of Victoria. Two years later there were 17,000 and this gave rise to the imposition of restrictions by the Victorian Legislature. But the numbers continued to grow and by 1857, there were 40,000 -- in many goldfields Chinese miners equalled or outnumbered Europeans. Racial disturbances occurred and subsequently the Colonies of New South Wales and South Australia introduced restriction laws similar to those enacted earlier in Victoria and thus the flow into Victoria from across the borders was reduced.
The combined restrictions and decreased returns from the goldfields reduced Chinese immigration to only a few hundreds by 1863. With this background and in the light of disapproval from the Home Government, the restrictions were repealed in 1867. The problem was renewed when gold was discovered in Queensland in 1875.
A short time later, the question of Asiatic immigration entered a further phase with the introduction of Chinese labour to a ship trading from Australian ports. A strike ensued and public feeling was influenced towards the protection of European labour against the hiring of cheaper labour from overseas. Ultimately the Australian Governments introduced uniform legislation restricting the entry of Chinese immigrants to 1 for every 500 tons of the ship's capacity. The British Government at the same time sent instructions to Hong Kong and Singapore designed to stop Chinese emigration from these ports.
Other non-Europeans had all this time, been free to enter Australia, but in fact, very few did.
During the last half of the 19th century a number of South Pacific Islanders satisfied the labour requirements of the tropical areas of Queensland. There were some bad cases of early exploitation and these were overcome by a new set of regulations introduced by the Queensland Government in 1890. The numbers involved probably never exceeded 5,000.
Following the Federation of the Australian Colonies in 1901, the experiences and events of the past century were fresh in the minds of those who comprised the First Federal Parliament. At that time, all the States had restricted the immigration of Chinese and some had imposed a heavy head tax in addition or prohibited all non-Europeans by means of a language test. Faced with this background, the economic considerations from which it had arisen and which still applied, and the unfortunate excesses of extreme racism, it is little wonder that the policy of excluding non-Europeans was common to the platform of every political party at Federation.
The first Parliament enacted the Pacific Islanders Labourers Act of 1901 which gave the Government power to deport any Islanders found in Australia after 1906. A subsequent Act allowed any Islander who had lived here for 20 years, or who owned land in Australia to remain. Not more than 1,000 were involved.
Protective action was necessary to save the sugar industry and this was forthcoming in the form of a customs duty on imported sugar and an excise duty on locally grown sugar to finance a bounty on sugar grown with European labour.
The next measure, the Federal Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, was designed to unify the various State laws on immigration and thus to confirm the general principles which had hitherto been in force. By this law, there could be no entry into Australia of any person who, when asked to do so, failed to write out on dictation and in the presence of an immigration Officer a passage of 50 words in a European language. The word "European" was subsequently altered (1905) to "prescribed". The law was non-discriminative in form but in its practical administration it gave the great advantage of being able to effect exclusion of anyone deemed undesirable.
Japan had earlier raised objections to the implied slight to her nationhood in the exclusion of her subjects from Australia. The Japanese had represented themselves above the level of the other populations of Asia and it was in deference to their wishes that steps were taken in 1905 to remove from the Act the requirements that the dictation test be administered in a "European" language. Generally speaking, Japan dominated such little public discussion as there was in the years which followed. There were suggestions that in consequence of Japan's great advancement which justifiably entitled her to claim equality with the Western nations, Australian attitudes to Japanese migration should be liberalised. However, stronger feelings to the contrary were to prevail as reports of Japan's growth as a naval and military power gave strength to fears of aggression.
So settled was the issue generally that the original 1901 Act survived until 1959 when it was succeeded by the Migration Act (1958) under which the dictation test was replaced by a system of permanent and temporary entry permits. Persons who according to government policy were eligible for settlement in Australia were granted permanent entry permits. Those who were not eligible were either refused entry permits or granted only a temporary entry permit for u specified time. In all cases, absolute discretion rested with the Minister of Immigration.
To be more specific, the Government says that its policy on the immigration of persons of non-European origins contains no element of racial prejudice or feelings of "White" supremacy, but is based on the principle, admitted by all countries, that each nation has the responsibility of deciding its own racial composition and of seeing that it does not develop within itself acute tensions based on irreconcilable racial antagonisms.
It is most important that every Australian, and for that matter the whole world, should know that, within the framework of the existing legislation Asians and other persons of non-European origin are admitted to Australia.
The Department of Immigration says that those at present able to gain permanent entry include the wives, husbands and minor unmarried children of Australian citizens and other British subjects.
Asians may be admitted with temporary resident status if they are:
- persons having outstanding cultural or other attainments which would be an asset to Australia;
- persons fitted to fill professional or higher technical appointments for which local residents are not available;
- persons otherwise distinguished in Government, the professions, or international or humanitarian services;
- persons having qualifications which are in special demand in Australia, the need for which cannot be satisfied from the local supply of labour;
- Asian students who have completed their education at a tertiary level in Australia and who have qualifications from which the Australian community would benefit may apply for re-admission with temporary resident status after an interval of at least five years spent in their own country.
Asians who are bona fide applicants for visitors visas are admitted freely for business purposes or as tourists.
There are some 12,400 Asian and other non-European students at present in Australia. 1,600 of these are Government sponsored students (Colombo Plan etc.) and 10,800 are private students.
The basic objective of the student policy is that young Asians are admitted for education and training (the facilities for which are not readily available to them in their own countries), so that they may return home with qualifications and experience useful to the areas from which they come.
In 1963 the number of Asians already admitted to Australia with temporary resident status and who were granted permanent resident status was 368. The figure for 1964 was 410. In the same years the numbers of Asians and other non-Europeans admitted with permanent resident status were respectively, 371 and 328.
At the 30th June 1964 the number of Asians and other persons of non-European origin in Australia was approximately 37,300 comprising --
- 15,300 who are Australian citizens (10,300 by birth and 5,000 by naturalisation and registration);
- 3,000 who have been granted resident status (but have either not sought or qualified for citizenship);
- approximately 1000 who have acquired resident status with the effluxion of time (viz. former "domiciled" Asians);
- 4,400 non-Europeans who have been admitted, in some instances with their families, in a variety of categories with temporary resident status;
- 1,200 visitors and
- an Asian and other non-European student population of 12,400 (comprising approximately 1,600 government sponsored students and 10,800 private students).
The figures exclude some 5,000 Torres Strait Islanders as well as the indigenous Aborigines and part Aboriginal.
It is not generally realised that there has been considerable movement to Australia of persons from mixed race communities (e.g., the Burgher community in Ceylon, the Anglo-Burmese community in Burma, the Anglo-Indian community in India, from the Mauritius, the Seychelles and the Dutch-Indonesian from Holland, etc.). These are people in whom there is an Asian or other non-European admixture.
During the post-war period more than 10,000 persons of mixed descent have been admitted from Ceylon as well as some thousands from other countries in Asia and elsewhere.
The flexibility of the present policy makes it possible for tiie exercise of discretion based on family relationships, skills and qualifications and factors of a compassionate nature.
A study of our 19th century history provides a background to early Australian attitudes. The original concept was one of the settled issues at Federation in 1901 and no tangible signs of change were to become apparent until after the Second World War. Australians were conscious of the help they had received from allies of non-European descent. More recently Australians have become increasingly aware of their close proximity to Asia with its large population and of the political developments in that region.
Firm and positive moves have been taken to improve our image in Asia and to extend the hand of friendship to its people and nations. Australia was one of the progenitors of the Colombo Plan and with this we offer places at our Universities and Schools For Asian students.
Official policy has not remained tied to the 1901 concept but rather has it moved gradually from the shadow of the past and now stands poised for the future, free of inflexibilities and able to act in line with sane public desires.
A former Minister of Immigration sums it up well when he says, "To describe our Immigration Policy in such sweeping generalisation as 'White Australia' is misleading. It imparts an innuendo of racial superiority which in truth is absent from our natural attitude to foreigners. Few people are less conscious to differences of race and colour than contemporary Australians." (5)
An impressive weight of representative bodies, (6) amongst whom are the Australian Council of Churches, (7) have been active in advocating that the Government should ease restrictions.
Despite this background, such relaxation as has taken place, and official assurances, are not sufficient to satisfy the growing clamour for a change in the present policy. Among the more vocal voices of opposition is the Immigration Reform Group which commenced as a study group not committed to any particular policy. This group came to the conclusion that the time is ripe for an open and definite break with the past.
Writers and journalists along with newspapers are frequent critics and this may partly arise from the appealing headline material so often provided by a discussion of attitudes or of particular applications of the Government's policy. A New Zealander writing recently for The Dominion said -- "Australia has imposed a blanket restriction on all members of Asian races and it is a restriction which is much resented". (8)
Material of this kind no doubt appealed to the newspapers since it provided a base for their eye-catching headline "Australia Relentless in Barring Asians". (9)
Gross distortions such as this whether they stem from misinformed reporting or otherwise are intensely damaging to Australia.
The time has arrived for responsible Australians to pause for serious thought. So accustomed have we become to the constant barrage of criticism and clamour for reform that we are encouraged to forget the facts; rather do we tend to hang our heads in shame and think only of the more extravagant arguments put forward by the critics or reformers. Let us not forget that many of our critics are ignorant of what has been the Government's practice for many years and that much of their criticism is therefore ill-informed.
Looking back we may fairly be criticised for our tardiness in abandoning the rigidities of the 1901 concept. As late as 1949 we refused entry to the Filipino sergeant who had served with the U.S. Forces in Australia and who had married an Australian girl. But now, we can fairly claim that we have progressed, albeit gradually.
The Melbourne Herald recalls that the sergeant was admitted in 1950 and is "a real Aussie these days". (10) Many others have been admitted and let us hope many more will be admitted. We have no statutory barriers and our official policy is flexible.
If there is today an argument or valid point for discussion it is on the speed with which we have moved or are moving towards freer attitudes. No group is able truthfully to say that Australia or any other country can successfully absorb unlimited numbers of migrants of any nationality, race or colour. Each new family group which steps ashore has two immediate needs. Housing is necessary to ensure that they settle without difficulty and a job for the breadwinner must be found without delay if the family is to be supported. The few who arrive with adequate financial resources and with particular skills will naturally be housed and employed well in advance of those who have neither of these advantages. As the total numbers arriving multiply, so too does the requirement of jobs and houses, An excess of the former leads to an excess demand for the latter -- the unpleasant consequences may take the form of unemployment, inflation, lower living standards or the emergence of a group of second class citizens.
With a population of only 11½-millions, Australia's ability to absorb migrants of any kind is necessarily limited if we are to avoid inequality of opportunity or the development of a two tier society.
The flow must be regulated if migrants are to be happily assimilated but few of those who criticise our policy take the time to examine fully the social and economic consequences of an excessive intake, or in other words an over-liberal immigration policy. Australia's present policy is based on the need to maintain a predominantly homogeneous population. In this way it is hoped not to promote feelings of white superiority but to avoid difficult social and economic problems.
Having regard to our obvious inability to assist our Asian friends in resolving their population problems by lifting our immigration barriers, there is a strong case for continued aid to Asian countries. A token gesture in opening our doors to an annual quota will achieve absolutely nothing to help the immigrant's homeland and could well lead to problems for both Australians and the immigrant.
Annual quotas can do little more than salve our conscience or win us a few more friends overseas. The Immigration Reform Group quite rightly warns that "to aim at friendship too directly is sometimes self defeating". (11) In any case the United States has found the quota system wanting. It has been said in that country that it will be a much happier state of affairs when entry is refused on the grounds that there is "no room", rather than there is "no room for more Greeks".
Those of the critics who seek to appeal to the emotions with arguments that our present policy is immoral or irreconcilable with the Christian ethic should not overlook prejudices and tensions which regrettably seem to be inseparable from multi-racial societies. Many Asians themselves accept the reasoning behind our immigration policy since many of them are familiar with the divergent interests of people of mixed races living together.
In Ceylon, for example, religious and racial antagonism arose from the presence of the Indian and Burgher populations and the mixture of racial groups in Malaysia is not without problems. South Africa's apartheid policy is not the product of a harmonious coexistence of the three racial groups involved.
The Sydney Sun-Herald columnist 'Onlooker' had this to say about the growing problem in Great Britain --
"Clamour is growing for relaxation of the White Australia Policy at the very time when something approximating a White Britain Policy is finding increasing favour in the United Kingdom. Critics of the immigration restrictions here should note what is happening there. Least colour conscious of peoples and never very sympathetic toward Australia's policy, the British suddenly have found themselves with an acute racial problem on their hands. A London Times correspondent estimates that Britain now has around 1,000,000 coloured inhabitants." (12)
The Columnist goes on to say that social tensions have arisen wherever the immigrants have congregated. In a recent documentary film on Britain's colour problem, a British M.P. observed that, as with British Universities, large numbers of non-Europeans attended Universities in Communist countries. Invariably they returned home with anti-Communist beliefs whereas their counterparts returned from Britain with anti-British tendencies.
In all the enlightenment of this decade, the bitterness between the Negro and European population in the United States retains much of its intensity. The advisory committee appointed by the State Civil Rights Commission to look into a riot in Los Angeles in August, 1965, urged immediate action to provide jobs for Negroes, end housing discrimination and improve living conditions. Thirty-four persons died in these riots and damage estimated at 40 million dollars was caused.
Despite the strength of their arguments on moral grounds, the case put forward by the critics or references often fails to take into full account the experiences of mixed race societies in other parts of the World. A positive move which would silence criticism on moral grounds would of course be attractive if we could engineer some inbuilt assurance of immunity from the kind of trouble experienced elsewhere. Thinking and loyal Australians should carefully weigh the alternatives before accepting arguments which appeal to the emotions and which might lead to support for an indeterminate migration policy. It is appropriate here to recall the words of the Minister for Immigration in 1959 --
"... if racial irritation flared into strife (we have plenty of experience in other parts of the world to guide us as to what could happen) forces would be let loose which could cause a lasting bruise to our reputation in Asia. This would engender frictions which do not now exist and possibly endanger our security." (13)
So long as there are limits to the numbers of non-Europeans who can be absorbed, there will always be some whose applications for entry permits will be refused. This is axiomatic and since it is painfully obvious that we will need to retain limitations for as far into the future as one can see, it will always be relatively simple for journalists and other self appointed critics to headline the case histories of unfortunate people whose applications fall beyond the limitations imposed by social and economic barriers.
The decision makers have an unenviable task but the correspondent who sends to his newspaper a story which can support the headline "White Australia Policy" is usually lauded as a crusader. If he is not an Australian he performs a disservice to his country in that he ascribes to it a label which conjures up in the minds of his readers abroad (material of the kind under discussion is invariably syndicated) all the evils associated with colour bar, racial prejudice etc. He is helping to perpetuate a term abandoned by most responsible Australians.
In the interests of peaceful co-existence in a mixed world, to enable us to play our proper role in World councils and to broaden our knowledge of their customs and cultures, all Australians have a duty to resolve to accept growing numbers of non-Europeans. We must resolve to work towards the complete removal from within of all individual prejudices and ideas of superiority. There is no scientific basis for the often held belief that one race is superior to another.
As we discard prejudice so will we improve our capacity to assimilate New Australians from all countries of the world and this is essential if Australia is to grow as a part of and in peace with Asia.
There are many facets as we look into the future. We cannot overlook the tragedies so often associated with racial prejudices and tensions in other parts of the world. Those who seek sweeping reforms particularly should remind themselves of these unfortunate occurrences which have not so far been part of the Australian way of life. In this present day world and especially in view of Australia's place in Asia, it would be foolish in the extreme to suggest that Australia should exclude all non-Europeans. All loyal Australians therefore have an obligation to accept freely such numbers as can be assimilated without upsetting the balance of our economy. Those who clamour for reform would do well to remember that prejudice cannot be removed by legislation and that assimilation is a necessary ingredient of homogeneity. With all its facets the whole subject is complex, difficult and confused but these are two thoughts which remain reasonably clear. If we regulate we will probably assimilate. If we de-control we will certainly disintegrate.
APPENDIX
Since the Panel finished this discussion, the following Ministerial Statement was delivered in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Immigration, Hon. Hubert Opperman, M.P.
(From Parliamentary Debates, 9th March, 1966)
"The Government has reviewed the operation of immigration policy affecting non-European people, taking into account the experience and changing circumstances of recent years. I wish to give the House details of the decisions and to discuss their significance. When in 1956 the Government reviewed the policy, which had been followed since Federation, of not admitting persons of non-European origin for permanent residence, it introduced several significant reforms. Those people already settled here became eligible to be naturalised; the admission for permanent residence of immediate relatives of Australian citizens was authorised; and it was made possible for highly qualified people to come here for indefinite stay, though under temporary permits. Then in 1957 it was decided that non-Europeans who had been admitted on temporary permits could be naturalised after 15 years' stay. In 1964, the rules governing the entry of persons of mixed descent were eased.
The Government has now decided upon two further measures which the House will recognise as important but as not departing from the fundamental principles of our immigration policy. First, it has been decided that non-European people who are already here under temporary permits but are likely to be here indefinitely, should not have to wait 15 years before applying for resident status and for Australian citizenship, but should be able to apply after five years' residence, so ending a situation often criticised for its effect on individuals and families. This does not of course mean that everyone admitted to Australia for limited temporary residence is entitled to stay here indefinitely. Every country makes separate provision for temporary entry as distinct from the entry of settlers. For example, I must emphasise it would be quite wrong and most unfair to the development of countries whence they came to offer to the 12,000 Asian students in Australia the right to settle here after five years' study. The objective of admitting these young people, to use educational facilities which are both expensive to the Australian Government and in great demand, is to help the students' homelands by increasing their numbers of qualified people.
The Government's decision, therefore, does not relate to people expected to leave Australia after limited temporary residence but does apply to those who have been here for long periods or who are likely to be allowed to stay indefinitely. The two main examples of people affected by the elimination of the fifteen-year rule are the highly qualified Asians admitted in recent years for "indefinite stay" but on temporary entry permits; and Chinese admitted before 1956 who, if they left Australia, could go back only to Communist China. By a decision of the Government in 1956, they were allowed to stay on but, lacking the status of settlers and citizens, have been unable to bring their wives and children here. I am very glad to say that one important benefit of the Government's decision to abolish the so-called fifteen-year rule will be to enable many families who have been separated for some years to be reunited much sooner than would have been possible under the previous rule.
The second decision is that applications for entry by well qualified people wishing to settle in Australia will be considered on the basis of their suitability as settlers, their ability to integrate readily, and their possession of qualifications which are in fact positively useful to Australia. They will be able after five years' stay on temporary permits to apply for resident status and citizenship. They will be able to bring their immediate families with them on first arrival.
No annual quota is contemplated. The number of people entering -- though limited relative to our total population -- will be somewhat greater than previously, but will be controlled by the careful assessment of the individual's qualifications, and the basic aim of preserving a homogeneous population will be maintained. The changes are of course not intended to meet general labour shorties or to permit the large scale admission of workers from Asia: but the widening of eligibility will help to fill some of Australia's special needs.
Examples of those who, under the new decision, will be admitted in numbers greater than previously are persons with specialised technical skills for appointments for which local residents are not available; persons of high attainment in the arts and sciences, or of prominent achievement in other ways, persons nominated by responsible authorities or institutions for specific important professional appointments, which otherwise would remain unfilled; executives, technicians, and other specialists who have spent substantial periods in Australia -- for example, with the branches here of large Asian companies -- and who have qualifications or experience in positive demand here; businessmen who in their own countries have been engaged in substantial international trading and would be able to carry on such trade from Australia; persons who have been of particular and lasting help to Australia's interest abroad in trade, or in other ways; and persons who by former residence in Australia or by association with us have demonstrated an interest in or identification with Australia that should make their future residence here feasible.
Applications by such persons and others in comparable circumstances will be eligible for consideration on an individual basis. Those admitted will be able to apply for resident status and citizenship after five years' stay. Where the Governments of other countries may be concerned over loss of qualified people, there will be appropriate consultation, as Australia must not contradict the aims of the Colombo Plan and other efforts to help such countries' development. With the same objective, the programme of allowing young people to come from other countries as students will continue. Greater effort is to be made to ensure tint courses undertaken will be of recognised value to the students' homelands when they return there. In view of the need to ensure most effective use of scarce places at our universities and other institutions, the intending student's ability to undertake his course successfully will be examined carefully at time of application for entry, and his progress will be assessed annually.
Honorable members on both sides of the House have frequently and generously stressed that humanity and discretion have marked the handling of individual cases in the immigration field generally. This I can assure the House, will be continued, always with Australia's interests in view, always in the hope of showing sympathy and consideration to men and women in difficulty, and always avoiding unnecessary disclosure of private confidences or misfortunes. Representations from any responsible source will be carefully considered.
Every country has not only a right to its own immigration policy but a heavy duty and a vital responsibility to administer it in the interests of its own people. Our neighbours and friends all have immigration policies that are based on their own interests and are intended to benefit their own people and future. All include elements of control of entry and residence, some with strict numerical and national limitations. No government is to be reproached for aspects of its immigration system developed for its needs and derived from its social history, political traditions and constitutional arrangements. No responsible government condones illegality or deceit, which are poor gateways indeed for the entry of new settlers.
Our programmes and policies have likewise emerged from our history, our respect for law and order and our response to our special needs. Our primary aim in immigration is a generally integrated and predominantly homogeneous population. A positive element in the latest changes is that which will admit selected non-Europeans capable of becoming Australians and joining in our national development. Both the policy and the rules and procedures by which it is effected cannot remain static and must be constantly reviewed. Though redefined from time to time, they must be administered in accordance with the law, on principles decided by the Government, with justice to individuals and for the future welfare of the Australian people as a whole. These will continue to be the main elements of Australia's immigration policy."
REFERENCES
1. "Immigration -- Control or Colour Bar" -- page 124 The Immigration Reform Group.
2. James Hall in The Australian 22/6/65.
3. Sydney Sun 11/2/65.
4. The Dominion, Wellington, N.Z. 31/8/65.
5. Hon. A.R. Downer (now Sir Alexander) speaking at Commonwealth Club Luncheon, Town Hall, Adelaide, 4/12/59.
6. "Immigration -- Control or Colour Bar", page 120.
7. Australian Council of Churches, Annual Meeting February, 1965.
8. Sy Carter in The Dominion, Wellington, N.Z., 31/8/65.
9. ibid.
10. Melbourne Herald 26/4/65.
11. "Immigration -- Control or Colour Bar", page 88.
12. Onlooker in Sun-Herald Sydney, 21/2/65.
13. Hon. A.R. Downer (now Sir Alexander) speaking at Commonwealth Club Luncheon, Town Hall, Adelaide, 4/12/59.
No comments:
Post a Comment