Politics and the media: The immigration debate in Australia from the early 1900s to the present (part 1)

Following is part one of two of a brief paper written in 2009 discussing the Australian media's role in the immigration debate. A full list of references cited will be given with part two.

Part 1 of 2

Introduction

Up until November 2007 when John Howard’s reign as prime minister and Liberal–National Coalition leader finally ended, it seemed to many Australians (myself included) that we were seeing a resurgence of the old White Australia Policy, and the treatment of migrants often mimicked that which occurred over a century ago. Howard’s Liberal government had attempted to have the English test reinstated (this time written as opposed to oral), and also intended to ‘quiz’ potential citizens on what it means to be ‘Australian’; sporting achievements, mateship and history (presumably white) were proposed as topics. The test was cited in a media release by the Department of Immigration (2006, p.1 of 4) as ‘Helping migrants to integrate and maximise the opportunities available to them in Australia’. While the White Australia Policy was ‘legally’ stamped out by Whitlam in the 1970s (Ang 2003, p.62), this paper will explore how the ideologies that were present when it was implemented in 1901 are very much alive in the political and media sphere of contemporary Australia which, in turn, serves to further intensify an ongoing debate.

White Australia Policy — dead or alive?

The White Australia Policy had been introduced in 1901 after two Acts were implemented — the Pacific Islands Labourers Act 1901 and the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. The first was intended to prevent the introduction of Pacific Islander workers (and ensured the deportation of those already here), while the second restricted the type of people who could enter the country. This Act not only prohibited so-called ‘undesirables’, such as those who were insane, diseased or criminal, but also excluded anyone who could not pass a dictation test in the examiner’s chosen European language (that is, not necessarily English). After taking various measures to decrease, or at least hide, the country’s existing Indigenous population, it was now thought that minimising the numbers of people from non-European countries entering Australia would be in the nation’s best interest. The ultimate goal of the government at that time was to have ‘one people without the admixture of other races’. (Markus 1979, p.xii) The purpose of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was clear and simple, according to Australia’s first Attorney General: ‘In fact and in effect our colourless laws are administered so as to draw a deep colour line between caucasions and all other races’. (Souter 1976, p.88)

Every now and then someone in politics or the media rears their head and attempts to reinstate the ideologies of the White Australia Policy for their own personal agenda, even though it was dismantled several decades ago. The most prominent of these people was Pauline Hanson in the mid to late 1990s, who strongly believed that ‘[Asians] have their own culture and religion and do not assimilate’. (Tavan 2005, p.223) However, Hanson never once called into question (or even addressed) the fact that white Europeans had made every attempt not to assimilate with the original inhabitants of the land. She even claimed in 1996 that ‘if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country’. (Hanson 1996, p.unknown)

Coincidentally or otherwise, in 2001 the one-hundredth anniversary of the implementation of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was ‘celebrated’ with the introduction by the Howard government of the Border Protection Act 2001 — its aim described as to ‘keep Australia free of asylum seekers’. (Manne 2003, p.163) While the origins of this particular Act can be found in the early 1990s with the Labor federal government, it was John Howard’s Liberal party that ensured it became legislation. That same year (one month before the Act was officially instated) the Tampa scandal unfolded, when the Norwegian cargo vessel rescued 433 Afghans who were bound for Australia and, fearing for their health, attempted to unload them safely on Christmas Island. However, not wanting ‘queue jumpers’ to be allowed on Australian soil (or even in their waters), naval frigate HMAS Manoora transferred the refugees to their own vessel and detained them. (Manne 2003, p.164) Also in 2001 was the ‘children overboard’ affair, where Iraqi asylum seekers threw their children into the Indian Ocean as a strategic move to gain entry into Australia, of which John Howard commented, ‘I don’t want people like that in Australia’. (Tavan 2005, p.222)