Race and Australian Immigration Policy Drew Cottle and Dawn Bolger

Abstract From the inauguration of the Australian Commonwealth until the 1970s, Australian immigration policy ensured that non-white undesirables would be prevented from migrating to Australia. The Immigration Restriction Act intentionally restricted nonwhite immigration to Australia and legalised discriminatory racial policy. Under economic imperatives to populate or perish restrictions were relaxed progressively after World War II however immigration was still tightly controlled and racially selective. Immigrants were assessed on their suitability, their ability to integrate and the possession of qualifications positively useful to Australia. From Edmund Bartons quote of Charles Pearson in 1901 The day will come through to Howards 2001 declaration that We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come, successive Australian governments have maintained this racial sentiment. Although the White Australia policy was officially abandoned under the Whitlam Labor government, a racial logic is embedded in Australian immigration policy. Successive Australian governments have chosen to permit entry only to those immigrants who are deemed to be beneficial to Australia. This paper considers the historical background of immigration restrictions in Australia and asks whether the idea of controlled immigration on the basis of race has ever been abandoned.

In 1971, the Coalition Prime Minister John Gorton declared to a group of Australian expatriates in Singapore that he believed Australia could be the first truly multi-racial society with no tensions of any kind possible between any of the races within it (The Age 5 July 1972). This was a significant and brave ideological step away from previous notions of a White Australia. However almost forty years on, this paper asserts that little other than official government rhetoric has changed. While official race-based policy ended with the abolition of the White Australia policy in 1973, Australias contemporary immigration policies reflect a long tradition of race-based exclusion. Through an examination of immigration policy both during White Australia and in contemporary times, this paper seeks to demonstrate that while official policy has shifted away from the racist ideals of the Immigration Restriction Act there are still significant ideological continuities. This paper argues that although official race-based policy may no longer exist in a formalised sense, Australian immigration policy is still largely influenced by exclusionist race based policy. Race has been used throughout Australian history to exclude the Other.1 Until the abolition of the White Australia policy, Australia deliberately sought to exclude other races through harsh immigration policies. During the period of White Australia, certain races, such as the Chinese were either marginalised or excluded from Australian society. The belief that these degenerate populations would overtake and
The term Other is commonly used to explain the ways in which one group excludes another. For a definition see Bill Ashcroft. Other Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. 1998. eds. Key concepts in post-colonial studies. London: Routledge, p. 169.
1

destroy the Anglo-Australian hegemony formed a large part of this exclusion. Similarly, refugees and unauthorised immigrants represent an integral part of the contemporary immigration concerns. In a remarkable parallel with historical Australian thought, many potential immigrants have embodied a similar risk to Australian racialised thought and have been portrayed as deviant or regressive (Goldberg 2002). What this demonstrates is that the exclusion of certain persons based on race forms a large part of Australias history and more damagingly is evident in contemporary government policy and society. While contemporary Australia is seen as an egalitarian, multicultural society, a closer examination reveals the opposite. An understanding of racialised exclusion is central to any understanding of Australian history. From the White Australia policy, which sought to exclude or assimilate nonWhite European persons, to alleged threats to the security of the contemporary Australian nation, this paper endeavours to show that race has always been a central theme in Australian immigration policy. Race and Australian Nationalism During the late 19th century, science was used to justify racism and validate discrimination. Widely acclaimed at the time, the science of race was based on the belief that a hierarchy of races existed with superior and inferior races. This ideology proclaimed that the Nordic or white races were biologically superior, to the rest of humanity. Coloured races were biologically inferior, childlike and savage (Tovim, Gabriel, Law & Stredder 1986, 61). This Social Darwinian ideology became an unquestioned commonsense and as a consequence played a large part in shaping colonial Australian ideology. Colonial settler Australia was racially defined by its fear of outsiders. The settler occupiers of Australia were aware of their proximity to Asia and the Pacific Islands and harboured a racial fear of foreign invasion. At stake was the white homogeneity of Australia. Fears of foreign invasion were pervasive. Australian novels produced in the late 1880s told stories of how hordes from the north would take over a vulnerable [white] Australia (Ross 2006, 87). While The Battle of Mordialloc or How We Lost Australia warned of Australia being absorbed by the Russian empire with the aid of Chinese troops (Webb and Enstice 1998, 130 -167). Similarly the fictional, White or Yellow: A Story of the Race War of 1908, predicted the eventual Chinese monopolisation of important British industries. Moreover, many popular Australian novels written during the period had supplementary declarations asserting that: neither the government nor the people realise the peril at hand [and that] the explicit aim of the fiction is to shock Australian readers out of this complacency (Ross, 2006, 87-88). This demonstrates that the fears were widely supported by colonial society and that race played an important part in shaping Australias history. The contemporary literature popularised racist fears of the Other. Terms such as the yellow peril, red menace or the hordes from the north became part of a racialised vocabulary that was commonplace and was used to describe and perpetuate the myth that without immigration control, coloured races would eventually flood and overtake the new nation (Jupp 2007, 9). In 1897, the British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain stated that there should not be an influx of people alien in civilisation, alien in religion, alien in customs, whose influx, moreover, would seriously interfere with the legitimate rights of the existing labouring population

(Rose 1933, 411). This fear of invasion and the belief in the superiority of the white race was dominant throughout colonial Australia. This fear was irrational and stemmed from a belief that an influx of inferior races would invade Australia and destroy its ethnic homogeneity. It was believed that without immigration restrictions, the superiority of the colonys white heritage would be compromised. Damagingly these irrational fears were used to stigmatise the outsider and contributed to a racially based immigration policy. The development and promotion of these fears were instrumental in the development of Australian nationalism. Nationalism is a particularly pervasive and powerful ideology. It is strengthened through reference to supposed external and internal threats. This has been continually demonstrated throughout Australian history. Since federation, Australia has had specific powers to regulate aliens. Moreover, during the promotion of the White Australia policy, a sense of nationalism was fostered through the stereotyping of non-White immigrants as deviant and regressive. Similarly, in contemporary Australia, a sense of nationalism was fostered through the stereotyping of refugees and unauthorised immigrants as criminal and dangerous. Nationalism is further sustained through the construction and maintenance of the racialised Other. By creating an us versus them dichotomy those who do not identify with the ideals set by the state are seen as a threat and subsequently stigmatised. This is evident when one examines contemporary Australian immigration policy. Refugees and unauthorised immigrants are often termed queue jumpers or forum shoppers and represented in a manner that creates fear. Moreover, successive Australian governments have sought to draw attention to a more Western heritage and have emphasised the need for cultural homogeneity. Race has been used throughout Australian history to foster a sense of nationalism. While there are substantial differences between current state responses and those employed under the White Australia policy, there are also significant ideological and practical continuities. Strong similarities may be drawn between current measures to externalise border control and the organised exclusion that formed the basis of the White Australia policy. In terms of race and cultural difference, nationalism demands loyalty through the promotion of certain accepted norms, identities and values. In colonial Australia the white-British identity was promoted as exemplar. As such, any persons who did not conform to these standards were seen as a threat to the Australian state. Australias racially exclusionary policies are also evident when one examines the experience of the Aboriginal population during this period. Interestingly, it seems that the Indigenous population was not considered as much of a threat to this British homogeneity. Closer examination reveals that rather than accepting the Indigenous population, the Aboriginal population was not as feared as it was assumed that they would simply die out or that those of mixed race would slowly become invisible through assimilation (Jupp 1995, 208). Although the threat of invasion from alien races was more prevalent, laws were still passed to discriminate against and marginalise Indigenous Australians. Jupp notes that many of these laws were similar to those passed in the southern United States and South Africa, denying citizenship, confining them to reservations and controlling their marriage rights and children (Jupp 1995, 208).

The British colonists had hoped that Australia would remain predominantly British. The aim of White Australia was to maintain an ethnically homogenous nation through the exclusion of other races. The colonisation of Australia had effectively provided the framework for an imagined community (Anderson 2000 67-77). 2 Colonial Australia relied consciously on it white-European heritage for its identity and wider nationalist ideology. Colonial Australia identified with its British heritage and endeavoured to maintain its ethnic homogeneity. This nationalist sentiment was framed through exclusion of those who did not identity as British or white-European and was expressed through the justification of harsh border control policies which were aimed at excluding those who were seen to be of inferior or incompatible status. Moreover, as the colonies began to expand, this exclusionist policy became more potent and underpinned the foundation of an exclusively European outpost, White Australia.

White Australia White Australia, bordered to its north and east by Asia and the Pacific Islands, had always remained acutely aware of its vulnerability as a sparsely populated island continent. As a consequence, issues of perceived racial difference regularly manifested in Australian society and influenced the public policy debate (Jupp 2007, 15). White Australia was an unequivocal expression of these interests and was an important ideological component of the push to federation (Griffiths 2006: 349-402). The exclusionist sentiment that provided the foundation for the creation of a White Australia received support across the spectrum of politics and among all classes. Based on a sense of racial superiority, it effectively excluded any persons that the Australian government thought to be unsuitable or undesirable to the Australian nation. Pervasive fears of invasion from other races were clearly evident during this period and the idea of a national policy limiting foreign immigration was central to the desire to federate. Between the 1880s and the 1970s, Australia deliberately orchestrated and legally maintained an exclusionist policy based on race. This became known as the White Australia policy and was officially enacted in 1901 under the Immigration Restriction Act. Its race-based, exclusionary policies were maintained until it was abolished in 1973. Suspicion and dislike of other races was evident before Federation (Jupp 2007, 9). During the 1850s, the discovery of gold in Victoria led to a surge in Australian immigration and people from Europe, North America and China arrived in Australia hoping to find gold (Jupp 2007, 8). This surge in immigration caused tension and created conflict between the white colonists and the non-white immigrant miners. The greatest source of racial conflict occurred between the white colonists and the new Chinese immigrants. Anti-Chinese sentiment had originated from notions of AngloSaxon superiority over other races and was fuelled by fears that cheap Chinese labour would threaten jobs and current wage rates of British colonists. To the white colonists,
2

An imagined community is a community that is socially constructed or imagined by those who perceive themselves as part of a certain group.

they were seen as unwelcome competitors (Johanson 1962, 4). Moreover, the Chinese were often more successful at finding gold than their white counterparts as they worked harder and longer. This created a fear that the Chinese would cause job losses and as a consequence their work ethic and in turn, themselves were seen as being incompatible with the colonial Australian ideology. Moreover, many feared that the racial purity of the Anglo-Saxon race would be compromised if people were to marry or worse, produce mixed-race children (McCalman, Cook & Reeves 2001, 109). The tensions on the goldfields led to an inundation of exclusionary legislation. The colonial Victorian government sought to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration and passed legislation 3 imposing a 10 tax on all Chinese persons arriving by sea (Jupp 2001, 202). This tax specifically targeted the Chinese and openly discriminated on the basis of race. Essentially it ensured that the Chinese were the most fiercely taxed members of the community (Bate 2003, 152). These high tax rates were introduced in an effort to deter future Chinese migration to the Victorian goldfields and were an example of one of the first attempts to exclude particular persons solely on the basis of race. Similar legislation was soon passed in many of the other colonial states (Hodge 2008, 337). With the influx of Chinese miners from across the Victorian border, antiChinese sentiment was exacerbated in New South Wales. Fears of Chinese dominance on the New South Wales goldfields were further fuelled with rumours of an influx of Chinese immigrants from both across colonial borders and overseas. This resentment of Chinese miners and the fear of an Asian invasion caused tension and lead colonial white-European miners to participate in mass demonstrations and riots (Crotty & Roberts 2009, 70). One of the largest and most significant of these was the riot that occurred at Lambing Flat. On 30 June 1861, Chinese miners were attacked by 3,000 European miners armed with picks and guns (McCalman, Cook & Reeves 2001, 109113). This race riot caused the New South Wales parliament to pass an act similar to that approved earlier in Victoria 4 which imposed high taxes on Chinese immigrants and prohibited the naturalisation of Chinese citizens. Similar race riots were evident in other white settler societies such as the United States and South Africa during the nineteenth century. Jupp suggests that Australia was unique in that it chose to exclude undesirables through legislation rather than through further violence (Jupp 2007, 9). A more critical reading would suggest that rather than being unique, Australia was considerably more intent on excluding undesirables from migrating to Australia and discriminated solely on the basis of race. This direct discrimination was illustrated in the Afghan crisis. In 1888, the Chinese passengers aboard the SS Afghan were refused permission to enter Melbourne (Chan 2005, 636). The Victorian governments refusal to allow the passengers to disembark

An Act to Make Provision for Certain Immigrants 1855. This Act was introduced by the Victorian government to specifically restrict the number of Chinese passengers a vessel could carry. Vessels were allowed to carry only one passenger for every 10 tons of registered tonnage (Jupp 2001, 202). 4 Chinese Immigration Regulation and Restriction Act The act regulated the period in which Chinese immigrants could stay, for whom they could work or employ and determined whether they were allowed to bring their families. See Choi, 1975, 21-23.

bears remarkable similarities to the Tampa crisis over 100 years later. 5 With its passengers unable to set foot on Victorian soil, the Afghan was forced to sail to Sydney. There, along with three other ships carrying Chinese passengers, it was met with large scale public protests and riots (Chan 2005, 636). Mirroring the actions of Victoria, the New South Wales government refused to let any Chinese passengers disembark and immediately forced the ship into quarantine. At the same time, the New South Wales government passed new legislation increasing the poll tax for Chinese persons from 20 to 200 (Chan 2005, 636). What this demonstrates is yet another attempt to deter Chinese immigrants from travelling to Australia and reflected public hostility to foreign anti-White immigration. Public sentiment was hostile to the idea of a multi-racial society in general. Jupp (2007, 7) notes that Australia has long and strong xenophobic, racist and insular traditions and that these views provided the motive for immigration control. This viewpoint was observed in much of the literature of the time. The Bulletin described the sentiment aptly printing that; No nigger, no Chinaman, no lascar, no kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour is an Australian (Clark, 2 July 1887, 800-801). What this demonstrated was that all non-White immigrants were seen by the White majority as un-Australian and consequently, unsuitable for integration into the nation. As such, the fears of mass Asian migration, along with the desire for greater protection from unauthorised aliens provided the most powerful catalyst and reasoning for Federation (Willard 1967, 119). The pervasiveness of discriminatory racial thought is evident when one examines the reasons for Federation. Early pushes towards a federated nation had been met with opposition from the larger, more sparsely settled colonies of Western Australia and Queensland which feared the delegation of power to a centralised national government. It was believed that a central government might mean the individual voices of smaller states would be lost as the concerns of the nation would be dominated by the more populous colonies of New South Wales and Victoria (Ward 2001, 78). However these concerns were soon abandoned by a pressing national agenda the desire for a homogenous white society. 6 Henry Parkes described this national sentiment as a crimson thread of kinship that linked the Australian population (Bennett 2001, 53). Indeed, the fear of mass Asian migration along with the desire for greater protection from unauthorised aliens was one of the most powerful factors persuading the colonies to Federate (Willard 1967, 119). The colonists believed that by federating, they would ensure that the Australian nation remained white and that through their unification the threat of large scale alien immigration could be eradicated. What this demonstrates is that racial exclusion was a very powerful and dominating ideology in the formation of the Australian nation. These notions of racial superiority were widespread. Jupp (1995, 207) notes that a White Australia was supported by almost everyone in society; from the mainstream
5

The MV Tampa carrying 433 Afghani asylum seekers was denied entry into Australian Waters sparking a political standoff that garnered International attention. See: D. Marr and M. Wilkinson, Dark Victory. NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2004, M. MacCallum, Girt by Sea: Australia, the Refugees and the Politics of Fear, Quarterly Essay, Vol. 106, 2002 and P. Mares. Borderline: Australias Response to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the Wake of the Tampa. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2002. 6 See Helen Irving, 1997, White Australians, chapter 6 To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australias Constitution, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

masses through to the educated elite. Indeed Edmund Barton, shortly to become Australias first prime minister and minister for external affairs told the Australasian Federal Convention in 1898: Questions which relate to the whole body of the people, to the purity of race, to the preservation of the racial character of the white population are Commonwealth questions, and should be so exclusively (quoted, Evans, Moore, Saunders and Jamison 1997, 207). What this demonstrates is the pervasiveness of racially exclusionary thought. The threat to white homogeneity and the pervasive fears of alien invasion soon succeeded in bringing together the six separate British colonies and on 1 January 1901, Australia became a federated nation. Issues of racial incompatibility immediately dominated the discourse with Attorney-General Alfred Deakin telling the new federal parliament in September 1901, No motive operated more powerfully in dissolving the technical and arbitrary political divisions which previously separated us than the desire that we should be one people and remain one people without the admixture of other races (quoted, Evans, Moore, Saunders and Jamison 1997, 209). This demonstrates that the fears of alien invasion remained at the forefront of Australian nationalistic ideology even after Federation. Two pieces of legislation were passed in 1901, shortly after Federation The Pacific Labourers Act 7 and the Immigration Restriction Act. 8 Fears of invasion and racially exclusionary thought are evident when one examines these closely. Indeed one needs to look little further than the title of the Immigration Restriction Act to reveal its intent. The aim of the act was to keep out prohibited immigrants. It was an attempt by the Australian government to maintain the relative purity of the white-Australian race and was central to the development of a White homogenous Australia. The Immigration Restriction Act was designed specifically to prohibit undesirable immigrants however famously provided no clear specification of such undesirability (Jupp 1995, 208). This ambiguity was intentional as it allowed Australian immigration officials to deny any persons they deemed unsuitable. The policy was implemented through a diction test which required potential immigrants to pass a dictation test of fifty words in any European language (Jupp 2007, 10). This test was based on a similar US regulation however there was a significant difference. The Australian dictation test abandoned any importance on understanding the constitution or citizenship. Rather, it stipulated that applicants could be prescribed any random passage in any language. 9 Indeed according to an ex Customs officer, passages were often made up such as The harassed pedlar met the embarrassed cobbler in the cemetery gauging the symmetry of a ladys ankle in unparalleled ecstasy (Moore Museum of Victoria Australia online) making the test impossible to study for. What this demonstrates is that the Australian government deliberately sought any way possible to exclude non-European immigrants from settling in Australia. This covert approach to immigration restriction allowed the Australian government to conceal its true racial intent; rather it was a means of indirect discrimination (Lake,
7

An Act to Provide for the Regulation, Restriction, and Prohibition of the Introduction of Labourers from the Pacific Islands and for Other Purposes (No. 16 of 1901), NAA: A1559, 1901/16. 8 An Act to Place Certain Restrictions on Immigration and to Provide for the Removal from the Commonwealth of Prohibited Immigrants (No.17 of 1901), NAA: A1559, 1901/17. 9 This was later amended to any European language after complaints from the Japanese government.

Chapter 13). On the surface the policy seemed to suggest that any applicant who could pass the test would be allowed to settle in Australia. The reality was that the test was almost impossible to pass. Moreover it was deliberately and intentionally restrictive. Johanson (1962, 17) argues this further noting that it was the explicit policy of the Australian government that the Chinese population shall gradually become extinct. The reasoning for this covert approach to immigration restriction was largely to appease the British government. During this period, many British subjects were of Indian or African origin. More importantly, Great Britain had important trade links with China and Japan. As Australia was a colony of the British Empire, any hint of overt racial discrimination would have caused tension between Great Britain and its trading partners. Therefore the dictation test was a method where overtly it seemed that any applicant satisfying Australias immigration laws (by passing the diction test) would be granted the right to settle. Covertly, it was a deliberate and highly successful way to ensure that non-White immigrants were unable to settle in the new Australian nation. The Immigration Restriction act proved to be highly effective in excluding non-White immigrants. With the exception of those granted temporary entry (businessmen, students and distinguished visitors), the vast majority of immigrants granted entry into Australia were White (Jupp 1995, 208209). Contemporary Australia Racially motivated rhetoric and behaviour is still found in many facets of Australian society. Moreover it is not limited to politics or government policy. Rather it is widespread and covertly weaves it way through the contemporary Australian discourse. One such example can be found in the views expressed by law academic Andrew Fraser. In recent times there have been debates regarding the prevalence of Asian students in Australian schools and universities. On this topic, Fraser suggested that white Australians would soon find themselves outgunned as Asian students endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline will dominate university and professional places (Fraser, 2005). He argued that within two to three decades Australia can expect a heavily Asian influenced professional ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians (Fraser 2005). Not only are these comments dangerous to social cohesion, the rhetoric espoused bears an uncanny similarity to the thoughts espoused during the Australian gold rush. Fraser made further remarks along similar lines suggesting that increases in African migration would lead to an increase in crime rates (The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 July 2005). Although these comments in isolation could be dismissed as the opinions of one person or a matter of free speech, the significance of Frasers opinions become apparent when one acknowledges that his views have substantial public support. In fact a phone poll conducted by Channel 9s A Current Affair showed that the vast majority (85%) of the audience polled (35000) agreed with his stance (Radio National, 1 August 2005). What this demonstrates is that ideas of racial superiority still exist in the contemporary Australian context. Although generally expressed in more covert manners, it is still espoused and widely believed.

Similarly, contemporary debates have centred on the incompatibility of Muslim immigration and the Australian nation. Muslims and the Arab other have been targeted within contemporary immigration discourse, with their religious beliefs attributed to a capacity to produce extremism or terrorists. Indeed, Pauline Hanson reemerged in the 2007 federal election using Muslim immigration to argue again for the end of mass immigration and multiculturalism (AAP 2007). The use of race to exclude certain forms of immigration is easily discernable in this context as Islam is portrayed as fundamentally non-Western and disruptive to social cohesion. In a parallel to policies legislated during White Australia, the emphasis is placed on the Muslim community to comply with cultural White norms. What this demonstrates is that Australia still largely looks towards its British heritage and endeavours to maintain its hegemony through targeted racial exclusion. The use of race in contemporary political policy is also notable. The Hawke government, for example, outlined a detailed set of principles that controlled Australian immigration. While claiming to be multicultural the Hawke governments policies stated that the Australian government alone could decide who could enter Australia, that migrant intake should not jeopardise social cohesiveness, that migrants should benefit Australia in some facet and that the settlement in enclaves was not encouraged (Parkin and Hardcastle 1990, 330-335). This essentially put forward the notion that certain groups (ie non-Whites) were inherently unable to assimilate and would therefore, forever remain unAustralian. While there was some criticism of these policies, it was largely supported and accepted by the Australian public (Parkin and Hardcastle 1990, 333-335). This demonstrates that although the White Australia policy had been abolished, much of the racial sentiment that helped form its foundation still existed. Moreover, it revealed that preference was still given to those of white-European nationality and that under the covert banner of incompatibility, race still provided reasons for discrimination. This is further demonstrated when one examines the immigration policies put forward by the Howard government. In 1988, John Howard criticized both multiculturalism and Asian immigration arguing that it signified a loss of direction: So we have to pretend that we are a federation of cultures and that weve got a bit from every part of the world. I think that is hopeless. (Henderson 1990, 164). Howard essentially suggested that there was an innate incompatibility between certain races. A more critical analysis suggests that Howard was not only suggesting that there was an incompatibility, rather that Australia was not and should be a blend of every part of the world and ultimately should remain a white hegemonic society. Similarly, as Leader of the Opposition Howard suggested that the rate of immigration should be slowed down to satisfy the majority viewpoint: If it [the level of Asian immigration] is in the eyes of some in the community too great, it would be in the interests of social cohesion if it were down a little so that the capacity of the community to absorb were greater (Collins 1991, 302-303) This highlights not only Howards personal belief but the attitudes of the Australian majority. It suggested that although the maintenance of a White Australia was no longer a viable political agenda, race was still used to maintain an aspect of white

superiority and to frame debates of difference. Moreover it exemplifies is that although the White Australia policy had been abolished, much of the racial sentiment that helped form its foundation still existed. Similarly, in 1996, shortly after his first election win and in his new capacity as Prime Minister, Howard imposed a new set of restrictions that capitalised on racial exclusion. Howard increased the difficulty of immigration to Australia, made family reunion laws tougher, increased the costs of processing and ensured that welfare payments were subject to a two-year waiting period. These restrictions were based on the idea that a threat to social cohesion existed from uncontrolled immigration (Jupp, 2007 12). These restrictions were very similar to those employed in the period before Australian federation. Indeed, the increased costs of processing and the waiting period for welfare payments are comparable to the colonial governments increase in Chinese miners taxes. Similar to the reasoning of colonial Australia, this supposed threat to social cohesion was based largely on issues of racial incompatibility. This fear can only be attributed to a sense of racial superiority and discrimination. The Howard governments introduction of a citizenship test is an apt example. According to Immigration Kevin Andrews (2007) The central principle behind such a test and statement is to ensure that those people who wish to become an Australian citizen do so by way of demonstrating a level of understanding and commitment to Australia and our way of life What this suggested was that potential migrants were required to assimilate and adapt to Australian nationalistic ideology. Moreover, he further noted that This way of life is influenced by a history that includes the Judeo Christian beliefs and traditions brought by British settlers particularly our British political heritage What this demonstrates is that an emphasis on white-British heritage still exists in contemporary political discourse. Moreover, prospective nonwhite migrants are still largely presented as the other. This is further evidenced by analysing Howards introduction of a language requirement in Australian immigration policy. The Howard government introduced a language test that emphasized English language skills as a requirement for residence. Essentially, it sought to assess any prospective immigrants on their suitability for integration into the Australian community. This is a remarkable similarity to measures taken during the White Australia Policy. Indeed, the origins of these proposals lie in the ideology of racial difference. Ultimately by rejecting migration from non-English speaking, non-White societies, notions of white nationalism and hegemony are developed and maintained. Immigration exclusion on the basis of race was most evident in the Tampa crisis during the lead up to the 2001 Federal Election. In circumstances similar to the SS Afghan, the MV Tampa carrying 433 mostly Afghani asylum seekers was denied entry into Australian territorial waters. Instead of allowing the passengers onto Christmas Island for processing, the Howard government chose to exploit public fears of racial incompatibility by fuelling anti non-White sentiment. The Howard government used specific racially toned terms to support its agenda. Instead of referring to the asylum seekers on the Tampa as refugees, government ministers and indeed, Howard himself, referred to them as boat people and illegal immigrants (Mares, 126-132). Using terms such as these allowed the government to speculate and cast doubt over their reasons for immigration. Moreover, they enabled the government to spread the myth that these particular arrivals presented a threat to Australian society (MacCallum, 4045).

The Australian governments focus on race is evident when one considers the statistical immigration data. In reality, the largest numbers of illegal immigrants actually arrive by air (The Australian, April 16 2009). Moreover, although many violate the conditions of their visa or disappear, they are not regarded as invaders or dangerous. One must attribute this to the fact these immigrants are generally White Anglo-Saxon (MacCallum 22-27). Moreover, racially exclusionary sentiment is evident as one would presume that if the governments real aim had been to stem or prevent so called illegal immigration, those fleeing authorities would be of primary concern. Ironically, rather than focus on the genuine unlawful arrivals, many Australian governments have chosen to target refugees and create fear on the basis of race. It has been suggested that Australias fear of the outsider was not unusual as multicultural societies are often fraught with difficulty (Jupp 2007, 9). However Jupp noted that while non-industrialised multicultural states often experience chaos and deep divisions, developed multicultural nations such as Switzerland and Singapore were generally very successful (Jupp 2007, 9). Therefore this fear can only be attributed to a sense of racial superiority and discrimination. Furthermore, an examination of Australian history demonstrates that race has consistently played a large part in Australian immigration policy. From the inauguration of the Australian Commonwealth until the 1970s, Australian immigration policy ensured that non-white undesirables would be prevented from migrating to Australia. The immigration Restriction Act intentionally restricted nonwhite immigration to Australia and legalised discriminatory racial policy. More disturbingly, in contemporary times, a more covert racism was used to assess potential immigrants on their suitability, their ability to integrate and the possession of qualifications positively useful to Australia. What this demonstrates is that the issue of race based exclusion still resonates strongly in the Australian discourse. Moreover, concepts such as the Australian identity and national values have been used to stigmatise and marginalise the other, branding them as alien, threatening and unauthorised. Disturbingly, successive Australian governments have maintained this racial sentiment. Although the White Australia policy was officially abandoned in 1973, this paper has endeavoured to show that racial intolerance in Australian immigration policy still exists. Moreover, rather than concern itself with issues of humanity, successive Australian governments have chosen to continue to focus on perceived differences in race.

References
Anderson, B. 2000. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition. London: Verso. Andrews, K. 2007. Citzenship committing to a way of life. Address to the Sydney Institute. July 31. Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. 1998. eds. Key concepts in post-colonial studies. London: Routledge AAP (Australian Associated Press). 2007. Hanson calls for halt to Muslim immigration. Sydney Morning Herald, August 16. Barnes, A. May 5 1972. All a Chipp off the old Gorton, The Age. URL:<http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19720505&id=Y8gQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tJ ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5236,867297>. Consulted 6 July 2009. Bate, W. 2003. Lucky City: The First Generation at Ballarat 1851-1901. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Bennett, S. 2001 in Australian Bureau of Statistics. Year Book Australia. Number 83, ABS Catalogue No. 1301.0 Burke, A. 2001. In fear of security: Australias invasion anxiety. Sydney: Pluto Press. Burnside, J. in OBrien, K. 2002. Depate on Govts tough border protection, ABC TV program transcript, 26 August. <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s659180.htm> Consulted on 12 July 2009. Chan, H. D. M. in Ember, M., Ember, C.R., & Skoggard, I. 2005. eds. Encyclopedia of diasporas: immigrant and refugee cultures around the world. New York: Springer Choi, C.Y. 1975. Chinese Migration and Settlement in Australia. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Collins, J. 1991. 2nd Ed. Migrant hands in a distant land. Sydney: Pluto Press. Crotty, M. & Roberts, D.A. 2009. eds. Turning Points in Australian History. Sydney: UNSW Press Dick, T. 2005. Academic stirs fight over race, The Sydney Morning Herald. July 16. URL: < http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/07/15/1121429359329.html> Consulted 28 August 2009. Duffy, M. 2005. Freedom of Speech, Radio National Transcript. August 1. URL: < http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1424337.htm>. Consulted 28 August 2009. Evans, R., Moore, C. Saunders, K., & Jamison, B. 1997. 1901 Our Futures Past: Documenting Australias Federation. Sydney: Pan MacMillan Australia

Fraser, A. 2005. Rethinking the White Australia Policy. Online Opinion. URL: <www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=128> . Consulted on 9 July 2009. Flint, D. 2002. The Protection of Our Borders. Quadrant, Vol. 46. No. 1. <http://quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=628>. Consulted on 9 July 2009. Goldberg, D.T. 2002. The Racial State, Malden: Blackwell. Griffiths, P. 2006. The making of White Australia: Ruling class agendas, 1876-1888. PhD Thesis. Canberra: The Australian National University. Henderson, G. 1990. Australian Answers. Surry Hills: Random House. Hodge, C.C. 2008. ed. Encyclopedia of the age of imperialism, 1800-1914. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press Irving, H. 1997. To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australias Constitution. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Johanson, D. in Rivett, K. 1962. ed. Immigration: Control or Colour Bar? The Background to White Australia and a Proposal for Change. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Jupp, J. 1995. From White Australia to Part of Asia: Recent Shifts in Australian Immigration Policy towards the Region, International Migration Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, Special Issue: Diversity and Comparability: International Migrants in Host Countries on Four Continents (Spring). New York: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc [pdf] URL: <http:www.jstor.org/stable/2547002> Consulted on 10 June 2009. Jupp, J. 2001. ed. The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press Jupp, J. 2002. From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Jupp, J. 2007. The Quest for Harmony in Nieuwenhuysen, J., Jupp, J., and Dawson, E. eds. Social Cohesion in Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lake, M. The White Australia Policy http://epress.anu.edu.au/cw/mobile_devices/ch13s05.html Lawrence, C. 2007. Dr Carmen Lawrences Freilich Foundation Lectures. URL: <http://www.safecom.org.au/freilich-lectures1.htm?> Consulted 9 July 2009. Mares, P. 2002. Borderline: Australias Response to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the Wake of the Tampa. Sydney: UNSW Press MacCallum, M. 2002. Girt by Sea: Australia, the Refugees and the Politics of Fear. Quarterly Essay. Vol. 107. McCalman, I., Cook, A. & Reeves, A. eds. 2001. Gold: forgotten histories and lost objects of Australia. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press. Moore, W. Administering the Dictation Test, 1950s. Museum Victoria Old Customs House [online]. URL: < http://museumvictoria.com.au/customshouse/stories/dictation_test.asp>. Consulted 12 July 2009. Rose, J. H. 1933. ed. The Cambridge History of the British Empire: Volume VII: Par I: Australia. Ross, C. 2006. Prolonged Symptoms of Cultural Anxiety: The Persistence of Narratives of Asian Invasion within Multicultural Australia. Journal of the Association for the Study of Australian Literature. University of Tasmania.

Ruddock, P. 2001. Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6): Second Reading. Parlimentary Speech, House of Representatives. Official Handsard. Commonwealth of Australia. State of New South Wales, State Records Authority. 2003. Archives in Brief 33 Chinese migration and settlement in New South Wales. New South Wales Government: Department of Commerce, State Records Authority of New South Wales. URL: http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guidesand-finding-aids/archives-in-brief/archives-in-brief-33 Steketee, M. 2009. Liberals wrong on refugees. The Australian. 16 April. URL: < http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25339551-5013457,00.html> Consulted 28 August 2009. Switzer, T. 2003. On the Death of Hansonism, Quadrant, Vol. 47, No. 10. URL: <http://quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=464>. Consulted on 9 July 2009. Tovim, G.B., Gabriel, J., Law, I., & Stredder, K. 1986. eds. The Local Politics of Race. London: Macmillian Education Ltd. Ward, J. M. 2001. in Schreuder, D.M., Fletcher B.H., & Hutchison, R. eds. The state and the people: Australian Federation and nation-making, 1870-1901. New South Wales: Federation Press. Webb, J. & Enstice, A. 1998. Aliens and Savages: Fiction, Politics and Prejudice in Australia. Sydney: Harper Collins. Willard, M. 1967. History of the White Australia Policy to 1920. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.