Asianisation - the dreams of the elite
How and why the elites changed Australia, in their own words.
The following is part 1 of an essay written by AAFI and Australia First Party co-founder Denis McCormack, presented by Graeme Campbell as leader of the fledging Australia First Party to the Federal Parliament in 1996.
The essay remains fascinatingly relevant to this day.
The historical evidence relating to bipartisanships role in long term immigration objectives which have resulted in the not-so-gradual Asianisation of Australia is overwhelming.
To enable the political and general communitys better understanding of our current immigration dilemma, I tabled in Federal Parliament (Hansard October 28 1996) a research paper by Denis McCormack titled, “The Grand Plan: Asianisation of Australia - Race, Place and Power.”
For those who wish to demolish the orthodox drivel on immigration as exemplified in the bipartisan Parliamentary Statement on “Racial Tolerance” (Hansard October 03 1996), the background documentation provided in this paper will be very helpful.
For those who continue to support immigration bipartisanship, they will learn from this paper the weakness of their position, and their mounting responsibility to adjust their views to reality.
The Grand Plan: Asianisation of Australia - Race, Place and Power
Presented at 20th Anniversary Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Latrobe University, Melbourne, 10 July 1996
by Denis McCormack, Political Researcher, Australians Against Further Immigration
Until relatively recently, power elites in Australian business, journalism, and politics would steadfastly deny, or refuse to seriously discuss, the grand plan for the long-term Asianisation of Australia. Now. however, one cannot escape these same peoples' self-congratulatory writings which boast so openly of their treason (n. - to give or deliver over to or up; betrayal of trust or faith; treachery. Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition 1988). Prime Minister, Paul Keating in a speech to the Australian Chinese Forum in Sydney on October 12, 1995, said
"Asia is emphatically where this country's security and prosperity lie. It is where an increasing number of our people come from and - unambiguously and wholeheartedly- it is where we want to be .... Our efforts on free trade, multiculturalism, and education and training are all part of the same strategy."
The Prime Minister's uncritical embrace of Asia, is matched only by the opposition leader, John Howard's similar behaviour. To some they are a national embarrassment in their relentless sycophancy.
Crucial to the Federation of Australia in 1901, and to the foundation of the Australian Labor Party in the 1890s, was the notion that predominantly Australia was racially and culturally European in its roots, British in its institution base, and that it should stay that way - forever. The first Act passed by the new Federal Parliament in 1901 was the Immigration Restriction Act which was unashamedly, but not offensively designed to maintain Australia, as ethnically, culturally and commercially European. In 1995, with a Labor Party Government in office since 1983, the pendulum has not only swung, but is airbome and out of control in the opposite direction. This is due to decades of political bipartisanship not only on immigration and multiculturalism, but on a whole clockwork mechanism of related federal, state and local government policy cogs which simply had to produce today's chimes heralding the accelerating pace of Asianisation against the demonstrated majority opinion. In May 1993, Ex-Prime Minister Bob Hawke (Labor) at a Govemment Immigration Conference publicly admitted what all serious observers knew.
According to reports in the Melbourne Herald-Sun and Sydney Morning Herald of May 25 and 26, 1993, respectively, he said:
"he could not deny the contention that the major parties had reached an implicit pact to keep immigration off the political agenda. He said that for most of the post war period the parties had maintained bipartisan support for immigration in the face of public opposition.
He also stated that there are no other issues on which the major political parties have been prepared to act in this way ... to advance the national interest ahead of where they believed the electorate to be."
I favour the term "grand plan" to describe the phenomenon outlined below in preference to "conspiracy", because the latter is too rigid and confining. In the popular mind, it implies that secret detailed agendas, designs, and time frames are set for predetermined outcomes by particular people or groupings at certain times and places. This is clearly not the whole story but nor is the "it just happened" historical accidentalist theory a satisfactory explanation. The following quotes indicate a path towards radical change which was trod by many elites who considered themselves and their world view "progressive". They entered into long-term co-operative networking and planning on a whole constellation of internationalist economic and social issues which they hoped would bring about the radical changes they desired. They accurately identified the destruction of Australia's traditional immigration restriction policy as their top collective priority, which would prove pivotal in the quest for much other social change which was to follow. Although this particular study is by no means exhaustive, I believe it adequately makes the case for the existence of a sort of grand plan for the Asianisation of Australia in the medium/long term. The who, when, where, what and how are recognisable through research, but the definitive "why" is as slippery as ever. Perhaps the answer was best given by James Burnham back in 1941 when in "The Managerial Revolution," he accurately predicted the outcome of World War II, along with the three global trading blocks which would evolve thereafter to manage global trade and politics. Does the following quote from Burnham foreshadow EU, NAFTA, APEC?
"I have predicted the division of the new world among three super-states. The nuclei of these three super-states are, whatever maybe their future names, the previously existing nations, Japan, Germany, and the United States.
It is of great significance to note that all three of these nations began some while ago their preparations for the new world order....but decisions as to what parts and how much of the rest of the world are going to be ruled by each of the three strategic centres. It might be thought that a "rational" solution could be worked out along "natural" geographic lines, dividing the world into three parts.
... to the United States in the northern two thirds of the two Americas; to the European centre in Europe, the northern half of Africa and western Asia; to the Asiatic centre in most of the rest of Asia and the islands nearby. But there is much left over, and, besides, the rivals will not be willing to admit any "natural" geographic right.
The backward areas, which include a majority of the territory and people of the world, are not going to line up automatically behind one or another of the three centres, or merely stand aside while the three fight over them. In the dissolution of the capitalist world political structure and during the internecine conflicts of the great managerial states, the backward peoples will attempt to break free altogether from domination and to take their destiny into their own hands."
Mountains of documentary evidence exist which show the tracks of those involved, and how they have achieved such a dramatic series of policy reversals over the last forty-odd years. The quotes below, however, show conclusive evidence of the grand plan -from the establishment's own primary source books, which are widely recognised, available and mainstream library fare, and which bring you right up to the present. Square brackets [...] denote my explanatory or bridging remarks in the context of the quotes and sources. Books will be fully cited ahead of the quotes from them.
Macmahon Ball's Goodwill Mission to Asia, 1948, Garry Woodard, Australian Journal of International Allairs, The Journal of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 49, Number 1, May 1995:
"Burton's [External Affairs Department Secretary 1940's] vision of a Northern Australia economically integrated into neighbouring South-East Asia is just beginning to approach fruition." p.133
"In 1949, an election year, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Heyes, at Burton's invitation met with Asian Heads of Mission in Canberra in the Department of External Affairs and spoke to them of prospective flexibility in Australia's immigration policy, that is, he repeated the theme which had proved so controversial for Ball in 1948 [in Malaya and Singapore and elsewhere around Asia!]. 1949 was an election year and Calwell [Labor Gov. Immig. Minister, later Labor Leader, and renowned upholder of the traditional Immigration Restriction policy] was strongly defending his conduct of his portfolio, keen to make it an election issue. There would have been maximum embarrassment for him if Heyes' remarks had been leaked to the press [because traditional government, opposition, and public support for immigration restriction against mass Asian immigration was so strong], but confidences were kept." p. 134
It would seem that there was some extraordinary duplicity and deceit practised at the highest levels in 1949 and that 'confidences were kept' so effectively that even the Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, (Labor) didn't know what his bureaucrats were planning as evidenced by the following editorial from the Melbourne Age 31/5/1949.
*NATIONAL IDEAL OF WHITE AUSTRALIA [Editorial Title]
In a few plainly expressed homely paragraphs, the Prime Minister, in his Sunday night
"weekly broadcast," re-stated the basic factors behind our national policy of vigorous but selective immigration. These, as Mr Chifley pointed out, are as valid today as when the statutes of the respective states were incorporated in a federal law early in this century.
There is no ideal in which national agreement so nearly approaches unanimity as the desire for homogeneity, colloquially expressed in the terms "white Australia." Any tampering with this policy for economic gain on the part of some small, affluent minority who would welcome a flood of cheap, coolie labor [sic], or by a few impractical sentimentalists, would arouse wide spread indignation. Australia asks only the same right as that recognised and practised by every other nation - the right to determine how her population shall be composed. This generation of Australians recognises a duty to preserve the heritage passed on by the pioneers who developed this continent and made it habitable.
It is to be hoped that Mr Chifley's clear disclaimer will dispose of the false and mischievous notion that any sense of racial superiority is expressed or implied in our national policy. The blare of publicity which has attended the routine carrying out of the law in a few exceptional cases arising from the peculiar circumstances of the war, is to be deprecated. If traced to its source, this clamour will be found to be motivated, not by any mass urge of Asians to gain unrestricted right of entry into Australia - a right which they themselves do not accord even to other Asians - but by the strong desire of critics prepared to discredit the government by any propaganda device.
The peoples of Asia, toward whom in their upsurgent consciousness of nationality Australia adopts good-neighbourly attitude, would not find in this continent with its own problems of light rainfall over wide semi-arid areas and liability to droughts, any appreciable relief from their population pressures. Their leaders who are well informed on the subject will endorse Mr Chifley's words that, "the only way for Asians to achieve peace and prosperity for all their nations, was through strenuous efforts in their own lands, and not through emigration." To this end they can rely on the good will, cultural friendliness and the material benefits of mutually advantageous trade with Australia."
Immigration: Control or Colour Bar?; The background to White Australia and a proposal for change, by The Immigration Reform Group, edited by Kenneth Rivett. [founder in 1959 of I.R.G.] Published by Melbourne University Press 1960 and this expanded edition 1962.
"All we ask for at this stage is a small annual intake (1,500) ..." [of 'non-Europeans' for an experimental period of 3 to 5 years]. p.126
Australia in World Affairs, 1961-1965; edited by Gordon Greenwood and Norman Harper, published for the Australian Institute of International Affairs by F.W. Cheshire, Melbourne 1968.
"The Association for Immigration Reform ... the first of these associations had its origin in Melboure University... Similar bodies came into being in other Australian states, while their membership was not large, they were extremely active in their efforts to influence community attitudes generally, the more significant organisations such as trade unions and churches and, above all, the political parties... the Australian Labor Party, which in one aspect represents an intermingling of domestic nationalism and international idealism, for the first time in many years began, through its conferences, to debate seriously if cautiously the form of immigration policy to which it should give its support. The established platform had, in fact, used the term, 'White Australia' policy, a term which had never been employed in any immigration legislation. In 1959 the platform was strongly restrictive, though the emphasis was placed upon the assistive side, upon the encouragement of suitable immigrants which shall be strictly regulated so as not to impose any undue strain on the Australian economy or to imperil full employment or Australian industrial conditions through over-competition for available work."
"It was not, however, until the Sydney conference of 1965 that any significant change was made. The offensive term 'White Australia' was dropped from the party's platform, and formally at least the way was open for a restricted number of Asian migrants to enter Australia should a Labor Govemment be retumed. The new definition of policy should be placed on record:
XVI: IMMIGRATION
Convinced that increased population is vital to the future development of Australa, the Australian Labor Party will support and uphold a vigorous and expanding immigration program administered with sympathy, understanding and tolerance.
The basis of such policy will be:
(a)Australia's national and economic security.
(b) The welfare and integration of all its citizens.
(c) The preservation of our democratic system and balanced development of our nation.
(d) The avoidance of the difficult social and economic problems which may follow from an influx of peoples having different standards of living, traditions and cultures.
Despite the gains from the new wording, too much should not be made of the change; Mr. D.A. Dunstan, the then South Australian Attorney-General, who moved the new policy statement, was insistent that the Australian Labor Party did 'not propose to open the floodgates to Asian immigration.' [Note the similarity of Senator Edward Kennedy's comments in the very same year of 1965 on U.S. immigration law changes,"... the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... S500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area or the most populated ... of Africa and Asia ... the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change...". He went on to describe the critics as "bigots', 'irrational', etc. Sound familiar?]
The Government, for its part, did not introduce any alteration in its basic policy during these years, apart from the changes in administrative practice already mentioned. But it was anxious to make plain to the world that it had no sympathy with any form of racial discrimination, and that Australian immigration policy was not an expression of racial superiority, but simply the application of the well-established right of all national communities to determine the composition of their own societies in the light of the existing values of those societies." [which is more or less what was expressed by the Immigration Restriction Act in 1907]. p.84-85.
"... as the reception given to Asian students has shown, there is little active racial hostility, perhaps because of the remarkably homogeneous character of the Australian population and the absence of the problem of significant racial and cultural minorities." [i.e. no threat, no problem]
"...because of the aggressive attitudes towards race problems by some of the leaders of the newly independent states, and partly because of the tensions observable in Britain, and indeed elsewhere, leading in the British case to regulations restricting the flow of immigrants which in practice severely reduced migration from the West Indies, India and Pakistan. The outlook by the end of 1965 would appear to have been one of majonty approval for permitting the entry of a limited number of non-European migrants who for educational and other reasons could fit into the pattern of Australian life. There was, if anything, a hardening of attitude against a large-scale influx of non-Europeans of low educational and economic standing, which might introduce the social tensions existing elsewhere." p. 86.
"Australia was not seeking to become an Asian nation, nor did the Government conceive Australia to be a part of Asia; what the Government was attempting to do was to work out a partnership with a number of Asian countries in which Australia could fulfill a useful contributory role...". p.120
The above authors clearly hadn't picked up the profoundness of the ideological changes within both the major parties in Australia, which incidentally coincided with identical phenomena in other two-party tweedledum-Tweedledee democracies around the Western world at the same time on the same issues ... but that's another story. The authors dismissively mention "changes in administrative practice" instituted by the government. In announcing these changes in March, 1966, Prime Minister Harold Holt (who took over only two months previously from Sir Robert Menzies, founder of the Liberal Party Australia's longest serving PM, who stood firmly for Australia's traditional immigration policy) said in parliament that:
"Australia's increasing involvement in Asian developments, the rapid growth of our trade with Asian countries ... the expansion of our military effort, and the scale of diplomatic contact, the growth of tourism to and from the countries of Asia combine to make such a review desirable in our eyes." Hansard 9.3.1966
Australia and the Non-white Migrant, edited by Kenneth Rivett for the Immigration Reform Group, Melbourne University Press, 1975:
"Australia's intake of non-Europeans.. should rise to say, 20,000 a year." p. vi Preface [Remember? the same man from the same organisation only 13 years earlier in 1962 was asking for a mere 1,500 'non-Europeans' - the wedge and the plot thicken quickly]
“..under the Immigration Restriction Act, Asians who were here already were allowed to bring their wives and children. Then, alarmed by the numbers entering, the govemment withdrew even that small 'concession' and faced Asian men with the choice of either leaving Australia or else separating permanently from their families. It would have been better not only for the victims of Australian policy but also, in the long run for white Australians if, at that stage, we had been called to account before a world assembly. Instead, we were able to shelter behind our membership of the British Empire and a balance of power which, for a little while longer, was to stay tilted absurdly in favour of the European. And on the first occasion when the racial aspect of our immigration policy did come to the notice of an international conference, we used our small bargaining power foolishly and with a degree of selfishness which, even by the standards of the time, can never be excused." p.20.
[After Prime Minister Holt drowned in 1967, John Gorton took office as PM. He said approvingly whilst in Singapore in January 1971] "I think that if we build up gradually inside Australia a proportion of people without white skins, then there will be a complete lack of consciousness that it is being built up and that we will arrive at a state where we have a multicultural country."
"Here Gorton directly contradicted the earlier statements of Snedden, who, when Immigration Minister [under Gorton] had said more than once, that Australian immigration policy was 'certainly not a policy which is directed towards the creation of multi-racial society' ". p.31-32.
"In immigration matters, an element of gradualism is not only inevitable but desirable." p.40.
"We are ranked after South Africa and Rhodesia as Racist Enemy Number Three." p.98.