One Nation is on the right of the political spectrum. Like many populist parties, it has raised issues such as housing and the cost of living, which many Australians are finding difficult. But this does not mean that Hanson has correctly assessed these problems, let alone provided the right answers to Australia’s social problems. However, with the Victorian and New South Wales elections approaching, mainstream parties such as the Liberal Party and Labor Party have not responded strongly to One Nation’s position on a monocultural society. The reason is simple. At a time when these parties are both losing voter support, the second preferences of One Nation supporters, as well as the possibility of minority governments emerging, have become decisive factors in determining whether these parties can govern. It can be expected that in the upcoming November Victorian election, neither party will actively respond to One Nation’s demands. As a result, One Nation’s momentum continues to grow day by day.
What is worth watching is whether Australians really support One Nation, which will become clear in the Victorian election. Victoria is the most multicultural state in Australia, and migrants have not developed long-term established support for either Labor or the Liberal Party. Whether they will actually cast their votes for One Nation is therefore a real indicator of the level of support for One Nation. In the Melbourne City North-East electorate for the Legislative Council, a migrant is running as an independent candidate with “intercultural democracy” as their political platform, clearly asking voters who are dissatisfied with the mainstream parties to make a choice between voting for One Nation.
One Nation sees immigration as the biggest problem facing Australian society today, believing that the problems Australia faces today are all caused by Australian society having absorbed too many multicultural migrants, and that if the number of migrants is immediately reduced and certain groups of migrants regarded as “bad” are restricted, Australia’s problems can be solved immediately. Faced with this situation, responsible and capable political parties should put forward accurate analyses and solutions to difficulties such as housing supply, house prices, the cost of living and public safety, rather than being led by One Nation and focusing only on questions such as the speech delivered by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke last week: “Who can come? Who can stay? Who needs to leave?”
In Burke’s speech, the sharp increase in temporary residents was identified as the biggest issue behind population growth, and Burke proposed a series of policy responses. However, society generally believes that these reforms will have little impact on the fundamental problems and are merely going through the motions. As first-generation migrants, we can actually feel more strongly that after settling here for decades, Australian society has undergone fundamental changes. What is needed is for society as a whole, including multicultural settlers who have arrived over the past 40 years and generations who have lived here for many generations but mistakenly believe that Australia is still a Western society like Britain, to work together to find a new definition of Australians and Australian society today.
Australia’s Self-Redefinition
To make such a redefinition, as migrants, we need to understand some of Australia’s immigration history and how it has evolved into its current situation before we can develop a balanced and practical response.
Australia, as a country, has gone through roughly seven stages since colonial migration began in 1788.
(1) Colonial migration, (2) White Australia Policy, (3) Populate or Perish, (4) Assimilation, (5) Multiculturalism, (6) Immigration management, and (7) Intercultural democracy.
(1) Colonial Migration (1788–1901)
Before 1850, Australian society was mainly made up of British colonists, along with a small number of Europeans. After gold was discovered in 1850, the gold rush brought large numbers of Chinese migrants, while Queensland’s sugar industry made extensive use of Pacific Islander indentured labour. At the time, white workers and politicians often regarded Asian migrants and Pacific Islander labourers as threats to wages, employment and “white society”. The colonies therefore introduced different degrees of exclusionary policies.
When Australia became a federation in 1901, immigration directly became one of the important responsibilities of the new federal government.
The first major piece of legislation passed by the first Federal Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which opened the way for the White Australia Policy.
(2) 1901–1945: The White Australia Policy
This was the first major stage in Australian immigration history. Its core idea was very clear: Australia was to become a country of white people from the British Empire. The law did not simply state that “Asians could not enter Australia”. Instead, it achieved this objective through an administrative system.
The most famous example was the dictation test. Immigration officers could require applicants to write 50 words in a specified European language, with the particular language chosen by the officer. This meant that it could easily be used to make certain people “fail”. Between 1901 and 1909, 1,359 people were required to take the test, and only 52 were allowed to enter. After 1909, no one required to take the test passed it. At the time, there were also:
- Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901
- Restrictions on non-European immigration
- Various restrictions imposed on non-white residents already in Australia
- Preferential encouragement of British migration
Therefore, the White Australia Policy was not simply an “immigration policy”, but a population, racial and national identity policy.
By 1947, people born outside Australia, Ireland and Britain accounted for only a small proportion of the Australian population. The proportion of the Asian population also fell from approximately 1.25% in 1901 to around 0.21% by the late 1940s.
(3) 1945–1960s: Populate or Perish
This was the first major turning point after the establishment of the Australian Federation. The Second World War created a very strong sense of national security in Australia: if the population was too small, the country would not be secure. In particular, the military threat posed by Japan during the Pacific War led Australia to seriously consider the idea of “Populate or Perish”: Australia needed to increase its population or it might not be able to defend the country.
After the war, Labor Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell began strongly promoting immigration. But there was a contradiction: Australia still had the White Australia Policy. Therefore, the large numbers of migrants initially recruited were mainly from Britain, displaced Europeans, the Balkans, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe. One of the most representative examples of the policy at the time was the “Ten Pound Poms” scheme, which operated from 1945 until it ended in 1982. More than one million mainly British European migrants paid ten pounds and received subsidies from the Australian Government to settle in Australia. During this period, Australia’s population increased from only seven million to 15 million.
(4) 1950s–1973: From a “White Country” Towards Non-Racial Immigration
The White Australia Policy was not created in a single day, and it was dismantled gradually. In 1957, the government relaxed some restrictions on non-European immigration. Non-European migrants began to have the possibility of longer-term residence and citizenship, although they were still subject to stricter conditions than European migrants. In 1958, immigration legislation formally abolished the dictation test, marking a very important institutional reform. In 1966, the Liberal Government under Harold Holt decided that immigration selection would no longer be based on race and nationality, but would begin to be based on skills and contribution.
This marked the first very important transformation in Australian immigration policy: moving from asking “What race are you?” to asking “What can you contribute to Australia?” This policy eventually evolved into the skilled migration program that exists today.
(5) 1973–1990s: The Emergence and Institutionalisation of Multicultural Australia
The real ideological transformation took place under the Whitlam Government. In 1973, Immigration Minister Al Grassby formally introduced multiculturalism. Australia officially abandoned the final institutional remnants of the White Australia Policy and stated that Australia could be a country made up of people from different cultural backgrounds. Grassby had a particularly noteworthy concept of seeing citizens as a “family of the nation”. Grassby believed that members of a family could uphold common interests without every member becoming exactly the same. Family members did not need to have the same appearance, behaviour or thoughts. He also pointed out that individuals or ethnic communities did not need to abandon their cultural heritage, personal identity or characteristics in order to reach consensus.
Grassby’s proposal in 1973 represented an ideological turning point, but for it to truly become government policy, institutional changes were required. The 1978 Galbally Report was an important milestone. It pushed the government to expand settlement services, English-language support, migrant services and equal access to community services. In other words, migration did not end when migrants arrived in Australia. On the contrary, this was only the beginning. The government needed to help them settle, learn English, find employment and participate in society.
When the Galbally Report was published, non-white migrants accounted for only 5–6% of Australia’s population. Most of the migrants who required assistance to integrate were British and European migrants whose cultures were relatively close to Australian culture, which was completely different from the circumstances of multicultural Australia today. Unfortunately, over the decades, successive governments have not seriously adjusted the recommendations of the Galbally Report to suit globalised migrants who arrived in Australia after the 1990s and who had completely different cultural and social backgrounds, experiences and goals from those who settled in Australia before the 1970s.
The fact that multicultural Australia is being questioned today precisely demonstrates the indifference of successive governments towards migrant communities and social integration, as well as their lack of basic understanding.
(6) 1990s–2010s: From Multiculturalism Towards Australian Values
During this period, the Australian Government began placing greater emphasis on both cultural diversity and shared Australian values. In other words, people can retain their languages, cultures, religions, food and festivals, but everyone must still accept democracy, the rule of law, equality, freedom and civic responsibility. Therefore, multiculturalism should not mean that “each community lives separately”, but rather that “cultures can be diverse, while civic institutions must be shared”.
Clearly, today some people see the root of Australia’s increasingly difficult social conditions as multiculturalism being unsuitable for Australia, and are calling for a return to a monocultural Australia. This reflects the fact that over the past 50 years, while governments at all levels have significantly increased immigration, they have failed to address how to establish Australian values and social cohesion within society. When economic and livelihood difficulties arise, migrants are seen as the root of the problem and become scapegoats for the policy failures and governance failures of successive governments.
The reality is that Australia today is already one of the most multicultural societies in the world. A return to a single British or European culture is no longer possible. How to turn Australia’s ethnic diversity into its greatest asset as it moves towards globalisation has become the most important issue facing society today.
(7) Immigration Becomes an “Economic Management Issue” (2010s to Today)
At this stage, the focus of immigration policy changed again. The initial question asked by Australian society, “Who can enter Australia?”, became “What kind of people does Australia need?” As a result, skilled migration became extremely important. For example, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, IT professionals, construction workers and tradespeople became people Australia sought to attract. The government also used points-based systems, occupation demand lists, employer sponsorship, regional migration, temporary visas and permanent residency planning to manage immigration, with the focus also placed on numbers and economic benefits.
But the government has overlooked the fact that migrants today are no longer lower- and middle-class people without much leverage seeking a place to settle. Instead, they are successful people from different countries around the world who aspire to Australia’s high quality of life and bring higher education, capital, experience, global networks and successful experiences to this country, hoping to achieve greater development in their lives. These migrants come with the motivation to build a future together with Australians and to contribute their abilities more fully, yet the majority of society still has not recognised their potential to help build Australian society.
During this period, dealing with the issue from an economic management perspective highlighted the lack of consensus among different sections of society about how migration should be managed. Farmers who have long faced labour shortages in regional areas have had to rely heavily on working holiday visa holders or certain refugee groups to provide workers during harvest seasons, or on overseas workers who do not speak English in slaughterhouses, in order to keep production going. Investor migrants temporarily brought capital into Australia but were unable to drive industrial development, create employment or diversify the economy, and this category of migration was eventually abolished under pressure. The points-based skilled migration program…