Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/feel the pain of everyone/New-Aust-Aug-94

Text File | 1994-11-09 | 50KB | 853 lines

T H E    N E W    A U S T R A L I A N

E L E C T R O N I C   M A G A Z I N E

Volume 1, Issue 5, Sep 1994

Published monthly by The New Australian Magazine Sydney, Australia

Email: [e-mail]


AN INSIGHT OF MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA =====================================

IN THIS ISSUE:

<> REPORT: "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" CONFERENCE

<> CRIMINALISING RACIAL VILIFICATION

<> TO NAME AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

<> POPULATE OR PERISH 1945 / POPULATE AND PERISH 1995

<> AUSTRALIA FEELING THE HEAT ON GLOBAL WARMING

===========================================================

REPORT ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONFERENCE, RACISM & ANTISEMITISM IN CONTEMPORARY
AUSTRALIA * by Melinda Jones

One of the most important recent symposiums for multicultural Australia was the
Without Prejudice conference held in Melbourne in June 1994.

Organised by the Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs and the Anti-Defamation
League of the B'nei Brith, the conference focussed on the common problems
confronting members of religious and ethnic minorities and on the need for
strategies to overcome racism and anti-semitism.

The Conference attracted over 400 members of ethnic minorities, human rights
activists and opinion-makers from both Australia and overseas. Although the
Conference dealt with the reality of Australian racism it did not get bogged down
in the pain. The experience of racism and its prevalence in Australia was
outlined by Sema Varova, Executive Director of the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission; by Professor Trang Thomas, Chairperson of the Ethnic
Affairs Commission of Victoria; Stepan Kerkyasharian AM, Chairperson of the
Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW; and Uri Themal OAM, Director, Bureau of Ethnic
Affairs, Queensland.

The complexity of Australian society made up as it is of members of so many
ethnic groups, speaking so many languages, adhering to so many different cultural
practices, requires careful attention if harmony is to be achieved.

The general success of Australian multiculturalism was noted, as was the effort
of human rights bodies to promote tolerance and deal with prejudice. Nonetheless
it was clear that while we have certainly begun to make inroads into the problem,
as a society we have a long way to go. What all speakers saw as essential was
that we should work together to combat racism. We must move beyond
self-interested responses to attacks on our own community. We must respond
equally strongly to racism directed at other groups.

Noel Pearson, the Executive Director of the Cape York Land Council, spoke of the
beginnings of the slow process of reconciliation between white Australia and
indigenous people. Without the High Court's decision in Mabo, which must be
viewed as a turning point in our history, good will and sentiments of friendship
could never be taken seriously by the Aboriginal people. For over and above
social action stands the law and the institutions of the state. The effect of the
decision in Mabo is that "common law is no longer frozen in the racist attitudes
of the past", and as a society we can begin to address the horrors of racism that
are the daily indignity experienced by so many members of our community. Racism
directed at Australia Jews is a serious issue.

Anti-semitism is a worldwide phenomena, often disguised as anti-Zionism or as the
'scholarly debate' of holocaust denial. Antony Lerman, Executive Director of the
Institute of Jewish Affairs, London, pointed to the climate of increasing
intolerance and exclusionism in Europe, with racially motivated violence becoming
commonplace. The fact that the situation in Europe is far worse, with extreme
right wing groups gaining strength and even parliamentary voices, does not reduce
to insignificant the experience of racism in this country. The proliferation of
right wing, racist and Neo-Nazi groups in Australia is a cause for great concern.
These include the Australian Nationalist Movement, White Aryan Resistance,
National Action, Lyndon LaRouche inspired Citizens' Electoral Council and the
Australian League of Rights, as well as several skinhead groups. While the
situation here is not yet of the scale it is in Europe, terrorist and racist
groups now operate across national boundaries and we can not be complacent.

Jeremy Jones, Executive Vice-president of the Executive Council of Australian
Jewry, outlined the extent of the both the manifestations of anti- semitism and
the lack of media responsibility in dealing with anti-semitism. The problem is
now such that Jones commented "Australian Jews ignore the presence of
anti-semitism at our peril and at the peril of Australian society".

The culpability of the media was a theme which ran throughout the Conference and
a matter of particular concern for multicultural Australia. Many examples of
inappropriate reporting were cited, both by speakers on panels and from members
of the audience. This was not the first forum to be informed of the role of the
media in perpetuating hatred - particularly through the use of stereotyping and
irresponsible journalism. But it was particularly interesting to hear the
self-congratulations of members of the media, who conceded that they
(collectively but not individually) were often insufficiently sensitive to the
needs of ethnic communities and were often not well enough informed about matters
that they happily play a role in shaping community attitudes about. Philip Adams,
Ramona Koval, Richard Palfreyman and Alan Kohler all believed, however, that they
should be allowed to take responsibility to lift their own game. The media should
not be accountable to anyone except to itself; only the victims of racism should
have to suffer the consequence of their irresponsibility. Another source of the
perpetuation of racism has been organised religion. This was acknowledged by a
panel of senior representatives of the main religions practiced in Australia:
Melbourne Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Australia, Reverend Keith Rayner,
Uniting Church president Reverend D'Arcy Wood, Roman Catholic Father Frank
Brennan, Emeritus Rabbi Ronald Lubofsky, State Islamic Council former secretary
Bilal Cleland, and Buddhist Library & Education Director Graeme Lyall.

A major issue for religions to confront is the relationship between ignorance and
intolerance. This has two manifestations. First, some people confuse their own
limited understanding of absolute truth with the absolute truth and use it to
serve their own selfish or nationalistic ends. This results in the devaluation
and degradation of the worth of others, particularly those who subscribe to
different belief-systems. Secondly, ignorance of other religions has been a
breeding ground for prejudice. What was strongly felt by all was that dialogue
and information-sharing between different religious groups is essential. Before
minority groups will trust in the good will and new-found tolerance of other
religious groups, it is crucial that each religion comes to terms with its own
past history of racism.

Bridges between Christians and Jews, and between Aborigines and Christians can
only begin to be built once the Church at the highest levels is prepared to admit
guilt, for example, over anti-semitic teachings and practices during the
Holocaust. Father Brennan was pleased to be able to report that this change in
thinking was coming about, being led by Polish and German priests. Equally the
role of missions and religious organisations in the destruction of Aboriginal
culture and in the denial of human rights to indigenous Australians needs to be
admitted. The theme of education was addressed by a number of speakers at the
Conference. Itiel Bereson, coauthor of a ground-breaking school text book
Australian Perspectives on Racism, called for the creation of a roof body in each
state to disseminate information about how to educate against racism. Because the
future of Australia is in the hands of the next generation, the focus on waging
the war against racism in the schoolroom seems sensible.

Max Bourke, Director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, confirmed that
strong multiculturalism is a national asset that is of benefit to all
Australians. A commitment from governments to a tolerant multicultural Australia
must include a commitment to resource education against racism. While education
was seen as the key to the 'social health' aspect of racism (as Philip Adams
called it), this was not taken by the Conference to be a sufficient strategy to
counter racism in Australia.

From the outset the need for national racial vilification legislation was on the
agenda. This was the message of the very powerful keynote address by Professor
Kathleen Mahoney, Canadian international human rights law expert and member of an
international team of lawyers representing Bosnia and Herzegovina at the
International Court of Justice. Professor Mahoney responded to the belief in the
sanctity of freedom of speech by noting that everyone recognises that no rights
and freedoms can be absolute. Important values in a democratic society must be
qualified and balanced against other important competing claims. The question is
that of the harm that results from failure to deal with racism.

There is no question in Professor Mahoney's mind but that the serious and
invidious harm of hate speech outweighs the harm of limiting such speech. "Racist
hate messages are rapidly increasing in their proliferation throughout the
western world. They are widely distributed using a variety of low and high
technology. Members of target groups respond to hate propaganda by being fearful
and by withdrawing from full participation in society. Society as a whole suffers
because such expression undermines core democratic values creating discord
between groups and an atmosphere conducive to discrimination and violence. The
purpose and the effect of hate propaganda, whatever form it takes, is to lay the
foundation for the mistreatment of members of the victimised group. To promote
group hatred is to practice discrimination. Thus, its regulation should no more
be invalidated by the free speech doctrine than legal regulation of racial
segregation, sexual harassment or any other invidious form of discrimination."
The timing of the Conference could not have been better in this regard.

Two weeks before the Conference the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, had announced
the Government's intention to reintroduce national racial vilification
legislation into Parliament before the end of the year. That commitment was
reaffirmed at the Without Prejudice Conference by federal Mps Andrew Theophanous
and Clyde Holding. The call for legislation was supported by many of the
panellists including Melbourne barrister & President of the Victorian Council of
Civil Liberties Alan Goldberg QC.

Superintendent Bob Kucera of the Western Australian Police Service sounded the
voice of caution when he pointed to the difficulties that police will have
administering a poorly drafted law. Opposition to racial vilification legislation
comes predominantly from the media, who are not only powerful opinion-leaders,
but are self-interested when it comes to questions of free speech. Focussing on
the minuscule harm that would be done to freedom of speech by restricting hate
speech, and totally ignoring the significant and longterm harm done to the those
people who are the targets hate speech, the media representatives reject the call
for legislation. They talked dramatically of the explosion of hate and violence
which would result from reducing the air time given to hate mongers. But an
important perspective on this was provided by the Hon Franca Arena, Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the NSW Opposition, who spoke of the considerable
success of the NSW anti-vilification laws. These laws have been in place for 5
years now without any of the disastrous effects that the media and other free
speech proponents assure us are the logical consequence of anti-vilification
laws.

The conclusion to be drawn from the Conference is the need for criminal law to
deal with racial hatred. It is essential that Australia, as a society, broadcasts
far and wide that racial vilification and racial harassment are not acceptable
modes of behaviour in this country. Without a law to stop the spread of racist
propaganda the incidence of discrimination will not abate. That is why the
Australian Law Reform Commission, National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the
Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody all called for legislation. That is
why the United Nations Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Racial
Discrimination requires nations which are a party to it, which includes
Australia, to enact criminal law outlawing racial vilification.

Should the legislation which is about to be introduced into Federal Parliament
fall short of criminalising racial hatred, Australia will fail to meet her
international obligation. Worse still, the law will send a message to the
perpetrators of racism that there is nothing seriously wrong with their behaviour
and words. If we truly want a free, just, strong multicultural Australia this is
a message we cannot afford to send.

Melinda Jones is Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, University of NSW

(C) THE NEW AUSTRALIAN, Vol 1 Issue 5, Sep 1994

===========================================================

CRIMINALISING RACIAL VILIFICATION

Does It Protect Ethnic Australians?   (A personal view)     * by Irfan Yusuf

Racism is rather ineffectively defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as
"antagonism between different races of men", more precise legal definition is
found in the Anti-Discrimination (Racial Vilification) Amendment Act 1989 (NSW).

This piece of legislation aims to render vilification on the ground of race
unlawful and to create a criminal offence of serious racial vilification.
Recently the Prime Minister announced the introduction of Federal legislation to
criminalise racial vilification after calls by the Zionist Federation of
Australia to this effect. It is this aspect of racial vilification legislation
which shall be the subject the present discussion. It is my contention that
criminalising racial vilification cannot and will not prevent racism and group
hate toward groups of people. If anything such legislation does little more than
turn racists into martyrs - that is, if anyone is actually charged.

Yet this discussion does not air to comment on any specific legislation. Rather
it addresses the issue of criminalising racial vilification in a more general
way. Though the writer is a lawyer, specific provisions of anti-racist
legislation will not be touched upon. In reality it is argued, the onus of
protecting ethnic communities lies with the communities themselves. Racist
attitudes where they still subsist can only be challenged through education and
information. To criminalise something is not to destroy it. Ethnic communities
should make more use of information channels in the wider Australian community.
This means getting involved in mainstream media and institutions, not merely
creating "ethnic" institutions.

The criminal justice system is not an appropriate forum in which to combat
racism. Criminalising racial vilification may also have some unintended
consequences which may actually be detrimental to multiculturalism. This will
particularly be the case where allegations of racial vilification are made by
members of one ethnic community against members of another. Before rushing
forward to embrace such legislation, ethnic communities must take these factors
into account.

* The Origins of Racism *

Racism is inherently irrational. A person cannot control his or her country of
origin or that of his or her parents. To divide people and to despise them on the
basis of something beyond their control makes no logical sense. It is like
despising someone because of a physical disability.

Racism is an abhorrent thing. It was racism which inspired Hitler to murder 6
million Jews, 3 million Gypsies, 6 million Slavs, and many millions of others. It
was racism which inspired Baruch Goldstein and Israeli settlers from Kiryat Arba
and other settlements to kill Palestinians and take their land, and which
inspires Israel's Chief Rabbi to call upon all Jews to kill Yasser Arafat. It was
racism which inspired the recent slaughter in Rwanda and Bosnia Herzegovina.

Racism is nationalism gone mad. Actions inspired by racism are not merely a
threat to multiculturalism in Australia. They are in fact becoming a threat to
world peace. If this is the case, we are told, surely racism should be made a
criminal offence. However, what people calling for criminalising racism fail to
appreciate is that racism exists in the realm of ideas. Racism may inspire
action, it may inspire violence. On the other hand it may inspire uncommunicated
resentment. Racism is a state of mind, a way of thinking. And when calls are made
to criminalise people's thinking processes, we are entering a danger area.

* Racism, Religion and Politics *

Race is a matter of chance, not of choice Yet there are so many matters of choice
associated with one's race. Belonging to a particular race in many cases means
subscribing to a particular set of religious and/or political belief.

The question arises whether racial vilification will include criticism of a
particular set of religious or political beliefs which logically arise from
membership of the race being vilified. For instance, to vilify the Jewish people
would clearly be racist. But would criticism of the Jewish religion or of Jewish
religious institutions constitute racism? Would it be racist to criticise Judaism
on theological grounds? On a political level, would criticism of Israel's human
rights record or its treatment of Arabs and "Oriental" (i.e. Arabic) Jews
constitute racism? Similarly, no one would doubt that the present anti-Serb
racism in the community is simply unacceptable and worthy of condemnation.
However, this does not take away the right of Bosnians and their supporters to
rally and tell the world of their plight. In giving this example, some may accuse
me of splitting hairs. Yet the reality is that too many interest groups use the
word "racism" as a shield to protect themselves from criticism of their religious
or political beliefs. This sort of sheltered mentality does little to promote
one's cause, and will only further create resentment against one's beliefs. When
people cry "racism", a number of questions will always be raised. Firstly, what
is the element of racism at hand? Many Jewish Australians would argue that any
criticism of Israel as the Jewish state would be tantamount to anti-Semitism.

Similarly, many Greek Australians would claim that use of the name "Macedonia"
was an insult to all Greeks. Whilst it is true that many critics of Israel are
anti-Semites, it is also true that many of its critics are not. And in the case
of Arab criticism of Israel, one can hardly accuse Semites of being anti-Semitic!
Similarly, whilst many Greeks would feel offended by the use of the name
"Macedonian", many so-called "slav Macedonians" would not want to be called
anything but "Macedonian". In both cases, it would be difficult for a non-Jew
and/or a non-Greek person to understand and identify the source of the offence.
What all this shows is that the distinction between ethnicity and politics is
often forgotten in the heat of the moment. In this regard, I would have to
express my vehement opposition to any extension of the definition of "race" in
racial vilification legislation to cover religious or political beliefs. This is
because religion and politics are a matter of choice and real choice cannot be
exercised without debate and criticism.

People should have the right to criticise other people's religions. If such
criticism were curbed by law, it would seriously limit the degree of choice that
people enjoy in matters of religion.

Of course there is a difference between genuine theological polemics and
vilification of people's faith. It is one thing to object to someone's beliefs on
theological or rational grounds. It is quite another to malign a persons
religion. To do so is to go below standards of decency and good taste yet
enforcing good taste is not a job for the criminal justice system. Rather such
standards should have some kind of social sanction to back them up.

The media in particular has a role to play in this regard. Yet I doubt the media
could play a very constructive role given the way it misrepresents some religions
(particularly Islam and Catholicism).

* Inter-Racial Conflict *

Criminalising racial vilification is meant to target racism committed against
ethnic communities. But what about racism committed by one ethnic community
against another? We have the classic examples of Serbs against Croats, Greeks
against Macedonians, etc (and in all cases vice versa). Unfortunately in the heat
of the moment and inspired by ancient hatreds, ethnic Australians involved in
inter-ethnic polemics may utter racist words against another. At times, such
words may inspire acts of violence such as the tit-for-tat attacks between
extremists in the Greek and Macedonian communities. In situations such as these,
racial vilification legislation may be used by members of one community to make
members of the rival community look like criminals. Thus criminalising racial
vilification in this circumstance may actually facilitate even greater ethnic
tension. The level of violence and hatred involved in the Greek-Macedonian
dispute has alarmed many Australians. But if members of either community had
brought a criminal charge of racial vilification against members of the other,
the violence could well have been much worse.

The trial would have been widely publicised, and would lead to further
questioning and scepticism of Australians multicultural policies and the
questioning would not merely come from the blaineys and howards, but would be far
more widespread. Tabloid newspapers like the Telegraph Mirror (or as we used to
call it at uni, the McPaper) would run blaring headlines on ethnics bringing
their hatreds to Australia. And sorts commentators-turned-columnists would resume
telling new Australians to "go back to where they came from".

This potential for one ethnic community to use the criminal justice system to
settle its scores against a rival ethnic community is one of the potential
unintended consequences of such legislation. Many a time does a more powerful and
better - connected community intimidate a rival community into silence over a
particular issue. Such intimidation has the result of stifling debate, and is
very much an affront to freedom of expression.

To criminalise racial vilification may encourage such stronger communities to use
(or rather misuse) the criminal justice system to further silence perceived
opponents. Ironically, many community organisations supporting moves toward
criminalising racial vilification represent these same weaker communities
susceptible to such intimidation. It seems the organisations involved do not
appreciate the potential unintended consequences of such legislation being
passed. Such legislation could be used to stifle debate on political and
religious matters, and could act as a serious curb on people's basic democratic
freedoms.

Multiculturalism should entail people having the right to express views, even if
such views are unfashionable or offend a powerful interest group.

* Racial Vilification and Ethnic Community Interests *

A large number of ethnic communities support criminalising racial vilification as
they see it protecting their interests as ethnic Australians or as Australians of
a particular ethnic background.

Personally, I found it difficult to accept the contention that there is such a
thing as ethnic interests. And even if these nebulous interests exist, it is
surely in everyone's interest for ethnic communities to appear to be more in the
mainstream of Australian society than sitting on the fringe.

I once had a discussion with a person who worked on the staff of the Minister for
Ethnic Affairs. I expressed my concerns on the unintended consequences of
legislation criminalising racial vilification. He said to me: This sort of thing
will never happen simply because no one will ever be charged. He went on to say
that this sort of legislation is merely of token value and is merely being passed
to appease certain ethnic communities and to get them on the government's side.
In other words this sort of legislation will never be used and was never meant to
be used at all. This should be an eye-opener for those ethnic community leaders
who see such legislation as protecting them from racial vilification. The fact is
that token gestures such as this will not take the cause of ethnic communities
(or more accurately, the cause of multiculturalism) any further.

Rather than seeking to build artificial protective barriers around themselves,
ethnic communities should enter mainstream Australian life. In this regard,
positive mention should be made of Australia's Jewish community. As a refugee
community arriving in Australia (many from the death camps of Hitler's Europe)
the Jewish community worked hard and became successful in virtually all their
endeavours. They did this not by crying racism at every stage but by putting
their heads down and working hard. They also were not ashamed to enter Australian
mainstream organisations and institutions. Surely other ethnic communities could
follow this example. The reality is that if ethnic communities became more
involved in mainstream activities, in business, in the professions in the arts,
etc they would further themselves and the interests of all Australians much more.
Yet how many ethnic communities are involved in a serious way in politics? How
many ethnic candidates do we see in elections.

I have often heard ethnic community leaders complain about how few Liberal Party
candidates are from non-English speaking backgrounds. Yet how many people from
such backgrounds bother to join the Liberal Party and become actively involved in
the pre-selection process? In a certain major Australian political party, we have
the unfortunate circumstance of ethnic communities being used to play factional
politics and to stack out branches for factions in return for promises never
kept. Yet politics is but one example. There is no reason why ethnic communities
cannot also contribute in the arts, in media, and other areas of life touching
all Australians.

Many ethnic communities despite their size have failed to realise their
potential. Arab Australians for example, despite their numbers, find themselves
unable to counter negative images surrounding them. Yet how many Arabic-speaking
people are there in the media, in business, in the professions or in politics?
How many young Arab Australians make it to tertiary institutions or excel in
their trades? Surely if the Arab Australian community participated and
contributed more to mainstream community activities, their image would not be so
negative as it is today. It simply isn't good enough for ethnic communities to
blame their woes on racism or racists. Australia is a land of opportunities, yet
opportunities cannot create their own successes. They must be grabbed and taken
advantage of.

Instead of begging for pseudo-protective legislative handouts, ethnic communities
must understand that unless they participate in the Australian community, the
community will not accept them as equals. Indeed, many ethnic communities are
beginning to understand this.

* Conclusion *

This article has brought together one major theme: ethnic communities cannot be
protected by criminalising racial vilification.

Ethnic communities must learn not to rely on token legislative handouts from
governments keen to woo "the ethnic vote" at a token price. We don't need special
laws and criminal sanctions to protect our interests. Nor do we want the
government to act as thought police on our behalf.

Criminalising racial vilification will not protect ethnic communities. If members
of our communities face violence or intimidation, the present criminal justice
system has sufficient sanctions to deal with the problem.

The best way to fight racism and to strengthen multiculturalism is for ethnic
Australians to participate more fully in mainstream Australian life. We need to
have a presence in all sectors of the community - in politics, in media, in
business, the professions, the union movement, education, etc.

After all, we are Australians and not just "ethnics".

-------

(The author is of Pakistani extraction and is currently Chairman of the Community
& Multicultural Affairs Policy Committee to the NSW Liberal Party State Council.
The views expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily represent those
of the Committee, or the Liberal Party.)

(C) THE NEW AUSTRALIAN, Vol 1 Issue 5, Sep 1994

===========================================================

TO NAME AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT * by Frank Ward

Caroline Chisholm, the greatest heroine in Australia's Colonial History, lacks a
suitable and prominent memorial. The naming of the proposed International Airport
at Badgerys Creek in the outskirts of Sydney in her honour would be such a
memorial. The precedent has been set in naming International Airports in major
cities honouring citizens for outstanding service. Caroline Chisholm qualifies
for extraordinary service to Australia, the country she adopted in 1838. Mrs
Chisholm was renowned in her lifetime for her remarkable achievements. A litany
of titles were bestowed on her including the "Founding Mother" of the Colony and
the "Immigrants Friend".

An International Airport is a place of welcome associated with immigration. In
the 1840's Caroline was an unofficial welcomer to thousands of immigrants she
greeted at the Port of Sydney. In a quote published in "The Sydney Morning
Herald" of 27 June 1993 Prime Minister Keating gave prominence to Mrs Chisholm as
a role model of Immigration when he described her as the most significant woman
of our Colonial History and one engaged in the most significant phenomenon of all
our history - immigration!!

Caroline was accorded respect amounting at times to sheer adulation by the
Australian and British people. "Empire" the newspaper of Sir Henry Parkes wrote
of Mrs Chisholm:

"If Captain James Cook discovered Australia,  Ludwig Leichhardt penetrated its
unknown interior and John MacArthur sowed the seeds of its remarkable prosperity
- Caroline Chisholm did more - she peopled it."

Historian Sir Douglas Copland said of Caroline:

"Mrs Chisholm was the embodiment of the pioneer spirit. For devoted and unselfish
service to a great cause, her life has no parallel in Australian history."

For many years historians overlooked Mrs Chisholm, her image on the National
Currency and three biographies published between 1950 and 1993 helped bring her
out of the historical shadows, but the Reserve Bank's act of iconoclasm in
removing her image from the $5 note dealt a blow to her memory and works. The
Airport, if named in her honour, would help restore her as one of the greatest
female figures of our history.

How appropiate it would be if a mural featuring Caroline surrounded by her
immigrant girls dominated the Arrival lounge of the Airport, perpetuating her
words that gave hope to thousands of poor immigrant girls:

"I am Caroline Chisholm. I am here to help you - Welcome."

Then there was a middle aged married man who said he has never held the $5 long
enough to know whose image is printed. The Chisholm family returned to London for
a visit in 1846. Caroline had settled 14,000 people in the Colonies.

Touring Britain Caroline was appalled at the poverty, knowing what Australia
could offer. She berated the British Government when her requests for selected
migration were refused. She established her own system of immigration, The Family
Colonisation and Loan Society. The first boat of the Society "Slains Castle"
sailed September 1850 with 250 families aboard.

Caroline's reforms of immigration ship conditions were revolutionary. She
provided moral protection of emigrant girls, she demanded from ship owners good
rations, hygiene and privacy, competent surgeons, and hospital facilities with
more spacious accommodation and special care for nursing mothers. On Caroline's
ships (she used 6), the death rate was 2%, on other migrant vessels it was said
to be 12% to 15%. Caroline's reforms influenced the passing of the Passenger Act
of 1852.

Caroline's ships brought 30,000 emigrants to Australia. Caroline achieved two of
her greatest objectives in successfully petitioning the British Government for
free passage to Australia for the Irish orphans, wives and families of the freed
convicts.

The French author and historian Jules Michelet said:

"The fifth continent of the world had thrown up one saint, one legend who has
done more for Australia than all the emigration societies and the British
Government put together. They have failed in colonisation where a single woman
succeeded by her force of character and vigour of soul".

Another French historian, the Marquis de Blosseville said Mrs. Chisholm was
Australia's "greatest earthly benefactress".

Robert E. Lowe, the member of the N.S.W. Parliament said of Caroline: "Her work
was the most original ever devised by or undertaken by man or woman, the labour
and method were beyond all praise".

Mrs. Chisholm was praised as "The Apostle of Social Virtues" and "The Ambassador
of Abandoned Children and Wives".

An editorial in the London "Times" 8.8.1883 said "without the command of money,
without aristocratic connections or any usual aids to success, except a strong
will, a clear head and stout heart - she has brought about reforms which must now
guide all future immigration".

Perhaps the most significant praise was made by an aged convict as he watched
Caroline embark for England,

"Mrs. Chisholm should come back because she belongs to us, and was the only one
wounded in our service".

Caroline died in March 1877 and Captain Chisholm died August 1877 and were both
buried in one grave at Northampton Cemetery. The grave is marked "The Emigrant's
Friend".

The St. Vincent de Paul National Migrants and Refugees Committee at the Annual
Meeting, passed a resolution to investigate ways to promote the erection of a
fitting and prominent memorial to Caroline Chisholm in the area of her work at
Sydney's Farm Cove.

----- The author is Liaison Officer for the Society of St Vincent de Paul's Holy
Family Conference for Migrant and Refugee Work. He has received the OAM (Order of
Australia Medal) for his work for migrants and refugees. --------

(C) THE NEW AUSTRALIAN, Vol 1 Issue 5, Sep 1994

===========================================================

POPULATE  OR PERISH, 1945 --- POPULATE AND PERISH, 1995 ---

* by Harold Grant in Canberra

Concern about population growth, expansion of the economy and defence of the
country legitimated the role immigration was to play in furthering a population
then only 7.3 million; one estimate places Australia's population in excess of
18.2 million at June 1995.

Malthus, not noted for his optimism as to why we should live at all, once said:
"population when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence only
increases in an arithmetic ratio." Conversely, Oliver Goldsmith, blessed with a
rosier view, remarked: "...the honest man who married and brought up a large
family did more service than he who continued single and only talked of
population". In the interval of fifty years the population pendulum for Australia
has swung to a position favouring stabilisation rather than growth.

That position means re-evaluating the social and economic objectives of migration
policy including the role immigration has played or should play in Australia's
development and global responsibilities. The 1945 concept of an under-populated
Australia requiring in large measure population addition through overseas
immigration was part of the real-politik that decided the then Labor Government
with Co-alition Opposition Parties' support to begin post-war large scale,
planned immigration.

The revived slogan "Populate or Perish", articulated eloquently and persuasively
by the first Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell, encapsulated the economic
cum defence cum expansion notion that impelled the Chifley and successive
governments until the seventies to favour large scale migration as a means of
shaping better Australia's future.

It is relevant to recall the first statement made in the House of Representatives
on 2 August 1945 by Mr Calwell as Minister for Immigration. In that statement he
said: "If Australians have learned one lesson from the Pacific war... it is
surely that we cannot continue to hold our island continent for ourselves and our
descendants unless we greatly increase our numbers. We are but seven million
people and we hold three million square miles of this earth's surface. Our
coastline extends for 12,000 miles and our density of population is only 2.5
persons per square mile. Much of our land is situated within a rain belt of less
than 10 inches per annum and this area is, therefore, largely uninhabitable. In
those parts more favourable situated, much development and settlement have yet to
be undertaken. Our need to undertake it is urgent and imperative if we are to
survive. Immigration is, at best, only the counterpart of the most important
phase of population building, natural increase.

Any immigration policy must be intimately related to those phases of government
policy that are directed towards stimulating the birth rate lowering the infant
mortality rate in Australia itself. It must further be related to the whole
social programme of creating greater economic security and a higher standard of
living, as an inducement to young Australians couples to have larger families. In
this connection, the work of the new Department must and will be closely
integrated with the work of the Department of Social Services, the Department of
Health and the Department of Labour and Natural Service.

On the other side of the picture, the Department will approach its problem from
the basis that it is economically unsound to bring migrants to the country until
there is continuous employment for them and.... proper housing and other social
amenities to fit themselves into the Australian way of life..... It has been
proven by hard experience over long periods that the maximum effective absorption
capacity in any expanding country is about two per cent of its numbers. This
figure also includes the net increase of population either by the excess of
arrivals over departures or a combination of both. Two percent of the present
Australian population is approximately 140,000. The net increase being the excess
of birth over deaths, has averaged, during the last five years, approximately
70,000 a year. This would leave, therefore a migration ceiling of 70,000 a year
assuming that the economy was fully expanded to take the maximum number.

It is obvious, therefore, that any suggestion to treble or even double the
population is not likely to be realised. In view of the alarming fall in the
birth rate, and the decline of the average Australian family from six children in
1875 to three children in 1925, and then to slightly over two children at
present, our immediate problem will be to hold our population figures without
some migration."

These historic words by Mr Calwell not only anticipated soberly the flexible
instrument immigration was to become over the succeeding fifty years but also the
limits population additions from abroad could be fitted within the fabric of an
evolving and changing society.

The seventies began the questioning, continued today, as to why Australia could
or should on economic, defence or other grounds increase its population beyond
what the indigene really wanted or more accurately perhaps what the ascending
school of pragmatists believed to be a political imperative. In such
considerations those who sought an infusion of ethics and morals appear to have
been bypassed. Population projections were drastically revised: optimal levels in
excess of 100 million, foreshadowed in the 19th century and pre World War II,
were ridiculed. Even up to 25 million was considered by some including reputable
academics as for too high: under 20 million with a modicum of immigration that
replaced the gap not met by qualitative natural increase within the framework of
an economically sustainable population, paced concerns relating to the survival
of ecosystems.

The sensitivities of individual choice, including equally by either gender,
constituted the base and the thrust for synthesising collectively more effective
people power through the formulation of bodies and organisations concerned with
environment and limited resources. Their input, their contribution to espousing a
society small in number, but comfortable and manageable, as assisted by
technological advances and innovations have attracted support: economic data,
self-fulfilling on past errors if not future prospects, have tended to replace
for many the God once spiritually adored with that materially gratifying. In the
process, despite the burgeonings of surveys, reports andlegislation, the gap
domestically and internationally between the haves and the have nots has widened
and deepened. No longer is it deemed fashionable or propitious to talk of filling
those wide, empty spaces.

The vision of making the desert bloom is matched by the revived fear for whom:
should therefore newcomers be essentially people from abroad admitted temporarily
for such purposes as tourism or enhancing skills domestically acquired is testing
the tolerance, efficacy, social justice and diversity of a country now extolling
its multicultural society. It may or may not be coincidental that emergence of a
global, nondiscriminatory, immigration policy in 1973, initiatives regarding
which had been taken at least a decade before by a number of concerned church,
lay and bureaucratic personalities, marked the peak and decline of British cum
European migration. The subsequent development of non-European migration has been
associated with more scientifically structured immigration criteria, tooled with
its emphasis on Western recognised skills, a moveable points system and
ultimately as at present codified in legislation.

The Australian Government has decided that formal population policy, specially
one specifying population targets, would not be appropriate for Australia, given
its low levels of fertility and diversity of community views as to the character
and objectives of such policy. There is however in place a number of policies and
legal measures that form part of what many consider to be the constituent
elements of population policy. Included is a formal immigration policy, however
muted, which Australia maintains as well as a range of policies generally
relating to broader social economic, environment and health issues.

Projections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that the population
could increase to between 22 and 24 million by the year 2020 depending on whether
or not overseas migration is 80,000 or 125,000 per annum. With no net overseas
migration, the population is projected to peak at 19.3 million in 2027 if the
total fertility rate remains at about 1.8 children per woman and 18.8 million in
2022 if the fertility rate declines to less than 1.7 children per woman.

Despite variable predictions and assumptions, Australia should have achieved a
population in excess of 19 million by the 21st century. By that time, hopefully,
it will have learnt to husband and manage better its non-renewable resources as
well as the environment. Not minimised, however will be the pressures to continue
to keep open the borders to people from elsewhere.

Both insulation and isolation will be impossible. That reality should ensure a
population that will not perish, especially if the lessons learnt over fifty
years are translated into concerns that focus internationally as well as
domestically.

(C) THE NEW AUSTRALIAN, Vol 1 Issue 5, Sep 1994

===========================================================

AUSTRALIA FEELING THE HEAT ON GLOBAL WARMING          By Kalinga Seneviratne

Tiny South Pacific islands may be submerged in the next 50 years because of
global warming, and they are hitting out furiously at their big neighbour
Australia for burning too much coal. This at a time when Australia has been
trying to project an image of a green-conscious nation, and Prime Minister Paul
Keating has made it clear he would not take criticisms of his government's
environmental policies sitting down.

Keating did not hide his irritation at the environmental group Greenpeace when it
drew attention to an issue Australia had wanted to play down at a recent South
Pacific Forum (SPF) meeting in Brisbane -- its refusal to cut down its greenhouse
gas emissions. He had hoped hosting the meeting would project Australia as a
nation willing to help its tiny South Pacific neighbours manage their forests and
marine resources sustainably.

The meeting produced a series of initiatives to protect the region's resources
from exploitation by Asian countries like Malaysia, Korea and Japan, but
Greenpeace activists made sure Australia's contribution to global warming did not
go unnoticed. They raised a huge balloon outside the conference venue, lobbied
delegates and released a report on coral bleaching in the Pacific to draw
attention to the issue. This prompted a stinging attack from Keating, who accused
Greenpeace of "not knowing a win even if they tripped over it". "How many
(regional) meetings ... like this are there, deciding to monitor forests,
deciding to look at sustainable development of tropical hardwood forests,
deciding to look at replenishment and management of fish stocks... putting in
place mechanisms to approach major countries who deal in them?" he asked. "On
this occasion you've got them, but you'd have to put it up in fluorescent lights
with neon tubes to get the message across to Greenpeace," Keating said.

"He is definitely feeling the heat on the issue," said Greenpeace climate change
campaigner Penehuro Lefale. "He is trying to set the agenda saying we are trying
to manage our resources in the region. He doesn't want to hear someone saying
he's mismanaging his country's greenhouse gas emissions."

Keating's outburst ironically focused attention on Australia's attempts to
backtrack on its promises to cut down greenhouse gas emissions and its bid to
block the adoption of a regional ban on the export of hazardous waste.

The international convention on climate change, ratified by Australia earlier
this year, requires member states to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

In April, Foreign Minister Gareth Evans said Australia -- a major coal exporter
-- would refuse to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the economic impact was too
high. At the time Evans made these statements, a local Sydney council approved
plans to build a coal-fired power plant that would release about one million
tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 1996. The next day, another coal-fired power
station was approved near Perth, which will emit three times as much carbon
dioxide by 1998.

Australian industry pumps at least 276 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the figure is expected to rise by 38
percent over the next decade.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) estimates it
will cost at least 5.3 billion dollars to replace all coal-fired power stations
with natural gas plants. And if other countries did the same, Australia could
lose 7 billion dollars in coal export revenue every year. ABARE executive
director Brian Fisher says the climate change convention should clearly state
what the targets should be and where the reductions should occur.

"It does not matter whether carbon dioxide emissions are from fossil fuel burning
in Australia, China or Argentina. Carbon dioxide still has the same potential
impact on global warming no matter where it is produced," he says.

But green activists say instead of making laws to change the wasteful lifestyle
of Australians, Canberra is just putting up guidelines for local authorities and
government departments to help them deal with new projects.

Environmentalists have proposed measures such as tax concessions for using
renewable energy sources, compulsory recycling of household wastes, taxes on
multiple car ownership and withdrawal of government subsidies for freeway
construction in favour of improving public transport.

Jeremy Leggett, a Greenpeace scientific adviser, says Australia is giving a
dangerous signal to the rest of the world in the run-up to the next global
meeting on climate change in Geneva. "What is required is for Australia to stay
in front," says Leggett. "There's a real danger that Australia is going to stick
out as the worst foot-dragger among the industrialised countries."

(C) THE NEW AUSTRALIAN, Vol 1 Issue 5, Sep 1994

===========================================================

THE NEW AUSTRALIAN ELECTRONIC MAGAZINE is published monthly and is dedicated to
the advancement of Multiculturalism and Social Justice in Australia. It is an
extract of our subscription only hardcopy version and is available free on
request.

To subscribe send your name and Email address to: [e-mail]

For a 12 month subscription to the more extensive hardcopy version: Send cheque
for A$24 (Aust & NZ only) or US$30 (International)

Letters and article contributions are welcomed and encouraged.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Editor:           Daniel Mulet

Postal Address:   P.O. Box 56, St Peters, NSW 2044, AUSTRALIA

Telephone:        [phone] (Voice) - 61 2 319 3740 (Fax)

Email:            [e-mail]

===========================================================

[e-mail] THE NEW AUSTRALIAN