Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 24 March 1966

Police Injure More Negroes in Harlem Riot. " We'll kill whites. . . . "

Negroes hit out at Malcolm. " Malcolm " pledges a race war.

Dogs Rout 300 Negroes in Street battle.

These are just a few of them. There are hundreds of others in the cuttings in the Library. Others read -

Malaysia, Racial crisis.

Uneasy Calm Prevails in Singapore.

Death Roll 19 in Singapore Communal Riots.

Macmillan Promises ' Utmost Strictness ' in

Quelling Race Riots.

Rase Riots give Britain a Shock.

Race Issue in Fiji Elections.

There is a beauty here about what happened in Harlem on one occasion, but I think it is just a bit too gory to read out here. Other headings are -

Racial hatred could yet sink Malaysia.

I think it did -

Black and white in Russia.

Even in Russia they have this problem of colour. In a Press article of recent origin is a heading " Dawn Death has the Chinese Angry ". The item reads -

The case of Ta Vinh, the Chinese businessman who was executed on Monday for war profiteering, began as a simple economic trial and now has evolved into a controversial issue here and abroad.

Wherever you find this mixture, whether it be in India, Ceylon or anywhere else, you have these problems. We know of the antagonism that exists in Ceylon between the Ceylonese, the Indians and the Pakistanis. There is the problem of South Africa, the problem of the United States of America and of Fiji. It does not matter where you go you can find this clash when people of different racial groups are brought together. In New York they have Harlem and, in San Francisco, Chinatown. In New York they have the grouping together of Puerto Ricans. Wherever you have this grouping you have these unfortunate problems and this unfortunate trouble.

When people in Australia say to me that we have nothing to worry about if we indulge in an open door policy of immigration, all I ask them to do is to have a look at what happened in the United Kingdom when the British Government pursued an open door policy - and its open door policy applied only to people from the British Commonwealth. I have here a publication titled "Immigration from the Commonwealth ". It is dated August 1965 and is published by the British Government. It contains the following information -

From 19SS a rough count was kept of the number of Commonwealth citizens from the

Caribbean, Asia, East and West Africa and the Mediterranean entering and leaving the country.

The figures are as follows -

If the same rate had been maintained in 1962 the number could have hit the 200,000 mark. If honorable members want to see the way that this influx has been brought about in the United Kingdom, they should see a film called "The Strangers" which was shown in the Senate club room during the last sessional period. It was produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation and clearly sets out the problems associated with this large influx of people into the United Kingdom. I do not want to see any Little Rock in this country. I have no desire to see similar problems to those that have been created in the United Kingdom as a result of this influx.

I suggest that we look at the immigration policies of other countries. The United States claims to have no preferential policy in admitting people. It claims that there is no differentiation against anyone on the ground of colour or race. However, the United States very cleverly prepared its immigration rules. It took 1920 as the base year for striking the quotas to be admitted from each country. For example, in 1958 the quota for people from the United Kingdom was 65,361; from Germany 25,814; from Australia 100; from China 100; and so on for other countries. At the moment the quota for Ceylon is 100, for India 100, for Korea 100, for Japan 185, for China 100 and for Pakistan 100. It is stated that Asian quotas are hopelessly oversubscribed. In other words, the number of people trying to get into America make the quota system a complete farce. The quota for China is 100. It is 100 for Australia, but there are not 100 Australians trying to get into America. The quota system makes a complete farce of the claim by some people that there is no discrimination in the United States immigration policy.

France has laid down stringent conditions for people entering that country. They must be assured of employment and accommodation for at least six months. They may be naturalised after five years, but it is very difficult to obtain naturalisation. The same thing can be said about Germany, except that a 10 year minimum residential qualification is necessary in that country. People who are critical of Australia's immigration policy should consider the immigration policies of countries adjacent to Australia. Indonesia practises a system of prior selection of those who, through special qualities and techniques, can usefully contribute to its national development. All Chinese from mainland China and nationals from other Sino-Soviet countries are refused entry for security reasons. A minimum salary of $500 per month is stipulated for employees of established businesses. Malaysia likewise has had its problems. We saw only recently the collapse of the original Federation of Malaysia with the expulsion of Singapore, brought about to a great extent because the Malaysian Government was endeavouring to make second class citizens of the Chinese. Even the Chinese and the Malays could not get along and live as one people.

Let me go through the immigration policies of the various countries. Thailand's immigration policy is restrictive. There is an annual quota of 200 nationals from any country. There is also a quota of 200 stateless persons. A fee, which is equvalent to $A42, is charged for entry and a fee of $A8 for annual registration. This imposes certain restrictive conditions on the people who can enter. In addition, people seeking entry must have suitable employment, accommodation and sufficient funds to maintain themselves. Similarly, Burma has a very positive and restrictive immigration policy. Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese, who number more than 2 million in the population of the country, are completely excluded from entry, except on special occasions when they are able to assist in the development of Burma. India imposes restrictions on immigration. It excludes citizens of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon. Ceylon reciprocates by excluding Indians, and Pakistan has a somewhat similar restrictive policy.

Let us look at the situation in the Philippines. The Press in Australia recently reported that people in the Philippines were most concerned because the Minister had refused permission for a business man from the Philippines to enter Australia. But what is the position? Regulations in the Philippines set a quota of 50 immigrants from any one country, but in practice quota systems are applied only where reciprocity pertains. Initial requirements for immigrants acceptable under the quota system are that the immigrant be in possession of capital of 5,000 pesos or have pre-arranged employment. An immigrant must have sufficient capital to establish a business or must be of independent means. Discrimination is practised against Japanese, Chinese and Indians. Chinese and Indians are allowed entry only for meritorious reasons. The entry of Japanese except for business purposes is totally prohibited.

These facts are available to honorable members. I could mention numerous other countries throughout Asia that indulge in a positive and restrictive form of immigration. This is also the position with Egypt, Nigeria and other African countries. Yet these are the people who are continually attacking our immigration policy. As I said earlier, I am completely and unreservedly opposed to any experiment that will bring into Australia people in such substantial numbers as to create a problem. I have figures relating to students of other countries who are in Australia. Whilst I would like to have them incorporated in " Hansard ", I think I had better read them. The table contains a substantial number of figures, but I propose to deal only with the totals. I believe that Australia has adopted a very generous attitude towards the training of Asian and African students. It has tried to give them an adequate education at university, technical, secondary and primary levels and in accountancy, both privately and at technical colleges, in nursing and in other skills so that they can be of assistance in the development of their own countries. But I strongly object to one aspect of this scheme. After having been trained in Australia to be an engineer, economist, accountant, nurse, doctor or something of that nature, some of these students want to stay here. What type of people are they? What real interest have they in the development of their own country? On numerous occasions people have come to me and asked me to approach the Minister with a request that students who have been trained in Australia be allowed to stay here.

My invariable attitude is,: Let them go home to their own country. Their own country has more need of engineers, economists, nurses, doctors, technicians and people with other skills than Australia has. Why should we bring them here, train them and then pirate them? That is the only term that could be used for this activity.

I have the official figures of nonEuropean private students in Australia who were holders of temporary entry permits as at 31st March 1965. The figures are given in two groups. One shows the national groups and the other the country of origin. I propose to deal only with the country of origin. The following table sets out the number of students from each country -

 

Australia has accepted 11.045 students from non-European countries and has endeavoured to train them so that they will be of assistance to their own countries. In view of the cost and the overall shortage of universities, technical colleges and secondary schools, I think that Australia has been fair and reasonable to these people. We have given them training so that they will be of benefit to their own countries. But having trained them we should not try to hold them here. I believe that any effort to retain these students in Australia displays a most unfortunate attitude on the part of Australian companies, industries and organisations. The real place of these students is in their own country. They should return to the country from which they came and there help their own country to develop.

My time is almost exhausted and I must conclude. I reaffirm my attitude, very clearly and positively. We should not import into this country the problem that has beset other countries. Let us accept the experience gained by others and not indulge in the reckless experiment that some people would have us undertake.







Suggest corrections