Book review: Klaus Neumann, Refuge Australia: Australia's
Humanitarian Record, UNSW Press, 0 86840 711 9, 127pp
Frank Brennan SJ
Neumann's book is the latest in the 'Briefings' series from the
Institute for Social Research at the Swinburne University of Technology,
'exploring social, political and cultural issues in contemporary
Australia". This book complements the earlier one in the series,
Mr Ruddock Goes to Geneva by Spencer Zifcak.
With access to the National Archives and an acute curiosity to
inspect files marked "not yet examined", Neumann sets
out to debunk assumptions about Australia's response to refugees
and asylum seekers in the past. He confines himself to case studies
pre-dating the formal abandonment of the White Australia policy
which long limited and focussed Australia's response to refugees
and asylum seekers.
In seven chapters entitled Reffos, Balts, Ineligibles, Asylum Seekers,
Border Crossers, Convention refugees, and Deportees, he describes
individual cases and government policy responses to particular humanitarian
disasters from the 1930s to the 1970s. His purpose is to debunk
- Australia has accepted more than its fair share of refugees
in the past.
- Onshore asylum seekers arrived only after the Vietnam War.
- Australia has always led the field in supporting UNHCR and
developing international legal instruments to protect refugees.
- The Howard government was the first Australian government to
grant only temporary protection and to repatriate persons forcibly.
Neumann highlights the role of five key policy developers. They
are the politicians Alexander Downer (the father of the present
Foreign Minister), Garfield Barwick (who went on to become Chief
Justice) and Arthur Calwell (the father of the post-war migration
program), and the bureaucrats Tasman Heyes (the only Australian
to have received the UNHCR Nansen Refugee Award) and Peter Heydon
(the father of Australia's newest High Court justice).
Neumann has built on his previously published research in Australian
Historical Studies to present sufficient material to highlight
the complexity of the mix between migration policy and the international
obligation to contribute to the protection of refugees and asylum
Though he takes issue with commentators on all sides 'who make
rhetorical use of the past in order to condemn or justify current
policies' (p. 14), he does not altogether avoid sweeping and condemnatory
comments about the present policy and its instigators. He wants
the reader to know that he 'could find no instance in that earlier
period in which the government encouraged public opinion against
refugees'. ( p. 111) It may be an oversimplification to assert that
'in comparison to the early twenty-first century, successive governments
from the 1930s to the 1970s were far more prepared to pursue policies
regardless of the public's anticipated or initial reaction.' (111)
But Neumann's research does bear out Malcolm Fraser's claim about
the reception of the Vietnamese boatpeople. In 2002, Fraser on receipt
of an honourary doctorate said, 'If any of the political parties
had tried to make politics over the resettlement of the Indo-Chinese
in the seventies and eighties, Australians would have found it difficult
to support the policy. The political parties were united in the
policy and Australians accepted the policy as right for the nation.'
If John Howard had been prime minister immediately after the Vietnam
war it is unlikely that we would have received the Vietnamese in
such numbers and with such equanimity.
Neumann's analysis of the policy responses to border crossings
from Indonesian Irian Jaya into the Australian territory of PNG
confirms the thesis that much of the public rhetoric and policy
implementation about border protection can be espoused only by an
island nation continent spared the inconvenience of land borders.
Fragile negotiations with Indonesia have always been the backdrop
to Australia's formal position on the reception of asylum seekers.
Neumann is too simplistic in espousing, 'A refugee policy that is
divorced from immigration policy is potentially guided by humanitarian
commitment and responsibility more so than by other factors.' (p.
112) Though he does succeed in demonstrating that there has never
been a golden age in Australia's treatment of refugees, he leaves
this reader agnostic about his claim that 'The establishment of
a separate government agency responsible for the administration
of Australia's refugee policy is long overdue.' (p. 110) Australia's
refugee policy never has been and never will be divorced from immigration
policy. The major problem with the present policy is that the government
has decided to connect things which are unconnected, deducting the
number of successful onshore asylum applications from the annual
quota of offshore refugee and humanitarian places. This contrived
nexus is made so that government can argue that onshore asylum seekers
are queue jumpers taking the places of more needy persons offshore.
Even if Australia were not a net migration country, we would still
have an obligation to extend protection to onshore asylum seekers.
Being a net migration country, we ought to maintain a significant
quota of humanitarian places even if they do not provide immediate
cash returns as do the business migration slots.
Tasman Heyes, the doyen of Australian migration bureaucrats, oversaw
Australia's policy from 1946 to 1961. It was he, not John Howard
or Pauline Hanson, who first observed (quoted at p 82):
There are thousands of non-European refugees, and acceptance
by Australia of a convention which provided that such a class
of persons should not be discriminated against and should not
be subject to any penalty for illegal entry, would be a direct
negation of the immigration policy followed by all Australian
governments since federation.
Repetition of this mantra today is no more defensible than a return
to the 1938 self-satisfied, isolationist declaration of the Minister
for Trade speaking at the international conference to consider the
plight of German refugees (quoted at p. 17):
Australia cannot do more, for it will be appreciated that in
a young country man power from the source from which most of the
citizens have sprung is preferred…It will no doubt be appreciated
also that, as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous
of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large-scale foreign
Neumann helps us to open our present border protection policies
to the scrutiny both of the past and of an international perspective.
Fr Frank Brennan SJ AO is an Adjunct Fellow of the Research
School of Asian and Pacific Studies at the ANU. His latest book
is Tampering with Asylum (UQP 2003)
print this page
© 2003 Uniya, PO Box 522,
Kings Cross NSW 1340
Tel: +61 2 9356 3888 Fax: +61 2 9356 3021