Australia (Andrew Jakubowicz) For

Racism in Australia Andrew Jakubowicz

Introduction Brief Profile

Australia was named by the British in the nineteenth century (it had previous Portuguese, Dutch and French names) after the original Latin “Terra Australis” (the South Land). It is an island continent which lies between the Pacific and Indian oceans, south of the archipelagos. It is approximately the same physical size as the continental United States and has a population of slightly less than 20 million. Most of the population lives in a small number of large cities within 100 kilometres of the coast. The urban populations are more culturally diverse and educated, the rural populations more culturally homogenous and less well educated. Indigenous people tend to live in the rural areas, though there are significant numbers in the suburbs of the major cities. Approximately 23 percent of the population was born outside Australia and 27 percent had at least one parent born outside Australia.

Vignette

In September 2001, the MV Tampa, a Norwegian container ship, rescued a group of asylum seekers whose boat was foundering off the Australian coast. The prospective refugees were primarily Afghani and Iraqi, and were fleeing from the centres of violence and oppression in which they had lived. As there were no local Australian offices, and few countries to the east of theirs were signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees, they sought Australia as a safe haven.

Although the Australian government refused to allow the Tampa to enter Australian waters, the ship did so and anchored off Christmas Island, an Australian territory to the north west of the mainland and close to Indonesian waters. The Australians wanted the Indonesians to take the asylum seekers but Indonesia refused. Finally, Australian troops raided the Tampa and forced its passengers to leave Australia for a camp in the Pacific island of Nauru, paid for by the Australian government. There, they were processed by the UN and Australian officials and some were soon re-settled without problem in New Zealand. Most were found to be legitimate refugees.

In Australia, the Tampa event raised massive social controversy with a large majority of the population supporting the government’s expulsion of the refugees (described in Australian popular media as “queue jumpers”). Underpinning the antagonism to the refugees was their ethnic and religious background – Asian and Arab Muslims. In an environment heightened by fears generated by the 9/11 attacks in the USA, and the war in Afghanistan – to which Australia committed troops - the strong anti-refugee position taken solidified electoral support and the government was returned comfortably in the November 2001 election. The Tampa survivors were represented as the sharp end of an endless stream of uncontrollable aliens, who might invade Australia unless halted brutally and with determination.

Overview of Racism

In Commonwealth law, racism is not defined; nor indeed is race. Rather, laws such as the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) and the Racial Hatred amendments to that Act in 1995, reflect Australia’s acceptance of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. They prohibit discrimination (distinction, exclusion, restriction, preference) on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, in relation to any human right or fundamental freedom. Other laws at the state level also prohibit discrimination on race, ethnic background and national origin, and in some cases religion.

Australian governments have passed legislation at state and federal levels that seek to define and outlaw racism. While Australia has not been at the forefront in international forums confronting racism, it has, for the most part, aligned itself with the more progressive nations. It is important to recognize that there are two competing and conflicting social discourses about race current in the society – one which is based on humanitarian, universal and cosmopolitan values, which welcomes cultural differences and decries racism and prejudice; and the other which is defensive of the myths of the core culture, denies racism is a problem, and stresses values associated with assimilation into British/Australian culture. Australian law claims to desire the former of these while having to take into account and accept elements of the latter. The balance of the compromise has been a central concern of the politics of race since 1973, when White Australia was put to rest, multiculturalism was first enunciated as a policy to replace assimilationism, and Indigenous Land Rights were firmly placed on the political agenda.

Most colonial settler societies, of which Australia is included, have been predicated on a primary racist assumption – the right of European powers to appropriate the wealth and resources of other societies. Australia, as a concept and as a reality, was created by two centuries of imperial struggle. The core myths and social practices of Australia reflect this history. Moreover, the issue of how to “read” Australian history has become highly politicized. In 1996, Prime Minister John Howard (head of government at the national level) argued that a “black armband” view had taken control of what should be seen as a far more heroic struggle to establish civilization in the land. He was reflecting on an argument first developed by historian Geoffrey Blainey, who in 1993 had castigated revisionist historians for focusing on the negative elements of Australian history, and thereby supporting the development of what he described as a guilt industry. Hirst (1988), a conservative critic, has referred to this process as the blackening of the past. The issue of the history of racism has been politicized and there is no longer an unambiguous narrative to which all historians could subscribe. However, it is important to ensure that voices of those about whom the history is written are also heard.

History and Social Context

When the British government laid claim to ownership of the Australian continent in 1770, it did so within an international environment of aggressive imperialism where the subordination of colonial peoples was taken as a given amongst European powers. They justified their aggression through a variety of ideological stratagems, typically combining religious goals with economic imperatives. Thus Australia would provide fertile ground for the conversion of the heathen natives, who were like children to be led into civilization by the enlightened foresight of the conqueror. In the process, as there were few signs of what Europeans recognized as civilized life and no signs of the local people having organized government, their living on the land was perceived as an increasing frustration to be eradicated. Their resistance was a nuisance to be suppressed.

When the British first settled/invaded in 1788, there may have been as few as 300,000 or as many as 1 million indigenous inhabitants. The indigenous peoples were seen to have no legal claim to the land and were immediately taken under the protection of the Crown. All of their land became Crown land, and their law was immediately nullified. Wars broke out in the Sydney region where the local people resisted the invasion under the leadership of a local chief. The settlers were greatly assisted by the impact of germ warfare, introducing diseases such as measles, influenza and smallpox to which the local people succumbed.

The British spread quickly across the continent and the major islands. Early policy kept Australia as a penal colony for the first twenty years of settlement until more land was acquired by new pastoral industries. Christian missions were established about one generation after settlement. The first mission, in 1820, sought to protect the Indigenous people from the worst depravities of the invaders, and in the process, convert them to Christianity and Westernize them. In particular the aim was to render the population passive and compliant, thereby positioning them in menial and servant roles in the social hierarchy. It was not until 1834, nearly half a century into the colonial period, that the first Europeans were found guilty and hung for the murder of Aborigines. Tickner (2001), a former Aboriginal affairs minister stated that even with differences in emphasis and policies among the colonies, the common theme was the introduction of control over Aboriginal people. It permeated every aspect of their lives, from the food they ate and the religion they practiced, to their freedom of movement and association (p.4).

Within half a century of settlement, free immigration was growing rapidly, a tide that became a flood after the discovery of gold in the 1850s. New colonies were established around the periphery of the continent and significant populations of British and non-British immigrants arrived seeking the free land. Populations of indentured workers were brought in to work the new industries: gold mining and forest clearing Chinese from the Guang Zhou region of southern China; Jat Pathan camel drivers from Pakistan/Afghanistan to build overland telegraph lines; and Kanaka labourers from the Pacific Ocean islands to work in the northern sugar industry.

The Federation of the colonies into a single Commonwealth in 1901 was driven in part by the fear of non-White immigration, and the equally strong desire to create an egalitarian White democracy in the South Seas. One of the first legislative acts of the new nation was to define a restrictive immigration policy, and exclude non-Whites. Ideologies of race played a critical part in the formation of the nation – both internally in relation to the position of the Indigenous population (excluded from citizenship and political participation - not counted in the national Census so as not to favour states with large Aboriginal and small settler populations); and externally, through a definition of racial purity as a social goal.

Under the Australian Constitution of 1901, Aborigines would not be counted as part of the population of a state for the purposes of representation in the Commonwealth Parliament. The effect of this and other sections of the Constitution was to prevent the Commonwealth from making laws on behalf of Aborigines. It left them to the mercies of the random regimes operating in the various states. Even though Aborigines were subjects of the Crown and were thus entitled to the protection of the British colonial government, many were hunted down and massacred by troops and frontier settlers. The massacres would continue well into the 1920s, to be followed and extended by the deaths of hundreds of Indigenous people in prison, a situation still continuing in the twenty- first century.

Racism, even where benign intent was the public motive and policy of organizations, was all pervasive. The Indigenous people were seen variously as troublesome marauders, ethnic fauna, anthropological curiosities, and physiological throwbacks. Christians saw them as lost souls, anthropologists as a missing link, especially after Darwinian world views (about evolution) became popular in the second half of the nineteenth century. Believed to be a stone age society unable to cope, the Indigenous population was expected to die out under the impact of western civilization. The way forward would therefore lie in a separation of full bloods from half castes, introducing a regime which kept the former on reserves (concentration camps) and the remainder in a process of assimilation designed to breed them out of the population.

Systematic devices were developed to ensure these outcomes. The reserve strategy placed Indigenous people in isolated locations, often mixing people of different language and cultural backgrounds together. They were banned from drinking alcohol, from leaving reserves without permission, and from marrying of their own volition. They were infantilised and restrained – regimented and regulated. The effect, if not the overt conscious aim, was to erode culture and language, undermine self-esteem, and break the spirit of the people. Throughout the twentieth century the question of jurisdiction and the question of rights were the main parameters within which the struggle against racism would take place.

A particular practice which grew to prominence in the 1930s (but had been put in place much earlier), affected by international eugenics ideas, required the removed of lighter skinned children from their parents – especially their mothers. These children were often sent long distances, cut off from all contact with their parents and siblings, and put into training as domestic servants (girls) and trades assistants or station (ranch) hands (boys). Manne (2001) describes one such 1947 event when “all the camp was howling for the children (whom the police had taken away)…the women in the camp – in the traditional ritual for mourning the dead – beat their heads with sticks until they bled (p 19).

In 1937 two critical events occurred. The governments of the states and the Commonwealth in relation to the Northern Territory met to consider what policy should be adopted regarding the Aborigines and chose the separation strategy discussed above. In the same year at Dubbo, a remote town in western New South Wales, Indigenous people met to create the Aborigines Progressive Association. This Association was one of the crucial elements of a social movement for Indigenous rights which would grow over the next thirty years. Its first major action was to declare a day of mourning on the national holiday set by the government to celebrate the setting up of the colony 150 years before. It went on to demand that the Commonwealth (national) government take responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, and develop a single policy to defend Aboriginal interests.

Aboriginal organizations argued consistently for such a Commonwealth power, which would effectively allow them to be citizens in their own land and to vote or seek representative office. Various attempts were made to address this issue and an attempt by the wartime government in 1942 to win popular support for an Aboriginal power was defeated at referendum. The movement grew in strength and support through the 1950s and 1960s until, in 1967, a referendum passed by a large majority empowered the national government to act on behalf of the Aborigines and to recognize them as Australian citizens. The period between the end of World War II and the 1967 referendum was marked by much confrontation with racist practices and legislation. Despite the Australian government’s acceptance of the UN Convention against genocide, the deep-rooted perceptions in relation to Aborigines remained unchanged. For instance, British government atomic bomb tests during the 1950s used Pitjatjantjara Aboriginal lands in central Australia with scant regard for the well- being of the people living there.

White Australia, as it was to be known, remained the dominant policy setter for nearly three generations. By the 1960s however, growing awareness of the racist nature of the Australian policy on Aborigines had led to widespread concern. In 1965, university students toured rural NSW on a Freedom Ride, reflecting strategies developed in the USA. In 1966, traditional people on the Wave Hill cattle station owned by the multinational food company Vestey’s, walked off the land demanding equal pay and conditions to white workers and the right to the return of their land. And, a campaign by Indigenous groups and their allies carried a referendum in 1967 to include Aborigines in the Australian political body. This referendum eroded White Australia, until it was abandoned in the early 1970s and replaced (in theory) by a non-discriminatory immigration policy.

The Land Rights movement began to grow in popularity and by 1970 the national government was starting to look at ways of buying back Aboriginal lands for community use. However, a court judgment in 1971 found against Indigenous claims that there could be such a thing as native title.

Aboriginal groups then began to focus politically on the Commonwealth pressing for federal action on land rights issues which they said now clearly required government legislation. On Australia Day 1972 – the day of Mourning – a tent embassy was set up on the lawns outside the (former) Federal Parliament in Canberra. It remained for many years (until threatened with removal in March 2003) , under the Aboriginal flag, a yellow ball on background of red and black – yellow for the sun, black for the skin of the people, red for the colour of the earth.

There was a sense in which the wider society believed that the Aboriginal problem had been solved by the 1967 referendum. It had been passed reflecting a mood of assimilation as in one recognizing indigenous rights. The claim could not be that Indigenous people had the same rights as non-Indigenous, and nothing more was required unless those specific rights were violated. But Indigenous groups argued that only the first step had been taken, and there were many unresolved questions still remaining – in particular the political status of native title and its implications.

Native title is a concept in international law that recognizes the prior rights of indigenous peoples to land seized from them unlawfully by occupying powers. When the 1971 federal court ruling denied that native title existed in Australia, a long struggle initiated by an Indigenous man (Eddie Mabo) from the Torres Strait ensued. In 1992 the High Court ruled that unless specifically replaced by laws re-assigning the title, native title existed on the basis of traditional ownership. This decision, greeted with satisfaction and joy by the indigenous communities, triggered enormous unrest among the mining industry and the pastoral sector because of their economic interest in these areas.

Throughout the 1990s there was a sustained campaign to have the government either legislate to abolish native title, or have the benchmark for claims made so onerous none would succeed. The 1993 Native Title legislation did set severely limited rules but even this situation would become more complex when the High Court ruled in 1996 that native Title could co-exist with pastoral leases (the Wik decision). This legal judgment struck at the heart of the belief in the cattle industry that traditional owners had no rights to the land on which they lived if these lands had been leased to a pastoralist.

The arguments were fundamentally racist because they proposed the acceptance of the status quo - that non-Indigenous occupation should automatically deny all land rights to those who had been invaded, unless they bought their own land back. With a conservative government in power after 1996, the national tack changed when the Prime Minister declared he was on the side of the pastoralists. A ten-point plan was introduced over widespread indigenous objections, which effectively cut back those limited rights previously negotiated in the 1993 Native Title Act.

A number of other issues also surfaced during the 1990s raising critical questions about the nature of racism and the problematic context of race relations. Each was framed by a national inquiry conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - on racist violence (1990), Aboriginal deaths in custody (1991), and the stolen generation (1997). Together these reports demonstrated that there was widespread violence against Indigenous people, but also within Indigenous communities (domestic violence); that Indigenous young men were dying in custody at a rate out of proportion to their numbers, often through suicide or official violence; and that up to 20,000 Indigenous children may have been taken from their parents during the period from 1920 to 1970. These reports painted a picture of a colonial settler society unable to manage the consequences of its own history: a situation compounded by high incarceration rates; high morbidity and mortality; and, poor housing and education. More recently, decisions by some state and territory governments to jail young people who have offended previously, even if they are only convicted for minor property crimes, has fallen heavily on Indigenous young men.

While the accrual of disadvantage highlighted the conditions under which Indigenous people lived, the explanations were highly politicized. On one side, a movement that was pushing for reconciliation between indigenous and non – indigenous Australians stressed the social conditions that had to be addressed. On the other, a conservative movement with support in the government and in right wing populist political parties argued that Indigenous people were being given too many rights and that their conditions of life were of their own making.

Thus, racism remains a reality in the lives of Indigenous and non – indigenous Australians – with governments facing great difficulty in dealing with both the material conditions of Indigenous life, and the attitudes and values of some parts of the wider community towards them. As a consequence, Australia has come under sustained criticism from international organizations such as the United Nations and Amnesty International, to which the conservative government has reacted defensively.

Racism, Immigrants and Refugees

The problematic place of race in Australian national identity is exemplified in the management of immigration. The fierce affirmation of White Australia, which had been part of the crucible of nationhood, was played out in strategies to exclude those who were not acceptable participants in the new nation. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 (revised, modified and finally revoked in the late 1950s) had the effect of slowing, and then reversing, the inflow of non- Europeans. The widespread Chinese community could no longer bring over marital partners; many of the Jat Pathan remained but were cut off from their families and cultural links; and many of the Kanakas were sent back to their islands of origin. A language dictation test was used to filter undesirables. However, in the wake of the Second World War, governments of both political persuasions committed the country to a huge population building program and turned increasingly to Southern and Eastern Europe. Throughout the 1960s, internal disturbance and external criticism eroded the unanimity within which White Australia had been sustained (Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, 1977; Australian Council for Population and Ethnic Affairs, 1982).

In the mid 1960s, the Australian Labor Party removed its commitment to White Australia, while conservative Government policy moved from assimilation to integration, recognizing that non-British immigrants were hanging on to their own cultures, and more importantly, had every right to do so within an overall commitment to Australia. This was to become the philosophical framework for all future policies – the idea of a primary allegiance to a unitary Australia (Markus, 2001). By the early 1970s the national government had moved towards a policy of multiculturalism, recognizing the legitimacy of diverse cultures within the framework of an overall commitment to Australia.

While racial markers were removed as filters for immigration in 1973, it was not until later in the 1970s, following the end of the US-Indochina War in 1975, that significant numbers of Asian immigrants arrived. These were predominantly refugees from that war, usually staunchly anti-Communist and politically conservative. They settled by the hundreds of thousands in the major cities of Sydney and Melbourne and played a critical part in the transformation and globalisation of these cities.

Reaction to the new immigrants was not long in coming. While there had been bi-partisan support for multiculturalism as policy from 1978, this harmony fragmented in the wake of the economic downturns of the early 1980s. Leading populist intellectual figures argued that Australia could not culturally deal with the rapid cultural change affecting its cities. A series of government reports raised questions about the effectiveness of multiculturalism, and whether it should be retained as either concept or policy. This view was particularly centered in the core of conservative politics that expressed resentment and hostility to the rapid impact of globalisation, and in particular, the Asianisation of Australia’s cities (Jakubowicz, 1985).

The election of a conservative national government in 1996 brought together the reaction to a range of policies which advantaged immigrants in general although the concern was about the immigrants from South East Asia and the Middle East. Welfare benefits were cut for new arrivals, parental sponsorship rights were cut back, research and policy groups concerned with issues of equity were closed, and the Prime Minister avoided using the concept of multiculturalism. A series of long drawn out reports through the last years of the century finally created a sense of an Australian multiculturalism (Australia Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 1999d; Australian Council of Social Services, 1988). These reports were purported to be an acceptance of pluralism constrained by a demand for allegiance to Australia’s primary interests, whatever these interests might be.

Until the mid 1960s the Australian government had policies in place based on racist assumptions and designed to have racist outcomes. It was only with the changing political tenor of the period that new government policies were developed designed to eradicate racist practice and confront racist values. The first moves were at the state level in 1966 when the state government in South Australia developed the first anti-discrimination legislation. In 1967, the national referendum ended the constitutional discrimination against Indigenous Australians.

Both the White Australia policy and the Aboriginal affairs policies would be affected by Australia’s position in the world. Australia could not avoid supporting UN initiatives against racism. However, even though Australia signed the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1966, the agreement was not ratified until 1975 and included the exclusion of criminalizing racial vilification. This was done through the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) which stopped short of criminal sanctions for any actions covered by its terms. Again in 1994 the Senate forced amendments to the Racial Hatred Act, removing criminal sanctions (McGlade 2000). The first national strategy designed to respond to complaints of racial discrimination used a short-lived Community Relations Commission (1974-1976) with limited powers. It preceded the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, which oversaw the Racial Discrimination Act. The HREO Commission has powers to adjudicate in disputes (through a tribunal), and reach decisions (through negotiation). If no outcome can be negotiated or the offending party does not act as agreed, then the aggrieved party has to take the matter to a court for action. In addition, after the failed proposals for criminal sanctions were blocked by senators in opposition, the HREOC was charged with community education. The Commission also carries out investigations and prepares reports, including those on the social justice status of Indigenous people, the conditions of refugees and the experiences and social condition of immigrants.

By the end of last century Australia was under sustained criticism from UN agencies concerned with racism. Committee after committee found that the Australian government needed to be held accountable for Indigenous land rights which were eroded by the Wik ten point plan; the mandatory incarceration of property offenders which overwhelmingly targeted Indigenous youth in some states and territories; the replacement of the UN day to eliminate racial discrimination with the oddly-named harmony day; and, the incarceration of asylum seekers in remote area internment camps.

Increasingly, it appeared that the government was fighting a war against Indigenous Australians and non-European refugees using the courts as a weapon to suppress or exclude those who were culturally different from the elite and its view of the mainstream.

Racism Today

Political Views and Public Policies

Australia is a society with an evident racist past and continuing controversies over the nature of its present and future. The government's position remains that none of its actions are in any way racist - from the revisions to Native Title that stripped many of the protections Indigenous people had secured in the early 1990s, to the position on refugees that was described as race-free (the government arguing that it was taking more than its fair share of refugees and that those repulsed were 'illegal' entrants) to the erosion of multiculturalism (and the affirmation that Australian multiculturalism rightly placed Euro-Christian values at the apex of the value hierarchy).

Racial discrimination is widely reported, with state government hot-lines taking hundreds of phone calls from distressed members of visible minorities, in the aftermath of 911. Racially motivated sexual violence has also been growing, though complicated by the identification of specific groups of young men as Lebanese Muslims, and their victims as "Australians". "Payback" attacks against Muslim women has been reported, as have attacks on wearers of religious symbols such as veils and turbans.

Social Views, Customs, Practices

National organizations also developed around issues of racism affecting immigrants and refugees. The most widely known of these is the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia (FECCA) whose agenda covered a broad range of issues including discrimination. As the century reached its end, the links between racism against indigenous people and against immigrants and refugees drew organizations together in joint action for change (Nossal, 1999).

Future of Racism

In a country that has prided itself publicly on its multicultural and tolerant public culture, and which in 1995 hosted the World Cultural Diversity Conference, it is extraordinary how rapidly race has become the hottest topic on the political agenda. Party as a consequence of external factors, partly as a consequence of increasing pressure from conservative political forces anxious to re-assert a narrow cultural hegemony, Australians are less willing to accept social difference than they have been for many years. Increasingly conservative commentators are arguing that many of the perspectives advocated by liberal proponents of diversity since the 1960s should be abandoned. Cultural relativism has come under major attack, with the re-assertion of religious based precepts drawn from Christianity and in particular evangelical tendencies. Assimilationism has been resurrected as a illegitimate philosophy of inter-group relations, while immigration recruitment has targeted English speaking professionals while restricting family reunion from poorer non English speaking countries.

While there are many fragmented groups resisting the push towards conformity and Anglo-morphism, the overwhelming tendency of the public culture is to withdraw into a comfortable and delusionary self-satisfaction, marked by celebration of a traditional nationalism and monocultural homogeneity. It is likely, therefore, that racism will find a more legitimated niche in the public policies of the society, probably in a benign rather than malicious form. It is significant that in the November 2001national elections the One Nation Party was almost totally eradicated as a political force, with the vast majority of its supporters flowing back to the government, which they had deserted over their perception of its soft position on race.

In the new millennium, Australia’s public face reflects a generation of legislation designed to outlaw racial discrimination, prohibit racial vilification, and encourage social harmony. A broad commitment to Australian multiculturalism in relation to cultural diversity and to reconciliation in relation to Indigenous people characterize the formal agenda of political life. However, there is widespread disagreement over the practical meaning of these terms as significant minority groups advocate for the end of multicultural policies and the removal of all recognition of the particular interests of Indigenous people.

Summary

Australia is a society trying to come to terms with its racist past and the reality of its cultural diversity in a globalising world. Race provides an easy fault line along which frustration can surge and social division emerge. The European settlement may be seen as a benign and civilizing process by the national government and its ideological supporters, but few Indigenous people would accept such a perspective. In a world of rapidly shifting populations, rigidity and ethnophobia cannot be sustained as the basis for population policies. The interconnections between ideas about race, practices of inclusion and exclusion, and struggles over national identity reveal a sharply divided society with very different ideas about how diversity should be treated. Australia prides itself on being a liberal, democratic, egalitarian society yet it still has to find ways to ensure that the story of the nation can be written by all its players, not just those from the privileged heights built on the colonial-imperial inheritance. References

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR THE REFERENCES BELOW:

Grant: Is Armidale the “city” for the location of the publisher?

Jupp: This reference is confusing. Is “Social Science Research in the education discipline” part of the title?

Is Sydney the location of Allen and Unwin?

Australian Council for Population and Ethnic Affairs (J.Zubrzycki Chair) (1982). Multiculturalism for all Australians: Our developing nationhood. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Australian Council of Social Services (1988). Long wait, short sight: migrants denied security to settle: two year waiting period action kit. Sydney, Australian Council of Social Services.

Australia Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999d). “Unauthorised arrivals by air and sea.” Fact Sheet(81).

Australian Ethnic Affairs Council (J.Zubrzycki Chair) (1977). Australia as a Multicultural Society: Submission to the Australian Population and Immigration Council on the Green Paper Immigration policies and Australia’s Population. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Grant, B. (Ed.) (1997). Pauline Hanson: o ne n ation and Australian p olitics. Armidale, University of New England Press.

Hirst, J. (1988). The blackening of our past. IPA Review , December-February. 49-54.

Jakubowicz, A. (1985). Racism, multiculturalism and the immigration debate in Australia: a bibliographic essay. Sage Race Relations Abstracts 10(3), 1-15.

Jupp, J. (1998). Ethnic, multicultural and immigration studies [Social science research in the education discipline.]. Challenges for the Social Sciences and Australia , 113-118. Canberra, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia

Manne, R. (2001). In denial: the stolen generations and the right. The Australian Quarterly Essay 1(1), 13.

Markus, A. (2001). Race, John Howard and the remaking of Australia. Sydney, Allen and Unwin. McGlade, H. (2000). The international prohibition of racist organisations: an Australian perspective. E law – Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 7(1).

Nicoll, F. (1999). Pseudo-hyphens and barbaric/binaries: Anglo-Celticity and the cultural politics of intolerance. Queensland Review (St. Lucia, Qld). (May) 6(1),: 77-84.

Nossal, G. (1999). Reconciliation – what does it mean for migrants? Ethnic Spotlight August (47), 33-34.

Perera, S. (1998). The level playing field: Hansonism, globalisation, racism. Race and Class 40(2-3), 199-208.

Tickner, R. (2001). Taking a s tand: l and r ights and r econciliation. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Vasta, E., & Castles, S. (1996). The teeth are s miling: the persistence of racism in multicultural Australia. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.