Refugee Settlement in Australia:

Review of an Era BY D A V I D COX

On the 6th March, 1983 the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to replace the Liberal Government of Malcolm Fraser with a Labor Government led by Bob Hawke. For most of its seven years in office the Liberal Government had gradually expanded the migration intake from a low of 52,748 in 1975-76 to a peak of 1 18,700 in 198 1-82. Some 16 per cent on average of that intake had consisted of refugees as the government responded fairly generously to first the situation in south-east Asia and then to the exodus from Poland. The refugee intake between 1975 and 1982 totalled 99,267 and reached a peak of 21,917 in 1981-82(1).

The characteristics of the period 1975-82 distinguish it from the migration programme of previous years, while the events preceding the March election and the strong possibility of a different attitude to immigration on the part of the Labor Government make it likely that the years following 1982 will see significant changes.

The years 1975-76 marked a sharp increase in the Asian component of Australia's intake. Although the non-discrimination legislation that the Whitlam Government intro- duced in 1973 marked the final end of the 'White Australia Policy', the south-east Asian refugee influx first made many Australians really aware of the proximity of Asia. Increas- ingly after 1975 Australians found themselves confronted by Asians on public transport, in shops and on the streets, and reactions were understandably mixed.

The 1975-76 era saw also substantial changes in settlement and integration policies which were triggered to a large degree by the Asian refugee programme. In the early 1970's there was not even a formal refugee policy. Finally, one was introduced in 1977, and with it came a rush of new initiatives. A formal orientation programme and a refugee settlement loan scheme were introduced by government for the first time, and the variety of English language programmes was expanded. These initiatives coincided with the release in 1978 of the quite far-reaching Galbally Committee Report on Migrant Services and Programs followed by its endorsement in full by government and progressive implementation(2). This report, and the policies which flowed from it, not only endorsed initiatives such as those mentioned above but also laid the groundwork for a government policy of multi- culturalism replacing earlier assimilation and integration policies. With this policy came an expanded range of services designed to assist ethnic groups to develop and maintain a viable existence in Australia. Although a policy that was often vague and ambiguous, and which resulted in considerable debate, it nonetheless represented a significant change in many ways, perhaps most strikingly in the general community's attitudes towards immi- grants and their cultural contribution.

1975-82 was thus a period characterised by a large and predominantly new (for Aus- tralia) wave of refugee arrivals, an expansion of services and programmes and the official endorsement of a settlement - integration policy of multiculturalism. What will tfanspire

332

in the new era which we are now entering is difficult to say but some predictions are possible. Under a Labor Government the manpower - oriented aspects of immigration will be substantially reduced. A refugee programme will continue on a humanitarian basis but an influx of the same proportions as seen in recent years seems unlikely. An emphasis on pluralism will continue but it seems likely that multiculturalism will evolve a more pragmatic base. An area of some concern is the immigrant welfare programme. Without a large intake and the impact of the obvious needs of the south-east Asian refugees of 1975-80, the impetus for development and expansion may have disappeared. The pos- sibility of new welfare philosophies and priorities emerging cannot be discounted. Unfor- tunately, the possibility of failing to learn from and build on the experiences of the last era is considerable and high-lights the need for a review In this article I shall review some of the developments of the 1975-82 era in an attempt to identify some of their more important strengths and weaknesses and so reveal what might be some of the foundations for the era to come. In the review I shall draw upon my experiences as a member of the Australian Refugee Advisory Council during its lifetime of 1979 to 1981, and of its successor, the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs1 shall draw also on my review of refugee settlement in Australia camed out for the Academy of the Social Sciences in 1981(3) and on my study of the settlement of profes- sional refugees from south-east Asia completed in 1982(4). I have divided the subject matter into seven areas and, under each heading, I shall discuss the main developments of the era and the lessons which I believe are to be drawn from them for future use. Although I shall confine the discussion to refugees, most of the programmes of the period were available to all immigrants and hence the review has a wider application than the refugee situation.

Selection and Preparation of Refugees

While the selection of independent applicants for settlement in Australia has progressed through a series ofpolicy changes, ranging from a very subjective assessment system in the 1960's to the introduction of objective numerical assessment systems in the 197O's, refugee selection has seemingly changed little. Refugee situations are targetted as a result of the interaction of many factors including Australia's foreign relations, the nature of any refugee situation, the attitudes of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and pressures from within Australia(5). Once a refugee situation has been selected and a national annual intake adopted, individual refugees are selected. The criteria on which that selection is made appears to be three-fold: to reunite immediate families; to identify and accept those considered to have the capacity to adapt readily; and to accept a pro- portion of what might be called the hard core. Such criteria are understandable and consistent with Australia's overall immigration policy. In practice the inclusion of 'hard core' cases is on a very limited basis and, for the bulk of the intake, we can assume a fairly high level of intelligence, initiative, health and general preparation for a viable economic future, and also, in many cases, the prior existence in Australia of potentially supporting relatives.

While Australia's selection procedures could be criticised from the outside for a tend- ency to 'cream' refugee situations by rejecting all who may be difficult to settle, it is clearly advantageous for Australia. It may also be justified if it can be shown that the so-called 'hard core' cases are unlikely to benefit from settlement in a society such as this, and if Australia contributes financially to finding alternative solutions for such people. Australia does of course inevitably accept some 'hard-core' refugees. One disadvantage of the small

333

number accepted is that they come to represent the deviant few for whom it is not necessary to develop special programmes. Hence many of them languish for years, are institutionalised or are finally repatriated to their country of origin. On the whole, how- ever, there is nothing currently known which suggests that selection procedures should be changed significantly.

It is not the selection so much as the preparation procedures that have been criticised within Australia. Early attempts to provide the south-east Asian refugees with written information resulted in material that was frequently inaccurate and incomprehensible to many refugees. However, it is clearly difficult to develop written information about a complex society which is appropriate to even a majority of the very wide-range of potential consumers. Another approach is to use, in addition or as an alternative to written material, a direct contact situation: however, it is often argued that the realities of many refugee situations make this extremely difficult.

There is little doubt that Australia continues to underestimate the importance of pre- migration information and counselling. In 1974 I argued that view(6) and I am convinced that there has been little change. Preparation is, in practice and in most situations a minor responsibility of the same officers who handle selection. Moreover, it receives seemingly less emphasis in the refugee context than in the voluntary migration situation, presumable because of assumptions that refugees are not in a position to choose, that speed is the essence of the game and that most would not understand anyway. Given the long Aus- tralian experience I am convinced that change in this area will occur only when prepa- ration for migration is handled by personnel other than selection officers, and perhaps other than government employees. Moreover, change is necessary. For refugees even more than for voluntary migrants it is too late to acknowledge after amval that a wrong decision was made. Refugees need to be settled speedily; they need also to be settled appropriately from their point of view.

In this context the 1975-82 era saw little change from the past. Perhaps in the era to come there will be an acknowledgement of the importance of change in this area of policy, particularly in pre-migration preparation,

Settlement Procedures

The sponsorship of refugees for settlement in Australia has,since 1946, been largely a government responsibility, with religious settlement agencies (Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran and Australian Council of Churches) playing very much a secondary role. Although this partnership has been obviously advantageous, it is disappointing to note that the gov- ernment has not specifically acknowledged and encouraged a role for the voluntary sector. They have more tolerated the desire of these agencies to be involved rather than accepting that they possessed the potential to provide a more personalised settlement service in situations requiring such. Hence the great majority ofrefugees have continued to be settled by government through a system of migrant hostels in which refugees can live for up to twelve months or until they locate accommodation in the general community. A number of support services are available in these hostels.

During the period in question the government decided to draw on the potential of local communites, rather than on agencies as such, to provide an alternative to the hostel system run by the government. It introduced the Community Refugee Settlement Scheme (CRSS) with the following rationale: ‘The proposed scheme is not a substitute for existing Migrant Centre accommodation arrangements but is a means of supplementing them by using direct community participation in the reception and

334

resettlement of Indo-Chinese refugees ... A community settlement scheme will offer an alternative to groups who are able to provide a full range of support and assistance for direct settlement into the community(7):

At no point in government statements on the scheme was it suggested that some refugees might benefit from movement directly into the community instead of through Australia's network of Migrant Centres offering hostel accommodation. However, in the last few years it has been suggested that large families and families possessing unusual difficulties could benefit from sponsorship under such a scheme.

Approximately 4,915 refugees were settled by the CRSS up to June 1982. In 1981-82, CRSS amvals represented about 14 per cent ofthe total refugee intake. The only available evaluation of the scheme 'found that basically the scheme was succeeding in its basic objective of fostering warm ties between refugees and their sponsors.' This departmental comment on the Evaluation continues:

'Some difficulties in the operation of the scheme were pinpointed by the support, which made a number of recommendations on training for sponsor groups, pre-embarkation counselling for refu- gees, improved 'matching' of refugees with sponsorsAocations, increased availability of multilingual welfare support services, especially in country areas, availability ofemployment in country areas and more comprehensive monitoring procedures which would incorporate a greater input from the refugees themselves'(8).

As a result of the introduction of the CRSS scheme, three alternative schemes for the settlement of refugees existed during the period in question. These were settlement through Migrant Centres where refugees paid for full board and stayed on average some four to five months; settlement through non-government settlement agencies able to provide a high level of personal support; and settlement directly into the community with the assistance of either relatives or of community groups approved and partially subsi- dized by the government for this purpose.

It seems that all three methods have a proven role and are completely feasible. How- ever, the alternatives have not been studied and assessed to the point where each scheme can be utilised as the most advantageous one for particular categories of refugees. Criti- cisms are made ofat least the Migrant Centre scheme and the CRSS scheme. The Migrant Centre scheme is criticised by some who consider that refugees should be settled into a normal community as quickly as possible. It is thought by some that the refugee can become dependent upon the centre and its support structures to the point where eventual transition into the community is rendered very difficult. Moreover, the centre can inten- sify any sense of foreignness, of alienation from the general Australian population and so drive a wedge between community residents and newcomers. One writer recognises the complexity by suggesting that the centres provide a 'breathing space in a protected envi- ronment' but, at the same time, 'encourage the Vietnamese to become passive, uncom- prehending participants in situations where other people take the responsibility for their well being'(9). There is really no evidence to enable us to conclude that the centres are either mainly beneficial or the reverse, nor whether they are better or worse than any alternative scheme.

Critics of the CRSS have been quick to point out that it can deny refugees access to the full range of services if some are unavailable in the area of settlement (for example English classes), that it can isolate the refugee from other members ofthe ethnic group and that the sponsors can be too paternalistic. On the other hand, settlement directly into a local community with a group of people willing to assist in every way possible can be seen as potentially advantageous for at least some refugees( 10).

335

It seems likely that the government underestimated both the need that certain refugees have for professional assistance in the whole resettlement process and the potential of certain non-government services to provide for this need. Although the government spoke in the period of a partnership between the government and non-government sectors, it does seem that it was not adept in identifying respective strengths and weaknesses and developing a settlement procedure based on that knowledge. It is to be hoped that the necessary evaluations will be made in the near future and that a more organised and rational settlement procedure will be developed in the next few years that draws on the potential advantages of the various schemes available.

Information and Counselling

My third area of focus is the provision of information and counselling services in the post-arrival period. Of course such services should build on pre-arrival services and prepare the refugee to use, in the longer term, the information and counselling services available to the general community. The emphasis here, however, is on the post-arrival settlement period and, in this period, the need for adequate and accurate information, related where possible to the individual's past and present situations, is of the highest order.

The experience in this regard of immigrants in Australia is as variable as are the situations in which they find themselves. While some refugees receive very little infor- mation and counselling, others are bombarded with a deluge of often confusing and conflicting advice. Historically Australia has placed little emphasis on this type of service. There were no orientation arrangements prior to the period in question, and it was expected that immigrants would learn gradually from those around them. Such an approach rendered arrivals with less intelligence, initiative or confidence very vulnera- ble.

The major step in this regard taken in response to the south-east Asian refugee situation was the development of an orientation programme given at various centres for anyone who wished to attend. Characteristically a session would be held on a selected topic consisting of a talk given either in the group's language or through an interpreter followed by a time for questions. The quality of the presentations varied but, characteristically, they employed only the spoken work, concentrated on factual information and involved min- imal participation by the audience. A later improvement was the employment of bi- lingual instructors to conduct sessions interspersed throughout a basic English course. Although neither scheme has been evaluated to my knowledge, this latter approach seems eminently better suited to individualizing information and counselling in the way usually necessary.

The emphasis, in both the orientation courses and in the bi-lingual instructors approach, is on a range of selected topics of a general nature regarded as essential know- ledge for every Australian resident. The question is whether the average refugee is best helped by being given such information in a concentrated burst at an early stage. Many consider that such information is best given as the individual experiences certain aspects of life in Australia, in small doses and with frequent reinforcement, and utilising concepts of which the individual possesses some understanding. The difficulty consists, however, in devising a scheme that would effectively achieve this.

Apart from the need for general information, the typical refugee requires specific information and counselling in relation to his education, qualifications, employment, accommodation and health, other personal worries, social life and so on. The Australian

336

procedure incorporates two strategies. In the first place institutions such as schools, hospitals, places of employment and government departments provide consumers with information and counselling. Sometimes this is in English only, sometimes through an interpreter and sometimes in the consumer's own language. In the second place there exists a network of service centres providing information and counselling on specific areas (for example estate agents, government employment service and education offices) or across a range of areas (advice bureaus and welfare centres). Again access to such sources by individuals without English and with limited relevant cultural knowledge is problem- atic.

The Australian experience suggests that large bureaucratic-type institutions experience considerable difficulty in rendering themselves accessible to a culturally diverse popula- tion. While more can and should be done to improve that situation, it would seem that intermediary structures fulfil an essential role if staffed by appropriate personnel possess- ing the necessary knowledge. For example, during this period it has been suggested that immigrants concerned about recognition of their qualifications require professional advice and counselling through local or State offices that stand essentially outside the actual recognition procedures. Also the important role of local welfare, and perhaps particularly ethnic agencies in this field has been clearly demonstrated.

The major lesson of the period seems to be, therefore, that highly accessible structures need to be interposed between the newly amved refugees and the various community organizations whose services they require in the course of settlement. Australian experi- ence suggests further that, in order to be fully accessible in every sense of the word, such structures need to be developed either on an ethnic basis or in close co-operation with a particular ethnic population.

English Language

Almost every study of settlement in Australia identifies the acquisition of an adequate knowledge of English as the biggest problem faced by immigrants( 1 1). This was true in the 1960's and it remains true today, suggesting that minimal improvement has occurred over the years. In fact, however, the expenditure on English classes has risen and the variety of classes has increased.

During the 1975-82 period, the most significant development was the introduction of advanced full-time English courses which selected immigrants were paid to attend. These were recommended in the Galbally Report and the first classes were held in 1977. By the end of the 1970's it should theoretically have been possible for an immigrant to attend a fullaime basic English class at a Centre while receiving an allowance. He or she could then go on to various part-time more advanced courses and eventually attend a class on English for professionals, full-time and again with an allowance. In practice the system seems not to have worked well. Many refugees and others emerged from the basic English classes without basic English; many found that they could not afford full-time classes, even with the allowance; some found the security of a job an overwhelming temptation; many wandered somewhat aimlessly between courses making minimal progress; and the places available in the English for professionals courses were far fewer than the applicants for them. Despite the enormous expenditure there was little evidence that the system was working. Yet it is difficult to determine where the fault lay.

Towards the end of the period, for reasons that were not completely clear, the main government department in this area of work decided to concentrate on the basic Enghsh level and leave the very advanced level to tertiary education bodies who were, however,

337

ambivalent about accepting the challenge. The pendulum appeared in danger of swinging back to a situation offering little more than basic English courses and an array of part-time more advanced courses. To acquire the fluency necessary to achieve equality of oppor- tunity in the Australian society was already difficult and would apparently continue to be

One survey (1 2) of 123 professionally qualified refugees from south-east Asia, covering a variety of professions, is typical of the situation commonly revealed in studies and reported by workers in the field. Although the great majority surveyed had studied English in Vietnam, usually throughout their secondary schooling, fewer than 50 per cent classed their English on arival as good. Some 90 per cent enrolled in English classes and continued in classes for an average total of 16.5 weeks but spread over a considerably longer period. There were some common experiences reported. First, the progression from course to course presented little rhyme or reason but was seemingly haphazard. It seemed that few were receiving guidance as to what was best for them, or they did but places were not available. Second, the refugees stated that improvement in their English had been min- imal and insufficient for employment purposes. Only 70 per cent thought that they might finally master English sufficiently to practise their profession. Third, most of the refugees still wanted courses geared to the needs of professionals, and often to those of a specific profession. Despite being aged mainly in their 30's, well educated, with some knowledge of English and highly motivated, this apparently representative sample of south-east Asian refugee professionals was finding English to be a major bamer to occupational advance- ment. Experience suggests that those with less education and motivation were having an even greater struggle.

Despite the resources that have been put into English tuition, it is clear that Australia has not found the full answer. It seems, for the most part, to have rejected full-time courses with associated adequate allowances as too expensive. It has found that many immigrants will not attend part-time evening classes for a variety of plausible reasons. It has discov- ered that illiterate refugees require specially devised courses but, despite a wealth of international experience in this, it has apparently considered such unwarranted. Employ- ment-based classes have never been very wide-spread in Australia, and the current economic situation makes a further expansion unlikely. One could almost conclude that Australia has come to accept the non-English speaking resident and regards the answer as lying with expanded interpreter services rather than expanded English language expend- iture. If this is the tendency it should be rejected. Adequate settlement for a large majority demands fluency in English. This area of settlement therefore requires greater attention in this new area.

so.

Employment and Recognition

As unemployment grew during the 1970's it became apparent that immigrants generally, and specific groups of immigrants in particular, were being more affected than the native- born. For example in July 198 1, when the overall unemployment rate for Australian-body was 5.3 per cent, the rate for the overseas-born was 6.3 per cent. However, the rate for particular groupings among the overseas-born vaned greatly. Being among the most recently amved, frequently without English or contacts in the employment field and without Australian work experience, many refugees experienced great difficulties in securing employment. When they did succeed, it was often in work that was unattractive and comparatively unrewarding. This situation did not result in a consideration of special measures for refugees, and indeed any positive discrimination measures could have

338

resulted in a wave of negative feeling, as already refugees were being blamed in some quarters for the unemployment rate. It is difficult to see how Australia could during the period have improved directly the employment situation for refugees, apart from econ- omic measures that may have improved the employment situation generally. Indirectly, however, any action to raise levels of English fluency, provide access to training schemes and improve the rate of recognition of overseas qualifications would have helped.

The question of the recognition of overseas qualifications is a serious one for this country, and it has been a problem since post-war immigration got under way in 1947. There have been some significant developments in that time. In 1946 the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act provided a national system for the entry of non-apprentices into selected trades. Since 1946 over 10,000 tradesman’s certificates have been awarded to immigrants under this Act. Immigrants from some other trade backgrounds have fared less well. In the area of the professions the most significant development has been the establishment in 1969 of the Committee on Overseas professional Qualifications. How- ever, despite the work of that body probably the majority of immigrants in a majority of the professions have failed to acquire recognition. Moreover, refugees have been fre- quently at a disadvantage due to the status of their qualification in Australia, the frequent lack of full documentation and the difficulty in affording the often high fees for recognition examinations. It is also true that refugees often do not possess the luxury of freedom of choice in a country of resettlement, and that return to the country of origin is often impossible. For both these reasons alone it seems that they should receive special con- sideration in their quest for recognition rather than being more disadvantaged.

The above mentioned survey( 13) of professional refugees from south-east Asia found that only 58 of the 123 interviewed applied for recognition of their qualifications, despite an average residence in Australia of two and a half years. Only eight had actually achieved recognition - 6.5 per cent. An additional 58 hoped to eventually be recognised but con- sidered that it could take five years or more and would probably involve a course at an Australian institution. Although this study could not assess the quality ofthe past training and experience of these refugees, it seemed clear that the system resulted in extreme disappointment and frustration for many individuals and in a serious underutilisation of resources by the nation.

In 1981 the Commonwealth Government commissioned the Fry Committee to inves- tigate and report on the problems of non-recognition of overseas qualifications and related matters. The Committee, which reported to the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in December, 1982, found that the problems were considerable( 14). Specifically it found that ‘existing provisions for English language training do not enable many immi- grants with overseas qualifications to acquire sufficient English for recognition and prac- tice purposes‘, that counselling facilities were inadequate, that reorientation and retrain- ing facilities were essential and that assessment procedures required improvement.

This area is a complex one. Care must be taken to ensure that qualified immigrants are not assisted to the point that they compete unfairly with the local-born. With voluntary immigration this can be best controlled through the immigration policies and sensible post-amval procedures. Refugees, however, are frequently accepted on humanitarian grounds rather than for their skills. They can, as has been happening in Australia, enter a market where their skills are in oversupply, and the choice is then between being demoted in the work-force, with often adverse consequences, or being enabled to compete with the native-born with the risk of their presence being resented. Australia, to date and on balance, has favoured the first alternative, so thatfrustration in this area of status and work satisfaction has been a common factor in settlement difficulties. It is important that the emphasis move towards easier recognition but that this be done in such a way that

339

refugees have real equality of opportunity, that standards are not jeopardised and that the programme is generally understood and accepted by the community. The recommenda- tions of the Fry Committee have been designed to ensure that all three goals are achieved, and it is to be hoped that the new government will implement them.

Ethnic Group Development and General Welfare

My sixth area of focus is on the development of ethnic group structures and, through them and other channels, the provision of welfare services( 15). The role of ethnic groups in immigrant welfare was fairly widely accepted throughout the 1970's and commended by inquiries such as the Poverty Inquiry( 16) and the Galbally Committee. It was commonly accepted that ethnic groups have a general supportive role to play. It was suggested also that they often represented a good base from which services could be provided. Accord- ingly governments in Australia adopted the general policy of assisting ethnic groups in their development largely through the provision of funds for welfare staff, equipment and self-development programmes. The experiences of the 1970's have demonstrated that the general thrust of the policy was correct. Ethnic groups have played and continue to play an important role, while ethnic welfare agencies have fulfilled an important role within the overall provision of welfare services.

Some difficulties have, however, emerged and should be kept in mind for future development. The tendency has been to wait for any ethnic group to reach a stage in its life in Australia when it possesses the knowledge, leadership and other resources that make possible initiatives to which governments can then respond. If it were otherwise it could obviously be argued that the group is not ready for support. However, the reason in this case is the emphasis on self-help developments. Government has seen itself as responding to self-help initiatives. The problem with this strategy is that most ethnic groups require several or even more years to reach the self-help stage. Yet these early years are vital ones in the settlement process. Moreover some ethnic groups may really never reach such a developmental stage, and for them there needs to be a viable alternative. It can be argued that refugee groups can be disadvantaged in both of these ways.

Refugee movements are characteristically relatively unplanned, very diverse, com- prised of people without assets, an outcome of situations that give rise to trauma and liable to promote a sense of insecurity. For these reasons, the refugee group on amval in a new country may possess few physical and emotional resources to devote to ethnic group development. If its members are also pre-occupied with locating lost family members, striving for family reunions and saving to send support to relatives in camps or at home, their contributions to ethnic group development will be further reduced. Some refugee ethnic groups will never develop to any great degree in their new homeland. Sometimes this is due to political factions, sometimes to fear of becoming accessible to the govern- ment from which they fled and sometimes to lack of acceptance by the host communi- ty.

For all of the above reasons it is not satisfactory for a welfare policy to depend on self-help initiatives. To ensure that self-help takes place in the important early stages, and that the potential for such is maximized, it is appropriate to initiate community devel- opment work among new ethnic groups. Such workers can provide information, establish linkages with local structures and generally encourage development. They can also assess the group's needs and identi@ areas in which self-help development is unlikely but support services essential. These workers would not be employees of the group in question but of government or non-government organizations : they would, however, work very

340

closely with the group, and they may need to either belong to the group or to have the assistance of carefully selected paraprofessional workers from the group.

The emphasis on ethnic welfare structures in areas of immigrant concentration in Australia has tended to have the unfortunate consequence of encouraging other local welfare structures to refer all immigrant clients whose linguistic or other cultural char- acteristics constitute a difficulty. Such organizations have not therefore developed much expertise in this field, and have not evolved work methods or programmes suited to the needs of immigrants. Moreover, the ethnic workers and agencies to which they refer are inevitably over-loaded and often attempting to meet needs that are beyond their capa- cities. An inappropriate emphasis on ethnic groups thus impedes necessary developments and sometimes disadvantages members of the groups in question. The previous govern- ment was, at the time of its defeat, increasing its emphasis on ethnic groups and still doing little to encourage other welfare structures to respond to immigrant needs appropriately. This trend needs to be changed.

The general situation in welfare provision in Australia has throughout been one of a wide range of basically monocultural services catering for a multicultural society, with a .relatively small range of migrant and ethnic developments existing alongside. The logic of the situation, as well as the closer study, suggested a need for two developments. First, the ethnic-migrant sector has to cease being the repository of the majority of immigrant problems: rather it should assume the dual roles of the direct provision of information, practical assistance and some counselling, and also of being an important intermediary between the more isolated immigrants and the wide range of community welfare services. Second, the largely monocultural mainstream needs to embark on a course of develop- ment and adaptation to the new social realities. It is not an either-or situation: both areas of development are important.

Multicultural Policies and Refugees

During the period under review the case for multicultural focus received a considerable impetus. It was espoused by ministers of the crown including the prime minister, pro- moted in a series of papers from advisory bodies( 17), and supported in departmental policy statements and by many in the community. This ideology had its critics but it continued to predominate. Given the wide diversity of views expressed, it is difficult to identify the major themes of multiculturalism as presented but let me try.

One major theme of multicultural Australia was that there would remain a core culture. Society’s core institutions of education, law, the political system and the economic system would be monocultural, buttressed by the use of English as the only official language and by a common set of moral values. The multicultural nature of society would derive from the use of other secondary languages and the encouragement of socio-cultural diversity, provided that such did not threaten the centrality of English and the underlying values of the core society.

A second common theme emphasised equality of opportunity in such areas as access to information, education, employment, welfare services and so on. In many areas, however, this seemed to imply minimal change in the institutions in question; rather it supported such developments as the provision of information in other languages, the improvement of access through the use of bilingual staff and interpreters, and an extension of English classes. In the welfare area, as already noted, it meant also the development of some special services and programmes for immigrants. Yet these were often presented as

34 1

temporary measures, and therefore as aids to ultimate assimilation, meaning the ability in the long run to use core monocultural structures.

These multicultural trends are relevant to all immigrants. Their particular relevance to refugees may be seen to lie in the fact that such a large proportion of recent refugees are of Asian origin. The possibilities ofassimilation, to the extent that they exist at all, are less for Asians. Racial physical characteristics make it difficult for them to become absorbed into the host society. Moreover, it is apparent that more Australians are ambivalent about Asians than are ambivalent about European immigrants. Finally, Asian groups in other countries have shown a propensity for a degree of separate development. Despite, there- fore, the disadvantages resulting from a refugee background, we may well find Asian groups spearheading a new form of multicultural development epitomised by ethnic developments that parallel many mainstream institutions rather than facilitating the use of them.

Australia's new emphasis on multiculturalism will have beneficial effects. Currently it is still at a stage of development where it tends to encourage the very characteristics that it eschews, namely separate ethnic provisions that do little if anything to promote equality of opportunity within what is essentially a monocultural society at the important levels of social life.

Conclusions

To prepare those refugees who are selected for settlement in Australia for that settlement process, and to devise settlement procedures that will create the best possible conditions for successful settlement, is not an easy task. It calls for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the processes involved and an ability to assess and take into account a wide range of factors that impinge upon those processes in specific cases.

Since 1947 Australia has officially shown little willingness, at least until recent years, to conduct its migration-settlement programme with any real sophistication. Partly this reflected on assimilationist policy which saw settlement services as largely an impediment to complete absorption : partly it reflected also an expanding economy within which it was believed, with a degree of validity, that the majority of immigrants were experiencing little difficulty in settling.

Slowly through the 1960's more and more of those involved in immigrant settlement began to realise that the laissez-faire approach was not adequate. Such conclusions were reinforced by the findings of several studies and inquiries in the 1970's and by the then changing situation. Prominent among those changes were the downturn in the economy and the growing unemployment situation. Furthermore the influx of refugees from south- east Asia and the general increase in the non-European component of the migrant intake. As a response to the growing awareness of settlement difficulties, a desire for a better planned and more comprehensive settlement scheme emerged during the period in ques- tion and is reflected in several initiatives. Alternative sponsorship schemes were intro- duced alongside a new orientation scheme, English language courses for professionals and increased aid to ethnic organizations of various kinds.

The new developments, most of which have been discussed in the paper, have been welcomed by the field and suggest a new and better basis for settlement. However, many of them still present difficulties, few of them have been adequately evaluated and probably all of them require careful further refinement. Settlement of refugees and other immi- grants must be developed utilising the available knowledge of the processes involved and drawing on a careful evaluation of past experience. This is particularly true of refugee settlement for, while it is imperative that Australia continue its traditional response to

342

refugee crises by offering opportunities for settlement, it is probable that the individuals settled from such crises will not fit easily into this society.

Australia’s new Labor government faces the challenge of building upon the 1975-82 developments to ensure that both the refugees already here and those who are yet to come will find a society equipped to meet their needs and enable them to find their niche within a truly multicultural society.

REFERENCES

1 .- For further details see the Annual Reviews and Annual Consolidated Statistics of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affiars, A.G.P.S., Canberra.

2.- Migrant Services and Programs: Report of the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services for MigrantsCanberra, A.G.P.S., 1978.

3.- COX, D.R., ‘Refugee Settlement: An Australian Case Study‘, PRICE, C.A. (Ed.) Refugees: The Challenge of the Future, Canberra, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, 198 1.

4.- COX, D.R. Professional Refugees in Australia: The Employment-RelatedExperiences in Australia of Professionally- Qual$ed Refugees from South-East Asia Melbourne, Department of Social Studies, University of Melbourne, 1982.

5.- COX, D.R., ‘Australia’s Immigration Policy and Refugees‘. BIRRELL, R. et.al. (Eds.) Refugees Resources Reunion, Melbourne, VCTA Publishers, 1979.

6.- COX, D.R. ‘Selection and Preparation of Applicants for Emigration to Australia‘, International Migration, Vol. XII, 1/2, 1974.

7.- Deparment of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Community Refugee Settlement Scheme, Undated, P. 1.

8.- Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Review ’82, Canberra, A.G.P.S., 1982,

9.- MARTIN, J.I. ‘The Vietnamese Study‘, Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, Australia and the Refugee Problem, Canberra, A.G.P.S., 1976, p. 145.

10.- See Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, Regional Refugee Con- sultations, Reports 1982 and 1983, Canberra, D.I.E.A.

11.- See for example, Australian Population and Immigration Council, A Decade of Migrant Settlement, Canberra A.G.P.S., 1976: D.I.E.A. The Settlement Process of the Vietnamese,Lao, Kampuchean and Timorese in Sydney, Canberra, D.I.E.A., Dec. 1980.

12.- COX, 1982, op.cit.

13.- ibid.

14.- The Recognition of Overseas Qualijications in Australia, Report of Committee of Inquiry, Dec. 1982, to be published by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1983 - The author was a member of the Committee.

pp. 35-36.

343

15.- For a further discussion see COX, D.R.Delivery of Welfare Services To Immigrants, Melbourne, Department of Social Studies, University of Melbourne, December 1982.

16.- See HENDERSON, R., Poverty in Australia, First Main Report Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, Canberra, A.G.P.S.

17.- For example, Australian Population and Immigration Council and Australian Eth- nic Affairs Council, Multiculturalism and its Implications for Immigration Policy, Can- berra, A.G.P.S., 1979; and Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, Multi- culturalism for all Australians, Canberra, A.G.P.S., 1982.

L'IMPLANTATION DE REFUGIES EN AUSTRALIE PERIODE 1975 - 1982

Dans cet article. M. David Cox observe le phenomhe de I'implantation de refugies en Australie pendant la periode 1975 - 1982. I1 analyse notamment la selection et la prepa- ration des refugies, les methodes d'implantation, l'information, le conseil et les cours de langues, les possibilites d'emploi et, plus recemment, la politique pluriculturelle qui vise a mieux repondre aux besoins de ceux qui doivent venir, leur permettant de faire leur trou dans une societe vraiment pluriculturelle.

ASENTAMIENTO DE REFUGIADOS EN AUSTRALIA ANALISIS DE UNA EPOCA

En el presente articulo, David Cox pasa en revista 10s acontecimientos registrados en el period0 comprendido entre 1975 y 1982, particularmente en lo referente a1 asentamiento de refugiados en Australia, procurando identificar algunos de sus factores mas solidos y otros mas dtbiles y revelando asi lo que pudieran constituir algunos de 10s fundamentos de la proxima era. Entre otras cosas, analiza la seleccion y preparacion de 10s refugiados, 10s procedimientos de asentamiento, informacion, asesoramiento y enseiianza de idiomas, asi como las posibilidades de empleo y llama a la atencion de manera especial la reciente politica multicultural cuyo fin es satisfacer mejor las necesidades de quienes han de llegar todavia y permitirles su adaptacion a una verdadera sociedad multicultural.

344