The Asianisation of Australia: volume 2, part 1, section 3
West Asia
Presumably following instructions from the Commonwealth Government, the Department of Immigration changed its definition of Asia, in order to disguise the large numbers of Asian migrants coming to Australia. This was because, as Stephen Castles (a pro-multiculturalism researcher) has noted, "in the late 1960s it was desired to widen migrant recruitment without creating fears of an 'Asian influx'. Middle East migrants were therefore turned into 'honorary whites' by a stroke of the pen"(8).
By this devious means, the whole of West Asia disappeared from the Immigration Department's definition of Asia (the Australian Bureau of Statistics continued for some years to maintain immigration records unaffected by such "fiddling of statistics", although they later adopted the same criteria).
As Geoffrey Blainey wrote in 1984 (before the Australian Bureau of Statistics decided to "toe the line" over the Immigration Department's definition of Asia): "Where is Asia? Every atlas and globe can point to it but the immigration department has cut Asia down to size. If Asia is made smaller, the pace of Asian migration to Australia does not appear so great. Since about 1980 the "Asian" figures issued by the immigration department go no farther west than Afghanistan. That is where Asia ends, or begins, according to the department. The immigrants who arrive from Iran, Lebanon or Arabia are now classified as coming from the Middle East and not from Asia. And yet much of the Middle East is part of west Asia.
"The main federal authority on statistics, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, follows the United Nations' definition of Asia. It sees Asia, as geographers see it, as a continent. The bureau is independent of detailed government interference: it would not alter its definition of Asia simply because its presiding minister decided to dismember Asia. Its definition of Asia is the official definition, and the sooner the government teaches the immigration department a polite lesson in geography the easier it will be for us to know what immigration is taking place.
"The immigration department is entitled to break Asian statistics into regions: Asia is so large that they can become meaningless. There is also merit in providing separately the immigration statistics for east Asia, south or central Asia, and for west Asia. But to omit a crucial part of Asia and to continue to use the word "Asia" for that dismembered continent is misleading. Commentators who do not know that two definitions of Asia are used in Canberra are easily misled into minimising the extent of Asian immigration. As the immigration department is far and away the busier issuer of statistics, and as the Bureau of Statistics does not enter into controversy, the immigration department has the stronger influence on public debate and opinion. Its confusing statistics puts its own critics at a disadvantage"(9).
Refer to the Table below for the Australian Bureau of Statistics' original definition of Asia.
TABLE 3
COMPOSITION OF COMPONENT REGIONS OF ASIA
USED IN ABS OVERSEAS ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES STATISTICS (1983) (10)
(Source: Based on the composition of regions shown on p. 42-43 of the United Nations
Demographic Year Book, 1983).
EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA SOUTH CENTRAL ASIA
EAST ASIA Afghanistan
Bangladesh
China Bhutan
Taiwan Province India
Japan Iran
Hong Kong Maldives
Korea, Democratic People's Pakistan
Republic of Sri Lanka
Korea, Republic of
Macau WESTERN ASIA (MIDDLE EAST)
Mongolia
Bahrain
SOUTH EAST ASIA Cyprus
Iraq
Brunei Israel
Burma Jordan
East Timor Kuwait
Indonesia Lebanon
Kamuchea Oman
Laos Qatar
Malaysia Saudi Arabia
Philippines Syria
Singapore Turkey
Thailand United Arab Emirates
Vietnam Yemen, Arabic Republic
Yemen, Democratic Republic
Note: This table is a reproduction of the table of the same name (although "1983" has been added for the purposes of this document) used in immigration documents of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, until it later changed it's definition of Asia to match the definition used by the Department of Immigration. Referral to any decent encyclopaedia will confirm the above definition of Asia.
As noted above, the Australian Bureau of Statistics later changed it's definition of Asia to match the definition espoused by the Department of Immigration. Adrienne Millbank, of the Australian government's Parliamentary Research Service, has reported that
"The definition for migration purposes of 'Asian' arrivals used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics before 1990 was based on the United Nations geographical definition of the continent of Asia: thus the Middle East was considered to be part of Asia. From 1 July 1990 the ABS and the (then) Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs jointly adopted the Australian Standard Classification of Countries for Social Statistics (ASCCSS)... Since 1990, arrivals from the Middle East (including Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and Iraq) have not been counted as 'Asian'."(11)
It is extremely obvious (especially after reading Stephen Castle's observation, as noted above) that this new hocus-pocus "ASCCSS" definition of Asia is a deliberate attempt to cover-up the extent of Asian immigration into Australia. By one stroke of the pen, government and immigration officials can refer to 39,524 Asian settler arrivals in 1995/96 (by excluding West Asia), rather than the actual 46,087 Asian settler arrivals (including West Asia).
Refer to the Tables below for a comparison of how excluding West Asia from the definition of Asia can radically change statistics regarding Asian immigration.
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS:
ASIAN IMMIGRATION
(INCLUDING AND EXCLUDING WEST ASIA)
FINANCIAL YEAR 1995/96 (12)
Including % of total Excluding % of total
West Asia immigration West Asia immigration
Permanent (settlers) 46 087 46.5 39 524 39.9
Permanent
and long-term 112 308 42.7 102 537 39.0
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS:
NET ASIAN IMMIGRATION
(INCLUDING AND EXCLUDING WEST ASIA)
FINANCIAL YEAR 1995/96 (13)
Including % of total Excluding % of total
West Asia net immigration West Asia net immigration
Permanent 42 478 60.3 36 328 51.5
Permanent
and long-term 65 825 60.0 59 178 54.0
It is amazing to think that when the Australian government speaks of "Asia", it is - by deliberate design - excluding West Asia. What would Australians think if the government spoke of Australia, but by a new hocus-pocus "definition" deliberately excluded Western Australia? Or if a new hocus-pocus "definition" of Europe deliberately excluded Western Europe? Naturally, such a move would be seen as a ridiculous and farcical notion.
Another angle to the new ASCCSS country classification scheme is that it has divided Asia up into several separate sections, while leaving Europe still classified as one section. The main regions, according to ASCCSS, are now: (14)
Oceania
Europe and the Former USSR
Middle East and North Africa
Southeast Asia
Northeast Asia
Southern Asia
Northern America
South America, Central America and the Caribbean
Africa (excluding North Africa)
At first glance, many may wonder why Asia has been divided up into three regions (actually four, including West Asia; i.e. the Middle East), when Europe has been left as one region; as, following the same logic as used for Asia, Europe could easily have been divided into North, South, East, and West regions (indeed, these four areas have been used as sub-regions for Europe, along with a "United Kingdom and Ireland" sub-region). This strange classification of main regions doesn't seem to make sense, until one realises what can be achieved by it.
Consider the pronouncements made in the "Main Features" section of the Immigration Update magazine (produced by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for release to the general public, researchers, and media): (15)
March Quarter 1996 (on page one): "On a regional basis, Europe and the Former USSR (26.5 per cent) was the largest contributor followed by Northeast Asia (18.6 per cent), Oceania (15.4 per cent) and Southeast Asia (13.7 per cent)."
June Quarter 1996 (on page one): "On a regional basis, Europe and the Former USSR (26.7 per cent) was the largest contributor followed by Northeast Asia (18.8 per cent), Oceania (16.4 per cent) and Southeast Asia (13.3 per cent)."
September Quarter 1996 (on page one): "On a regional basis, Europe and the Former USSR (27.2 per cent) was the largest contributor followed by Northeast Asia (20.6 per cent), Oceania (16.6 per cent) and Southeast Asia (12.7 per cent)."
December Quarter 1996 (on page one): "On a regional basis, Europe and the Former USSR (27.7 per cent) was the largest contributor followed by Northeast Asia (18.7 per cent), Oceania (16.6 per cent) and Southeast Asia (13.5 per cent)."
The September and December issues also include bar graphs on page one showing "Settler Arrivals by Region of Birth" whereby the Europe and the Former USSR section towers over all of the other regions; whereas - in truth - the Asian section (combining North, South, East, and West) should've been obviously towering over all the rest).
It is quite obvious that the ASCCSS classification scheme has been designed to enable the government to inform the media and public how immigration from Europe is the largest component of the immigration programme, thus deceiving the public.
The dividing of Asia into separate regions, and the exclusion of West Asia from "Asian immigration" statistics and "Asian born" statistics, are obvious and contemptible attempts to confuse the Australian public, and to hide from them the extent of the Asianisation of Australia.
The Asianisation of Australia:
Statistics (Immigration, Ethnicity, and Trade) (Volume 2)
Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com
