Migrants' story deserves better than an inaccurate portrayal

AS strange as it may seem, we are no longer giving out literary awards solely for books, nor are we awarding history prizes for history. A few Saturdays ago, the Prime Minister's office announced the shortlists for the Prime Minister's Literary Awards.

Making the shortlist for the prize for Australian history is the SBS documentary Immigration Nation: The Secret History of Us. Although the documentary is evidently not a literary work in book form -- which is permitted under the criteria -- of graver concern is that it does not provide an accurate rendering of the history of Australian immigration. It is riddled with factual errors, wild claims and critical omissions.

I first wrote about this three-part series when it aired on SBS last year. Since then, I have viewed it a second time and it is still available online and on DVD. Unfortunately, none of the egregious errors has been corrected.

Nobody disputes one of the founding pillars of the Australian nation in 1901 was a White Australia policy that discriminated on the basis of race. It enjoyed widespread popular support and was modelled on policies in Britain and the US. Nor is it disputed that the government gave sanction to racism, that it held on to White Australia for too long and that there are elements of racism littered throughout our history.

This is where the talents of a documentary-maker could be useful. It is this complexity that gives the story of immigration its richness. It requires depth and nuance. There are dark periods that sit uncomfortably alongside nobler ones. It cannot be reduced to sweeping statements, generalisations or arguments without evidence. But this is the approach of Immigration Nation.

It focuses on Asian immigration and mostly ignores the majority of Australian immigrants. Little is said about the English and the Irish or the great waves of Greek, Italian, German and other migrants from Europe.

Their story would have worked against the themes of the documentary, one of which in the first episode is that hostility towards Japanese people living in Australia contributed to Japan's military aggression and the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. It is an extraordinary claim.

Arthur Calwell, who features prominently in the second episode, announced the post-war immigration program in 1945. The goals were economic growth and development, security from possible future invasion and to fulfil Labor's universal mandate "to help the betterment of mankind", as prime minister Ben Chifley said.

It was a discriminatory program that favoured migrants from Britain and selected European countries. "Newcomers", as Calwell labelled them, needed to be "assimilated" into Australia. Calwell was a staunch defender of the White Australia policy and spoke disparagingly of several racial groups. He made several misguided and heartless decisions as immigration minister.

But as Gwenda Tavan argues in the latest edition of the Australian Journal of Politics and History, Calwell "deserves to be recognised as one of the most influential architects of post-war Australia". The documentary presents a typical one-dimensional view of Calwell as a racist. But, like the history of immigration, nuance is needed.

Calwell made it clear he would not allow "racial and religious" campaigns against immigrants. He worked hard to maintain public support for the program, especially among hostile veterans, business and union organisations. He understood the economic importance of the immigration program.

While there are other examples of simplistic storytelling, some of the more fanciful aspects come in the final episode. With dark and menacing narration, images and sounds, the absurd claim is made that "to protect White Australia, prime minister (Robert) Menzies sends troops to fight communism in Korea and Malaya".

In 1950, Australia joined a UN-led force to support South Korea, which had been invaded by the communist North Korea. It was a time of communist aggression and the so-called "domino theory" held that if countries to our north were overrun, then Australia was at risk of invasion. But as the cabinet records reveal, Menzies sent Australian troops because of the US alliance, not to support the White Australia policy.

The series notes the liberalisation of the immigration program under Coalition governments and the end of White Australia. But the Whitlam government's contribution to multiculturalism is dismissed as being simply being "by chance". But a non-discriminatory immigration policy had been in Labor's platform since 1965.

One ill-informed historian ridicules the "grand symbolic announcements" of the Whitlam government and says "there was no great degree of change". He is ignorant of the changes to citizenship and immigration laws, the establishment of ethnic radio stations, changes to pensions and the significance of banning racially selected sporting teams touring Australia and closing the Rhodesian Information Centre.

No mention is made of the greatest advancement, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which demonstrated that in law Australia was no longer the racist nation it once was.

It is also suggested, without evidence, that the Whitlam government's restrictive refugee policy was based on "fears the refugees fleeing communism won't vote for a left-wing Labor government".

It is disappointing that the multicultural broadcaster would show a documentary that runs counter to its charter, which must "inform, educate and entertain" while reflecting "Australia's multicultural society".

As this week's census shows, we are a nation of immigrants. One in four Australians was born overseas; 43 per cent have a parent born overseas. While our attitudes to race have not always been enlightened, we have successfully transformed ourselves into an ethnically diverse and largely tolerant nation.

One of the most important immigrant stories is that of a young woman born in Wales who migrated to Australia with her family in 1966. Blessed with opportunities as great as any nation can offer, she rose to become the first female Prime Minister.

For an award that is given in her name, with the imprimatur of the high office that she holds, it is important that it recognise real history and not an illusionary "secret history".