Refugees - we’d like to help, but …

Australia’s high refugee intake was sustainable because it secured the labour essential for the development of the nation’s resources, basic industries and services, and reduced the pressure that would otherwise have affected metropolitan areas.

The refugee migrant, in turn, also benefited. The government undertook to find work, ensured paid labour from day one, prevented exploitation, and provided an opportunity for familiarisation and assimilation.

Many of Australia’s concerns at the 1951 Conference of Plenipotentiaries, and many of its 10 or so formally proposed amendments, reflected its concern that these programs, including directed labour schemes, might fall foul of the Convention’s non-discrimination provisions.

From the start of the Conference, Australia emphasised that, as a country of immigration, its approach to the refugee problem differed from that of other states.

Though it might not be of direct interest to Australia - since it did not confer any benefits on refugee migrants that were not already provided by Australian legislation - the government nevertheless supported the idea of a convention designed to secure clear rights for refugees and a proper definition of their status in the new country.

It was essential, however, that Australia’s policy and practice on resettlement and directed employment should be recognised, lest they be considered incompatible with the Convention.

Just as in 1933, it was not long before someone mentioned how different and difficult it was for those countries which had no choice but to admit refugees without prior examination.

Even Canada, which operated a similar scheme to Australia’s, did not want the particular concerns of an immigration country to water down the Convention. Others pointed out that discrimination in favour of refugees was precisely what the Convention was about.

The fact is the other participating states were singularly unconcerned with the issue of principle, and none of Australia’s proposed amendments were accepted, notwithstanding dire warnings of non-ratification.

As the Conference wound its way to a close, Australia’s representative recalled that the purpose of the Convention was not so much to prescribe mutual obligations between states as to accord certain rights to refugees.

Hence, the goal should be to ensure that as many states as possible were able to implement its provisions; and indeed, it was with Australia’s ratification in April 1954 that the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees entered into force.

These two moments in history are revealing, for they show a common understanding of just who the refugee is, and of the inherently international character of the refugee phenomenon.

They reveal recognition of the constancy of refugee movements, rather than their temporariness. They disclose acceptance of the need for refugees to be protected, and eventual acceptance of the necessity for international obligations - most readily in regard to standards of treatment, but also in the matter of basic principles, such as non-return.

Above all, these two moments confirm the continuous impact of “sovereign self-interest” in international negotiations, but also how it may and must be moderated in the mutual relations of states - by their recognition of the need to cooperate in facing up to forced displacement and related humanitarian problems.