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,
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):
"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. COMPOSITION OF COMPONENT REGIONS OF ASIA USED IN ABS OVERSEAS ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES STATISTICS (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 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
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. 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 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):
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. |