Table Of ContentCONTENTS
Preface ix
PART I: 'A PLACE OF NO HOPE'
ThePolicy I
TheCamp 6
PART II: PASSING THROUGH - 1947·1951
Augustus 9
Arrivaland Reception 12
Processing 19
\
frank 34
'ButTheFoodWasA.Nightrnare' 36
Training 42
Welfare 51
ThingsFall Apart 59
PART III: 'MIGRANT CAMP BLUES'
TheImmigrationIndustry 67
Eric 71
WorkorRepalriation 73
B.King, Social Worker 90
TheBonegilla'Community' 92
Eureka- 1961 101
PART IV: THE DREAMING
'LittleEuropeCloses its Doors' 122
Epilogue 131
Augustus 139
Sources 141
Endnotes 143
ILLUSTRATIONS
Cover: DinaTourvas, 'Bonegilla: ThePoint ofTransition', 1985.
The following illustrationsareofficial photographsofBonegillafrom the
DepartmentofImmigration& Ethnic Affairs:
Figure I. Augustus II
Figure2. Port Melbourne 12
Figure3. Eating 'camp-style' 38
Figure4. The women - 1949 51
Figure5. The landscape 58
Figure6. The campcanteen 66
Figure7. Aerial view 70
Figure8. Arcatheatre- 1952 82
Figure 9. B. King 91
Figure 10. ColonelGuinn 91
vii
Acknowledgements
TO MY PARENTS- FOR RISKING THE JOURNEY
This book would never have made it into print
without the generousfinancial assistance ofthe
Vaccari Italian Historical Trust. It has been six
years nowsinceBonegillametamorphasedfroma
briefmomentofdinner-table conversation. to an
all consuming obsession, an M.A. thesis, and
nowthemonograph.
Iwouldneverhavelastedthe distance withautthe
encouragement and inspiration provided by my
friends and co-workers: Julie Wells. Michael
Crozier, MichaelCathcart, CharlesFerrall, Paul
Hicks, Jenny Haas, Lloyd Fleming, and,for her
editorial expertise, Sue Janson. I also know I
wouldn't have any histories to revisit ifnotfor
the co-operation ofall those who gave their time
to speak with me, write to me. or throw the
slightestreferenceto Bonegillainmydirection.
ix
Preface
It wasa lonely place, andit hada sign, which nobody had
takendown,lhatsaid:
Bonegil/a.A PlaceofNo Hope.
(Franca Arena. 'Australia 200 years and Beyond'.
Age, supplement, 27 October 1987)
Eachculturecreatesitsowndreaming- mythswhichevolveandrevolve
around memories of social origins. Immigration, the status of being an
immigrant, has always fascinated, partially because of the experience of
uprooting,ofexilefrom a familiar orientation ofcultureand social meaning.
Sketchedoutasaparticularshared experienceofgeographical displacement,
the 'migrant dreaming' encapsulates, contains and engulfs even greater
distances, distances of class, gender, and ethnicity, as well as of diverse
individual pasts, their presents and divergent futures. For immigrants to
Australia during the post-World War II immigration boom, the shared
moment of entry into their 'second life' has clustered around a few vivid
imagesandtriggerwords. Oneofthese is, orhas become,'Bonegilla'.
By wayofintroduction, itisperhaps enough to say thatBonegillawasan
ImmigrationCentreopened upby the Australian DepartmentofImmigration
in 1947. It was located about eight miles from the nearest town Albury, at
leasta six-hour trainjourneyfrom any ofthe main urbanpopulation centres.
Its role was integral to the development of an Australian post-war
immigrationprogrammeaimedtocounterpopulationandlabourdeficiencies.
After the war, and until its closure in 1971, its major purpose was to house
non-Britishmigrants. Morethan threehundredthousandpeoplefrom allparts
oftheEuropeancontinentpassedthrough itsgates during this time.
Bonegillawas in some ways unique. Itwastobeusedasa'stagingcamp'
for 'processing'migrants. Voluntaryandrefugeemigrantswhohadexchanged
two years of their labour for assisted or free passages could be railed from
Bonegilla to remote areas of the Australian continent, to be placed in jobs
Australians didnotwanttodo,away from metropolitancentresandin 'critical
areas oftheeconomy'. Itwouldalsobe aplace wherethesemigrants wereto
be 'Australianised', given training in the English language and familiarised
with theAustralian way oflife,all ofwhich wasto takeplacewithinaperiod
ofsix weeks. In actuality the nature oftheirexperienceofBonegillavaried;
for some, the timethere stretchedout to months, for others, it may havebeen
x Bonegilla 'APlaceofNo Hope'
a matterofonly a week. What they all had in common was Bonegilla- as
aplacewheretheirfates,atleastintheimmediatefuture, wouldbedecidedfor
them. The 'Reception and Training' Centre was effectively to be a site not
only whereaccommodation wouldbeprovided,butwheremigrants couldbe
stratified into certain social and occupational classifications: classified
generically as 'New Australians', and occupationally as 'labourer' or
'domestic'. An informal policy of 'non-confrontation and dispersal', and of
keeping these groups largely isolated from urban Australian society,
maximisedthe immigrants' potentialas adirectable andcontrollable pool of
labour. It is this role which left its imprint on the lives of the majority of
thosewhopassedthrough.
As theperiod in which Bonegillaoperated became incorporated intothe
assimilation era ofimmigration history, so its role in shaping the natureof
the 'migrant experience' for those who had passed through its gates was
increasingly underplayed or forgotten. Seemingly silent, yet quite vocal
inconsistencies, such as the pronunciation ofBone/gilla,Bo/ne/gilla, in fact
suggestthatthevery word hidesa complexseriesofhistoriescrucialto our
understanding of the possibilities of an ethnically non-homogenous
Australiansociety.Dependingon itspreferredpronunciation,[Bone/gilla(the
Australianversion), Bo/ne/gilla(the 'migrant'version)],theideaofBonegilla
has been co-opted into the realm of immigration myth, as well as
constituting a major pan of the immigrants' re-ordering of their reality,
much as the Immigration Depanment itselfhad used it to construct its own
image ofa successful immigration programme. Yet all these significances,
these voices, have largely remained silent, out of earshot of mainstream
Australian history. It is my generation - the later generation - who is
picking up on the theme. And the theme - because it has no existence
within an official version - is 'extracted' from the 'originals', from those
whowerethere.
Certainly thephysical reality ofBonegillaas an Immigration Centre no
longer exists. Neither does its Australian interpretation as Bone/gilla- it
has been decoded and recoded to have meaning for a new 'multicultural'
Australia rather than the old 'new Australian'. The one-time 'migrants' ,
recollections ofBonegilla, their isolation from any shared community input
ofhistorical awareness, in themajority ofcases untilapproachedbyan eager
oral historian, would seem to suggest that Bonegilla should have died a
natural death with its physicalclosure, Yet the word Bonegillais becoming
increasingly prominentand recognised by Australians and ex-inhabitants of
the camp long after the peak ofits own infamy. The idea ofBonegilla has
created its own community - those who know about Bonegilla as
distinguished from those for whom itsignifies nothing; and then from those
xi
who are using it as a symbol of remembering and of reworking the more
dominantofficialcultural themesanddreams ofBonegilla,revivedas dinner
tableconversations,as well aspoemsorstories.
The idea of a collective 'migrant dreaming' which relies on any of the
literary, fixed manifestations of personal dreams, is a manufactured lie, or
ratheraconstantalibi; it imposes unity and precisionofdefinition where the
popular oral history of Bonegilla survives through obscurity, ambiguity,
contradictionandirony.Forthosewhohadpersonalcontactwiththeactuality
thatwastheBonegillaImmigration Centre,recollectionsarefragmented. The
natureofpopularandprivatememoriesareas brittleas theyareintricate. And
mostoften theyare dominatedby eitherthe food provided there,or the more
nOlorious riots.
It was interesting for me to see which themes the 'migrants' would take
up when given the chance to order their memories - to place their lives
within historical contexts. For those ex-migrants who have an active role in
keeping the past alive for the ethnic communities to which they belong,
images of how that past was structured are emphatically and dramatically
voiced. In contrast, for those who wish to forget the 'injustices' or
discomfortsofthepast(moreoften thosewhoare/havebeensuccessful in the
presentand havenodesire/needtorecall such memories), itcanbetiedin toa
more satisfying present-day dialogue with righted wrongs and economic
justifications. The patterns ofcourse are never this clear cut, but neither is
Lhere any doubt that the remembrance of things past is an avenue for
reflections on situations present. Even when its significance is denied, or
represented in terms of the food eaten there, Bonegilla acts as a political
symbol as much through the vehemence of any denial as through the
acceptance of its importance. Similarly, for the Australian personnel, there
may beadifferentsocialcontextin which toplacetheirreadingofBonegilla,
yet it is one which recognises Bonegilla's importance in the schema of
immigration history, as well as its potent symbolic effect on the present
status of immigration. Their commentary might vary in its attention to
criticisms or defences; still, the very need to construct its significance
according to such values points to the potency of Bonegilla as a political
symbol, a symbol potentially alive for them now in ways it may not have
been in the past. This approach is often shared by the migrants, even if in
terms of individual effects rather than of a structural understanding of
Australian society.
We cannot help but be critical of BonegilIa, what itstood for. After all,
we write from the perspective of a new decade in immigration policy
'enlightened' by the tenetsofmulticulturalism asour particulartriggerword.
But those involved in the programme that revolved around Bonegilla have
xii Bonegil/a 'A PlaceofNo Hope'
perceivedBonegillaasahavenforthedestitute,providingvaluableprovisions
of education, food, clothing, accommodation, all, it seemed, gratis. These
same people, without perbaps being perturbed by the insidious overtones of
such planning and regimentation, thought of their function as one of
providing compassionateaid, and may have concluded thatno othercountry
was doing as much for migrantsas partofitsofficialpolicy as Australia. To
the migrants, those who could detach themselves from the physical
strangenessthatinvadedtheirsensesofnormality,Bonegillamayhaveoffered
renewed hope, a continuing sense ofsecurity; or for those who came out in
searchofthegolden land, it may haveoffcredonly despair. To some, facing
the harsh realities of recession and shortages of work and housing once
outside Bonegilla, it could be 'home', to others little more than limbo,
perhaps even purgalOry. No one had ever pictured the lucky country in the
shapeoftinarmyhutsandbarbedwirecompounds.
This history ofBonegilladoes not claim to be the only acceptable one;
thereare too many versions, noneofwhich might satisfy the interpretations
ofevery person who was in some way more intimately connected with its
operation, whether as official staff members or as temporary migrant
inhabitants. I can only attempt to place before you the different versions I
have come across, to incorporate these memories into yet another version
which believes that at one level Bonegilla cannot be really understood
without understanding the history ofimmigration as an institution. But also
that the changes we, as Australians, 'old' and 'new', have witncssed in
immigration policiesandprogrammescannotbefully understood in termsof
their achievements and limitations, without knowing the history of
Bonegilla, the natureofnationaldreams thatconjured up thepossibilitiesfor
its existence in the first place, and the way itchanged the livesofthosewho
were meant to live that dream. In thebeginning, this is a history thatrevisits
and revises other hislOries, oral and archivaL It is about the re-creation of
communities, thepossibilitiesforrememberingandforculturalrenewaL
'A PlaceofNoHope' I
PART I: 'A PLACE OF NO HOPE'
The Policy
The immediate post-war years marked significant changes in official
Australian attitudes towards the purpose of immigration. By 1945 the
necessity for drastic increases in the Australian population through
immigration had, in political circles, been accepted. So urgent did the
situation seem that the Department of the Interior urged that non-British
immigrants be regarded as a viable source for economic as well as defence
purposes. This was quite a radical position to take, considering that the
government traditionally favoured British migrants, or, at most, a partial
influx of 'Western Europeans'. Yet the manner in which solutions to the
imperativeissuesofdefenceandeconomicbuild-upwereformulated involved
longer-standingprejudices.Thesewereflexibleonlytotheextentthatthefear
of'perishing',captured in popularslogans such as 'PopulateorPerish',could
be invoked as urgent and imminent. The steps in the formation of national
policy which led to the eventual arrival of 'Displaced Persons' in 1947
migrants from traditionally unfavoured European areas - were in no sense
evolved until well into 1947. Even then, development' were closcly tied in
with the programmefor British migrants.!
Inalignmentwith ArthurCalwell'spronouncementthatforevery 'foreign'
migrant there would be ten British, the Australian government had
consolidated itsplans for enticing British migrants with the signing in 1946
of the 'U.K. Free and Assisted Passage Agreemem'.2 As part of a new
organisedand bureaucratiscdapproach to immigration,certainaspectsofthe
operation were notto beleft to chance. The very creation ofDepartmentsof
Immigration, and ofInformation, both with Calwell as their Minister, was
symptomatic ofthe new order.3 Immigration policy, above all else, was to
inaugurate anew age in governmental concern for publicrelationsexercises
outofwartime.
One focus of this advertising highlighted the Stale as benefactor, as
protector. Responsibility for the 'reception, placement and after-care of
migrants upon arrival' was to be shared between the Commonwealthand the
states.4 The co-operationofvoluntary organisations traditionallyinvolved in
caringfornewlyarrivedimmigrantswasdesignatedsecondary.Therewasalso
some expectation that the general community would try to make 'New
Australians' feel athome.
2 Bonegi/la 'APlace ofNo /lope'
The other focus ofpublic appeal was a concern for 'the nation', that is its
economic welfare, The interests that 'the nation' may have represented were
ambiguously statedand summed upas the health oftheGDPand the stateof
industry, In anattempttoco-ordinate immigration with specificemployment
needs, surveysweretobeundertakenaimedatdiscoveringthecapacityofeach
state to 'absorb' migrants during 1947. These surveys would also discover
what facilities were suitable for the temporary or transit accommodation of
migrants. ByFebruary 1947itwasfurtherdecided thatthestateswouldsetup
'reception depots' near ports of disembarkation. Ex-military establishments
which could housea few hundred ata time were soughtin the outersuburbs
of principal cities.5 The Commonwealth Employment Service would
establish offices there to assist the quicker and simplerabsorption ofBritish
migrantsintotheworkforce.
After the war even Britain and many other industrialised nations were
suffering labour shortages. These more favoured migrant 'source' countries
wereloath togive uptheir workers when they were sodesperately neededat
home. Although there was an unlimited fund ofDisplacedPersons available
for thepurposes ofproviding workers, these werepeople Australia, initially,
did not want to accept, despite UN pleas that Australia Ulke a fair quota for
humanitarianreasons.6
A more concerted attempt to try and encourage the immigration of
'suitable' types was made in May 1947 with the adoptionofthe Empire and
Allied Ex-Serviccmen's Scheme- soldiers of Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian,
French and Danish 'extraction' were to be enticed by the opportunity ofre
settling in Australia.? But, in the same month, some CIAC officials were
surprised to receive word that Calwell's department was now making
overturestojointheInternationalRefugeeOrganisation(IRO) which handled
the resettlement of the Displaced Persons. Although Calwell was not so
easily deterred in his desire for particular types ofimmigrants to constitute
the backbone of his immigration plan, at this point the importance of the
immigration plan itself overwhelmed the detail of its ethnic and cultural
makeup.
The imperatives dictated by labour shortages were such, that in June,
Calwell felt it necessary to undertake a world tour to study the question of
shipping and immigration, and to examine the IRO's own resources for
transportation. Overthefollowing months anotheragreementwas made with
the IRO. Twelve thousand DisplacedPersons (OPs) from camps inoccupied
Europe were to be resettled in Australia in the first year. Only an
experimental number, it was soon increased to 20,000 even before the first
arrivals.S
'A PlaceofNo Hope' 3
Theapparentchangeofattitudecan bepartiallyexplained in the tempting
and irresistible aspects of the offer that the IRO had made. Shipping for
Displaced Persons would be provided and atthe IRQ's expense - this was
crucial in the contextoftheworld-widepost-warshippingshortage.The DPs
would be chosen by the Australian government and would be subject to a
twelve-month employment contract under the direction of the Australian
government; evenafterthattwo-yearperiod theirresidency inAustraliawould
remain conditional. Australia would contributean exgratis paymentof£10
perheadtopay for theextra distance thattheIRQships would havetocover
from the normal routes to Canadaor South America. Australia would have
control over the programme, over the choice of migrants and over the
migrants themselves. Calwell assured the public by taking into account their
paranoia:
We shall have to select them because some areas are nol above
sending us ones they most want to get rid of. We do not want
traitors and collaborators.9
Part of the explanation for the Australian government's own conviction
that DPs would be economically useful, can be sought in the international
responses ofdifferent countries to the DP situation. England, for example,
had, since 1946, been 'successfully' operating the European Voluntary
Workers' (EVWs) schemeeven though it faced the same stated obstacles as
Australia: a housing shortage and the problem of rehabilitating ex
servicemen.lO Thcse EVWs were placed mostly in hostels and camps and
recruitedintounskilledandessential industriesfor whatwas supposed tobea
contractual one-yearperiod. The idea was that competition for jobs held by
English workers would be controlled and that, by placing hostels and camps
in remote areas, any largc-scale confrontation with the English population
wouldbeavoided. OfcourseAuslraliahaditsownexperiencesinplanningfor
thelargenumberofassistedBritishmigrants,buttheDisplacedPersonswere
notBritish,norweretheyamongthepreferred groupof'alien'immigrants.
In contrast to the arrangements which had been decided for British
immigration, wherebyresponsibility was to bedividedbetween the statesand
the Commonwealth, the federal government in this case would take wholly
upon itself the responsibility for the selection, reception, placement in
employmentandafter-care ofthe DPs. Such responsibilities would be more
thancompensatedforbythebenefitstheagreementwouldofferthe Australian
economy. But the reaping also demanded some sowing. The problem of
efficientlyabsorbing the DPs wasintertwined with convincing theAustralian
public that the obstacles which hadslOod in the way before the July decision
hadnow been removed and that the re-settlementofDPs would be ofbenefit
