Search

This paper explores the privileged position Japanese citizens held during the era of the White Australia Policy. The Immigration Restriction Act (IRA) was introduced in December 1901. As the major piece of legislation in the now-infamous White Australia Policy, the Act made it virtually impossible for non-Europeans to migrate to Australia and closed Australia to further settlement by the Japanese. However, Japanese people enjoyed a special position among non-Europeans under the White Australia Policy thanks to Japan's rising international status, as well as its sustained diplomatic pressure on Australia. Although the Commonwealth government was determined to exclude Japanese permanent settlers, it sought in many ways to render the policy of exclusion less offensive to the Japanese. In the early 1900s, two minor modifications to the IRA were implemented in order to relax the restrictions imposed on Japanese citizens. Moreover, in the administration of Commonwealth immigration laws, Japanese people received far more lenient treatment than other non-Europeans and were treated with respect and extra courtesies by Australian officials. By examining these privileges afforded to Japanese citizens, this paper aims to shed new light on the issue of Japanese exclusion under the White Australia Policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, Australian governments’ engagement policies with the Pacific Island Countries up until July 2022 are examined. The security agreement signed between Solomon Islands and China in April 2022 shocked many governments that have security interests in the Pacific. Because this occurred during Australia’s election campaign, Scott Morrison’s Coalition government was vehemently accused of foreign policy failure for allowing China, a potential adversary state, to expand its influence in an island country that is strategically important to Australia. However, one may ask what policies Morrison’s, and his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull’s, Coalition governments pursued. Furthermore, after winning the national election on 21 May 2022, one may question what policy Anthony Albanese’s Labor government is implementing toward the Pacific. Accordingly, after outlining Australia’s post-World War II policy history toward the Pacific, the Turnbull, and Morrison and Albanese’s governments’ policies are analyzed. Subsequently, I explore how the Turnbull Coalition government started planning and implementing foreign policy to strengthen Australia’s relations with the Pacific under the banner of Pacific Step-up, with reference to Turnbull’s memoir that revealed his intention to counter China’s increasing influence and the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper. Thereafter, I discuss how Morrison’s Coalition government that took office in August 2018 developed the Pacific Step-up, noting the frequent bilateral summit talks before the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic and various infrastructure aid projects delivered to the Pacific Islands. However, Morrison’s government, having close ties to domestic fossil fuel industries, failed to realize a sense of unity with the Pacific Islanders in relation to climate change. Finally, Albanese’s Labor government’s policy toward the Pacific is examined. Specifically, because of its commitment to a larger reduction of emission of greenhouse effect gases, the Labor government appears to be successful in achieving more enhanced relations with the Pacific Island Countries and the Pacific Family, as evidenced by the outcome of the Pacific Island Forum held in Fiji in July 2022. By achieving closer relations with the Pacific Island Countries and other partners such as the United States and Japan, one may conclude that Australia is accomplishing a favorable security environment in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Kyoto Protocol continues to provide a binding framework for global warming prevention. However, it will be supplanted by the Paris Agreement in 2020. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, where only developed countries take responsibility for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the Paris Agreement involves all countries who have signed the accord. Following the Paris Agreement, it has been agreed that global warming will be kept within a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels. In this paper, the implications of this policy reform on Japan, China and Australia are discussed. Utilizing the" Clean Development Mechanism" (CDM) in the Kyoto Protocol, many Japanese firms have used foreign direct investments (FDI) to conduct reforestation in areas outside Japan in order to offset emissions produced by Japan. Although this mechanism might be weakened by the Paris Agreement, the contribution to reforestation by Japanese firms using FDIs have not always been significant as they were oriented towards business interests rather than environmental goals. Most of these FDIs were carried out by electrical power companies, trading firms, paper manufacturing companies and companies using paper. In addition, the newly planted trees tended to be cut down every 7 years for chip pulp used in paper production which was then exported by Japanese firms. Trees can only effectively absorb CO2 when they are grown for longer terms. Therefore, these Japanese FDI projects can be viewed with suspicion in regards to reducing CO2 emissions. In addition, the expected shift from nuclear power to thermal power in Japan following the 2011 Fukushima Disaster will likely mean uranium imports from Australia will shrink in favor of coal. This will not only impact the Australian economy but may also have negative effects on Japan's attempts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Both Japan and Australia had failed to ratify the Paris agreement before its implementation although they signed it afterwards. This has substantially weakened their negotiation powers with regards to climate change. However, Chinese leadership on climate change has continued to strengthen, particularly after President Donald Trump announced the USA's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and TPP and the EU's instability following Brexit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1970s, discussions on the right of self-determination for indigenous peoples have been taken seriously in Australia, and several laws on the return of Indigenous cultural properties including ancestral remains and secret / sacred objects have been enacted. In addition, states and territories have established spaces for exhibition in museums and departments in universities dealing with indigenous issues, where indigenous specialists are employed. In this paper, I firstly discuss the repatriation of indigenous ancestral remains and secret / sacred objects, paying particular attention to the historical role of Australian museums in collecting them. Focusing on the case of Japan and Australia, I also describe the international network of collecting indigenous remains and secret / sacred objects that was established in the mid-19th century. Secondly, I give an account of the background and current situation of the repatriation movement for ancestral remains and secret / sacred objects, and how the involvement of indigenous peoples in the repatriation project since the 1970s has attracted attention as a matter of self-determination. However, while this movement led to the establishment of the laws and the legal measures for repatriation, it is argued that there are not many established methods to effectively identify the provenance of ancestral remains and secret / sacred objects. Therefore, I finally focus on the use of the digitally archived database in the United States, Europe and Australia for identifying the provenance of individual indigenous ancestral remains. I then consider how indigenous peoples utilize the data collected in the digital archive, that is by introducing the case of the "Return, Reconcile, Renew" project post 2012. In the project, indigenous Australian organizations cooperate with the federal government, universities, museums, and even indigenous organizations of the United States and New Zealand. The project aims to establish a network among various actors, to accumulate and share information on the repatriation of ancestral remains and secret / sacred objects through the network, and to make it possible to utilize this information on the initiative of indigenous Australian organizations for the research of provenance conducted jointly by various actors in accordance with the code of ethics of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to consider, through document analysis and interviews with school principals, the position o'f place' in the first national curriculum in Australia, the Australian Curriculum (hereafter', AC'), and the impact of such a' standardised curriculum' on rural and remote schools. Rural and remote schools have been challenged by poor educational outcomes for many years. One of the causal factors has been pointed out to be the employment and retention of experienced teachers. Schools in rural and remote areas in general are the only educational institutions in that area, and students with diverse backgrounds come to study there. So, the maintenance of students' motivation for learning and behaviour managements is also an important role for teachers. Reports on rural and remote schools always emphasize the significance o'f place' when referring to student support. However, in the AC and the documents which were published during the process of its development, there is no mention specifically of rural and remote schools. The aim of these documents is simply to improve' every' student's educational outcome regardless of their background. Hence, they insist on the importance of the approach to' individual' learning needs and levels, and as a result schools and teachers are required to adapt the curriculum according to the schools' particular situation and each student's needs and levels. In fact, the interviews with principals also revealed that each school adjusts the content and level of the curriculum to match their local circumstances and their students, and that reaction is regarded as a matter of course. However, despite its being an essential learning area, there are difficulties for implementation of the' Languages' subject. One such difficulty, for example, may mainly be due to students' motivation and systems of teacher employment. In fact, the impact of the NAPLAN (National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy) is quite large in rural and remote schools, with schools with low average scores receiving a bad reputation. Although the relevance of loca'l places' to the curriculum is more essential in rural and remote schools than in urban schools, the National Curriculum does not necessarily mandate a particular reference to' places' but rather leaves room for local schools to' translate' the curriculum according to their situation. Therefore, the employment of experienced teachers who are able to accomplish this and their training should be given more importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on a large-scale survey conducted in several Japanese ethnic language schools in Sydney in 2015, this paper aims to review multiple dimensions of the degree of social cohesion of the contemporary Japanese ethnic community in Australia. Looking at several indices such as economic, political, and cultural integration; and daily experiences of the respondents in everyday life, it will attempt to describe the social profile of the Japanese ethnic community, questioning the generic perception of the community as a coherent body of middle-class migrants in Australian society. Along with references to follow-up individual in-depth interviews with some of the respondents in the survey, as well as a comparative analysis with outcomes of a national survey on social cohesion of the Australian population conducted annually, it will draw attention to the ways in which a particular sense of social cohesion with Australian society is constructed by Japanese with a differentiated sense of belonging to the local community, country of residence (Australia), and nation of origin (Japan). It will also focus on the communal diversity of the Japanese community resulting from a majority of women in cross-border marriages and their newer generations living and growing up in multi-cultural family circumstances, which may eventually lead to a need for advocacy related to their re-identification as a possible ethnic group of migrants that should be involved in an inclusive migration settlement policy in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]