![]()
1 Polish Immigration to Australia
Introduction
With this chapter, it is intended to provide an overview of Polish immigration to Australia, which, regardless of its geographical distance, has been chosen by Poles as a new home for decades. The chapter explains what immigration means and how it affects societies. It discusses such important concepts as acculturation and adaptation through the lens of social identity theory. It then concentrates on the ongoing history of immigration to Australia by outlining source countries and numbers of settlers who have safely arrived in the last decades. There have been two major waves of Polish immigration occurring after World War II. As demonstrated, they differed significantly in their composition shaping the present-day society of Australia. Last but not least, the findings collected from numerous studies related to language and culture maintenance in the Polish diaspora are presented with a detailed description of activities and their significance in sustaining Polishness in the community.
1.1 Contextualising Australia’s Immigrant History
Immigration and cross-cultural transition are features of modern societies. Immigration often implies change and disruptions. Berry (1998) argues that as a result of immigration many societies become culturally plural. These days people of various cultural backgrounds more often come to live together in a diverse society. Immigration is a transition that entails the severing of community ties, the loss of social networks and familiar bonds. This also involves challenges to social identities (Sonn 2002).
Consequently, cultural groups are formed, which are not equal, but they differ economically, politically or even numerically. Out of these groups, some individuals have entered into the acculturation process voluntarily, e.g. immigrants, while others, i.e. refugees or indigenous peoples, experience acculturation subconsciously. Other individuals are in contact because they have migrated to a new location (e.g. immigrants, refugees), while others have had the new culture brought to them (e.g. indigenous peoples). Lastly, among those who have migrated, some groups are permanently settled into the process, i.e. immigrants, while for others the situation is temporary, i.e. asylum seekers (Berry & Sam 1996). Regardless of these variations guiding us to acculturation, we need to understand that the process of transition or adaptation appears to be common to everyone (Wilczewski 2018). Nonetheless, the eventual outcome of acculturation will be distinct to those in the process.
The experiences of immigrant communities have been examined through various conceptual frameworks including acculturation, social identity theory and family values (Sam 2000). Some of the models capture the individual and community responses (Birman 1994). Berry (1997) offers a model of acculturation and immigrant adaptation consisting of four common responses to intercultural contact, i.e. integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation. These responses are defined by shifts in attitudes and behaviour towards one’s own and other communities.
Acculturation is the process of culture change and adaptation that occurs when individuals with different cultural backgrounds come into contact (Wilczewski 2018). Redfield, Linton and Herskovits (1936), while presenting their first definition of acculturation, explained that it resulted when groups of individuals having different cultures came into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups. Graves (1967) made a distinction between acculturation as a collective and individual phenomenon. In the former, acculturation is a change in the culture of the group, in the latter, it is a change in the psychology of the individual.
When individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures, the assimilation strategy is applied. In contrast, when individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, the separation alternative is in operation. In cases where there is some degree of cultural integrity maintained, while at the same time seeking to participate as an integral part of the larger social network, or in other words, we try to maintain our own culture and sustain interactions with other groups, integration is an option. Finally, yet importantly, we can talk about marginalisation when there is little possibility or interest in cultural maintenance, and little interest in having relations with others (Berry 1997).
Although the process of immigration–adaptation is a challenging experience, it can also mean hope for a better future, safety and security for many individuals and groups (Sonn 2002, Wilczewski 2019a). Indeed, individuals and groups may not always respond negatively and instead may adapt social and support systems based on the home culture to the new culture. Birman (1994) suggested an expanded typology of acculturation and adaptation strategies that emphasise the importance of understanding the process in context. She also argued that adaptation strategies are influenced by broader contextual factors that have implications for the social and psychological responses of individuals and groups.
According to Thomas (2001) and Drozdzewski (2007), Australia’s ongoing history of immigration is one of the defining features of its society. In 2019 almost 29 per cent of all Australia’s resident population was born overseas (ABS 2019). Obviously, post-colonial migration affected present-day Australia’s multiethnic composition and it was British and other ‘white’ migration until World War II (Jupp 2003, Jones 2003). In 1901 when Australia became a ‘federation’, the so-called “White Australia Policy” was established, which gave the beginnings to the Immigration Restriction Act. The main requirement regarded the necessary “racial” fulfilment, and the authorities expected all newcomers to fit well into a society that had been dominated by a British-based, Protestant norm. The initial assumption at the time was that British citizens would form the largest cohort of immigrants; however, the post-war migrants were mainly Displaced Persons (DPs) who arrived to Australia under the “Displaced Persons Scheme” established in 1947. These were mostly people of Eastern European origin, who wished to settle due to the fact that communism came into force in their homelands after World War II (Burnley 2001, Jayasuriya, Walker & Gothard 2003). By 1945 the Australian Government was keen to boost its population in order to stimulate post-war economic development and to increase the number of people able to defend the country in the event of another war (Jupp 2001, 2018). It was the government’s intention to expand the population by 1 per cent annually through immigration. As a result of the post-war government’s new focus, the proportion of the Australian population born overseas went up from 10 per cent in 1947 to ca. 20 per cent in 1971, and the figure continued to grow (Clyne & Jupp 2011).
1.2 Immigration to Australia in Figures and According to Source Countries
Over the years Migration Programme planning numbers fluctuated according to the priorities and economic and political considerations of succeeding governments. By 1969 planning figures had reached 185,000; however, by 1975 the planned intake was reduced to 50,000. The migration wave peaked again in 1988 to 145,000, and afterwards the levels were gradually reduced to 80,000 in 1992–93 (DIMA 2001/10). In 1996 a migration intake was first tied to economic growth, and it gradually increased, achieving a record high of 190,000 in the years 2008–2009. However, due to the global financial crisis in the Australian economy, the influx of immigrants was limited to 169,000 for 2010 and 2011. It has been kept at this level ever since, and the figures fluctuated up to 190,000 in 2014–2016 to fall to 160,000 again in the years 2017–2019 (DHA 2019).
As can be observed, the Migration Programme figures now reflect the situation thirty or forty years ago; however, the focus is quite different. In the 1980s various policy measures were implemented with the aim of increasing the likelihood of obtaining employment by new migrants, leading to economic independence (Birrell 2003). In the 1990s a nominated skill list, which constituted more stringent regulations concerning the recognition of overseas qualifications, was introduced, and the English language requirement was tightened. This followed concern over the employment outcomes of new migrants in the aftermath of the 1990s economic downturn (DIAC 2010). In addition, the last two decades have seen a shift towards the skilled stream of the Migration Programme, which means that immigrants are selected on the basis of their nominated profession, age, skills, qualifications, English language competence and employability. The changes of 2009 and 2010 (the introduction of a skilled occupation list) identified the need to focus away from supply-driven independent skilled migration towards demand-driven outcomes.
With the gradual dismantling of the White Australia policy and the need to accommodate many post-war displaced people from Europe, Australia’s demand to accept predominantly British immigrants ceased. Hence, a significant change in migration patterns to Australia has been observed since 1945. From the inception of “White Australia Policy” in 1901 the number of UK immigrants rose to 58 per cent of the total overseas-born living in Australia, and it went down to 23.5 per cent in 2006 (Jupp 2011, 2018).
As far as source countries are concerned, between the 1970s and the 1990s, the highest intake of immigrants was observed from Asia, the Middle East and Africa. In the 1980s settler arrivals of those born in China comprised only 1 per cent of all arrivals while the UK-born ones contributed 28 per cent. By 2003 the number of arrivals from the UK dropped to 13 per cent, and the flow of settlers from China increased to 7 per cent. In 2008–2010, the UK continued to provide the largest number of immigrants to Australia; however, it was closely followed by India and China (ABS 2010). The ten largest groups of overseas-born residents in 2019 were: England (992,000), China (651,000), India 592,000), New Zealand (568,000), the Philippines (278,000), Vietnam (256,000), South Africa (189,000), Malaysia (174,000), Scotland (135,000), which created 7,343,000 (29.4 per cent) of all overseas-born Australians, whereas Australian-born citizens made up 17,650,000 (70.6 per cent) (ABS 2019). On 30 September 2019 Australia’s population was 25,464,000, which means a slight increase from 24,993,000 in the previous year. Australia’s policy concerning migrants has evolved over the years to meet the political, social and economic imperatives of its governments. What began as a narrowly targeted programme designed to achieve the “populate or perish” objective, which dominated thinking in the aftermath of World War II, has developed into a broader programme aimed primarily at meeting the labour needs of the Australian economy. All these changes are reflected in the fluctuating ethnic composition of migrants to the country.
1.3 History of Polish Post-World War II Immigration to Australia
Forrest and Kusek (2016) claim that up to 20 million people of Polish ancestry live outside the country with over 170,000 residing in Australia, out of which almost 49,000 were born in Poland. Drozdzewski (2011) describes Polish migration to Australia as consisting of two post-World War II waves and associated with the rise of the Solidarity movement and the end of socialist rule in the 1980s and early 1990s. Earlier Polish immigrants entered Australia in the 1920s and in the period of 1936–1939 with a majority of Jews (more than 90 per cent) according to the 2011 census. The period of 1947–1951 witnessed a major wave of Poles arriving as Displaced Persons with most of them being poorly educated (Ozdowski & Lencznarowicz 2001). Leuner (2007) also mentions a second smaller wave to have occurred between 1956 and 1966 as a result of the relaxation of emigration laws in Poland and allowing for family reunions. Markowski (2009) argues that the second major wave of Solidarity migrants peaked early at the beginning of the 1980s and was a consequence of the economic decline, political unrest and the declaration of martial law in 1981. Markowski and Williams (2013) also note that the number of immigrants declined noticeably between 1989 and 1990 to 400 people per year, and thus they refer to it as a ‘waning diaspora’. Arrivals during 1981–1993 and 1994–2010 brought people with tertiary education or above, hence they are said to have reflected changes to immigration policies aimed at the process of selection of skilled immigrants (Hawthorne 2005).
It should be indicated that post-World War II migrants mostly experienced displacement by force. Ozdowski and Lencznarowicz (2001) posit that among them there were three major groups: ex-service personnel, Displaced Persons (DPs) and those arriving under the Landing Permit Scheme (sponsored by individual Australian Polish migrants). Other sources of migrants included Poles from refugee camps in India and British East Africa, Poles unable to return to Soviet-controlled post-war Poland and Polish military prisoners (Drozdzewski 2008). The largest cohort of Polish post-WWII migration was that of the Displaced Persons that had experienced long periods of foreign occupation and forced displacements. The majority of Polish DPs are regarded to have been either forcibly deported as agricultural and industrial labour, or fled in anticipation of being deported to Germany or Russia. Among them, there were also the survivors of the Soviet deportations (approximately 1.5 million Poles) between 1939 and 1940 (Allbrook & Cattalini 1995). Overall, approximately 65,000 Polish people arrived in Australia between 1947 and 1951; that is, in the Stalinist era (Kunz 1988, Ozdowski & Lencznarowicz 2001).
In the case of Solidarity migrants, the conditions for immigration were different. Many individuals, groups and families managed to leave Poland on temporary, tourist or working holiday visas to countries of Western Europe before the declaration of martial law, after which a strict control on the issuing of passports was maintained by the Polish Government. These migrants while remaining in hostels and refugee centres waited for the processing of onward visas to countries such as Australia, Canada and the USA. As Jamrozik (1983) notes, martial law accelerated the granting of visas to Australia and prompted the Australian Government to recognise some prospective migrants as refugees. Therefore, post-socialist immigrants are defined as having arrived with a status of refugees and as part of the Special Humanitarian Programme on assisted passage from Poland, or as having attained immigration visas on an economic basis (Drozd 2001).
Ozdowski and Lencznarowicz (2001) estimated that approximately 25,000 Polish immigrants moved to Australia in the 1980s. The second-wave migrants represented a very different social and demographic cohort from that of the post-war migrants. Drozdzewski (2007) states that 75 per cent of them were aged between 25 and 36 while only 2 per cent were over 50 years of age. 25 per cent of them possessed tertiary education certificates, and another 20 per cent had received technical education.
1.4 Integration of Polish Immigrants in Australia
Forrest and Kusek (2016) emphasise that there were fundamental changes to Australia’s attitude towards immigrants. Of the post-World War II Polish immigrant stream, Drozdzewski (2011) cites factors tending to socially isolate those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, especially a strong assimilationist attitude: pressure to adopt the dominant, Anglo-Protestant culture of the receiving society and the English language, and often separation of families because of work location as a condition of acceptance of Displaced Persons to Australia. On the other hand, migrants of the Solidarity and post-socialist wave of Polish settlement encountered an entirely different situation, namely political policies favouring multiculturalism and cultural maintenance, better migrant accommodation, services providing English-language tuition and better access to health care and social security support (Jamrozik 1983, Ozdowski & Lencznarowicz 2001, Drozdzewski 2011). Markowski (2009) accentuates a gradual structural absorption of Polish immigrants, with very little reverse migration. However, Leuner (2007) says that the rate of return was somewhat higher, a declining proportion speaking Polish at home and increasing proficiency in English among first-generation migrants.
Two main issues are commonly voiced as influencing the entry of immigrants into the workforce: qualifications and proficiency in English (Waxman 2001, Chua & Miller 2009). Leuner (2007) indicates that although many of the post-WWII immigrants were poorly educated and had no proper skills and qualifications, a significant proportion of them managed to climb the career ladder to attain the so-called white-collar status. What is interesting is that 39 per cent of the first-generation wave immigrants had tertiary qualifications while 89 per cent of Poles from the second wave in the 1980s established their own small businesses to become self-employed (Jamrozik 1983). This suggests a significant rise in educational qualifications. Another feature typical of post-WWII arrivals was a reluctance to abandon the Polish language (Sussex & Zubrzycki 1985). This was attributed to the prevailing assimilationist approach causing many ethnic immigrant groups to withdraw into themselves. Also, as Smolicz (1979) and Drozdzewski (2011) argue, Polish culture was very much language centred. Kusek and Wise (2014) explain this phenomenon as “a need to reposition oneself to feel a sense of being in a place through relative cultural practices, and ideals from home”. Notwithstanding, Australia’s multicultural society reduced emphasis on language maintenance, and a high level of Anglo-assimilation largely permeated into most Australians of Polish birth and ancestry (Smolicz 1979, Drozdzewski 2011).
Leuner (2007) found that after careful examination of intergenerational levels of proficiency in spoken English among first-generation survivors of the first wave, English was a significant problem only among less than 10 per cent of the elderly Poles. In the second generation, only a tiny fraction of less than 1 per cent lacked proficiency in English. She noted a huge fall-off in Polish language maintenance in the third generation to the point of disappearance of the Polish language. Hence, it may be argued that by the third-ge...
