Dutch and Australian Government Perspectives on Migration
By Joed Elich
Introduction: Migration and the Double Perspective
Joed Elich’s research takes a rare and crucial “double perspective” approach to Dutch-Australian post-WWII migration, examining not only the policies and motivations of each government but also the lived experiences of Dutch migrants and returnees. Drawing on nearly 300 interviews with migrants in Australia and 124 returnees in the Netherlands, Elich offers one of the most comprehensive and comparative accounts of this major migration wave.
At the heart of his study is a paradox: both the Netherlands and Australia viewed post-war migration as essential — the Dutch to solve overpopulation and social pressures, and Australians to populate and develop the country with European labour — yet neither side fully understood what was happening at the other end. Migration was viewed through bureaucratic and economic lenses, often neglecting its human and cultural consequences.
The Dutch Government’s Emigration Push
In the immediate aftermath of WWII, the Netherlands saw itself as overpopulated. High birth rates, limited land, and fear of unemployment led policymakers to consider emigration a necessity. Industrialisation was pursued domestically, but large-scale overseas emigration, particularly to Australia, was endorsed and supported.
Surprisingly, although plans existed before WWII and even during the war (with reports being sent to the Dutch government-in-exile in London from Melbourne), formal emigration policy only began in 1952. The Dutch hoped for 60,000 emigrants per year, but this figure was never reached. Emigration dropped steadily from the 1950s and petered out by the 1990s.
A key government initiative was the Netherlands-Australia Migration Agreement (NAMA) of 1951, which provided subsidised passage and reception in Australian migrant centres such as Bonegilla and Wagga Wagga. A second sponsorship scheme followed in 1953. Contrary to stereotypes, many migrants were not poorly educated farmers — later cohorts especially included skilled workers and professionals.
However, Elich shows that the Dutch government lacked both experience and institutional structure in managing emigration. Few trained officers were available, and those who were recruited tended to stay in place for decades with little opportunity to rotate or gain international experience.
The Role of Private and Religious Agencies
From the 19th century onward, Dutch private agencies had a role in migration, and by the 1950s this sector was well organised along the lines of pillarisation — the division of Dutch society into religious and ideological segments. Protestant, Catholic, and socialist organisations all facilitated emigration for their respective communities.
This resulted in specific settlement patterns in Australia. For instance, Reformed Church migrants concentrated in Tasmania (beginning with seven families from Groningen in 1950), while Catholic networks were strongest in Victoria, supported by priests such as Fr Leo Maas. By 1960, about 70% of Dutch migrants received help from these denominational foundations.
Biases, Propaganda, and Unrealistic Expectations
Despite government and NGO efforts, many migrants later reported that the information they received about Australia was misleading or insufficient. Elich and other researchers (like van Wamel) found that brochures were overly optimistic or simplistic, omitting serious challenges like housing shortages and job instability. Migrants often absorbed only what they wanted to hear.
The desire to emigrate was high in the late 1940s — over 30% expressed interest — but only a small percentage ever acted on it. Even at the peak of emigration, only around 3.6% of the Dutch population actually left.
Decline in Emigration
By the late 1950s and early 1960s, several factors caused Dutch emigration numbers to fall:
- The Netherlands industrialised rapidly, reducing rural unemployment.
- Australia tightened immigration criteria in 1953.
- A lack of ships caused long waiting periods.
- Employers resisted losing skilled workers to emigration while importing “guest workers.”
In 1962, under pressure from parliament and unions, the Dutch government shifted from an “active” to a “positive” stance on emigration, effectively ending the official policy. By the 1970s, the Netherlands became a net immigration country.
The Australian Side
Australia, too, had its agenda. In 1947, it established a Department of Immigration and was determined to “populate or perish.” Dutch migrants were ideal: white, Protestant, skilled, and considered easy to assimilate.
Until the 1960s, assimilation was the official policy. “Good Neighbour Councils” were funded to help newcomers integrate — though Dutch migrants rarely used them. However, by the early 1970s, intellectual and political currents began to shift. The Whitlam Government introduced multiculturalism, building on the work of Jerzy Zubrzycki and the Galbally Report (1978), which encouraged cultural retention and access to services for all migrants.
Elich notes that Dutch migrants were slow to embrace multiculturalism but eventually began to form clubs and welfare initiatives. However, their cultural practices (e.g., hosting guests for coffee, socialising at home) remained distinctly Dutch.
Interestingly, despite Indonesia’s decolonisation and tension between Dutch and Indonesian interests, these had almost no impact on Dutch-Australian migration. The policy spheres of immigration and foreign affairs remained disconnected.
Issues of Representation and Integration
Dutch Australians remained underrepresented in politics and public life. First-generation migrants generally avoided public roles and preferred cultural invisibility. According to one quote from former NSW Premier Neville Wran: “I prefer Dutch migrants because you don’t need to know them.” They were regarded as ideal migrants because of their quiet compliance.
And yet, Elich argues, this invisibility came at a cost. Migration was traumatic for many. Government policies reduced human lives to numbers and budgets. Roughly 30% of Dutch migrants to Australia returned home. Even today, many remain caught between two identities, and the legacy of migration lives on not just in statistics but in cultural habits, family memories, and personal sacrifices.
Conclusion
Joed Elich challenges the myth of effortless Dutch assimilation and reframes the post-war migration story as a story of missed cultural recognition, policy shortfalls, and hidden costs. Despite the difficulties, he acknowledges that migration has yielded positive outcomes: thousands of Dutch families found opportunities in Australia and enriched its multicultural fabric. But neither government, he argues, fully grasped the psychological and social implications of the migration they so enthusiastically encouraged.
Summary: De omgekeerde wereld: Nederlanders als etnische groep in Australië
Author: Joed Elich
Publisher: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden / COMT, 1985
This seminal Dutch-language sociological study by Joed Elich explores the paradoxical identity of Dutch migrants in Australia, who are often perceived—and have perceived themselves—as model assimilators. Drawing on extensive fieldwork in the 1980s, including interviews with 289 Dutch migrants in Australia and 124 returnees in the Netherlands, Elich presents a detailed double-perspective analysis, comparing the intentions, experiences, and long-term integration outcomes of Dutch emigrants on both sides of the migration equation.
The book challenges the notion that Dutch migrants “disappeared” into Australian society. Elich argues that beneath the surface of rapid linguistic and civic assimilation lies a retained and often unspoken Dutch identity, sustained through family customs, religion, and community networks. These aspects, however, were often not visible in mainstream society or even to the migrants themselves, due to prevailing assimilationist ideologies in both the Netherlands and Australia during the post-war decades.
Through the lens of migration theory and with attention to religious, political, and cultural dimensions, Elich investigates the tension between private cultural maintenance and public invisibility. He analyses migration policy, settlement support, and the role of churches and community organisations in shaping Dutch-Australian life.
Ultimately, Elich concludes that the Dutch in Australia formed an ethnic group in a sociological sense, even if this was not officially recognised or self-acknowledged at the time. The title “De omgekeerde wereld” (“The world turned upside down”) reflects this paradox: migrants sought to leave behind their Dutchness, but found themselves re-encountering it in a new cultural and institutional context.
Summary of Tales from the Lowlands
Tales from the Lowlands is a curated anthology that showcases the literary contributions of Dutch authors over two decades at the Adelaide Writers’ Week. The collection includes a diverse range of genres—essays, fiction, poetry, and memoirs—reflecting the richness of Dutch literature and its resonance with Australian audiences. The anthology not only highlights the individual voices of the authors but also underscores the cultural exchange between the Netherlands and Australia, offering readers insights into Dutch perspectives and storytelling traditions.
Author Profile: Joed Elich
Name: Joed Elich
Profession: Migration Sociologist, Researcher
Affiliations: Formerly associated with Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (Leiden University), Centre for Overseas Migration and Training (COMT)
Specialisations: Post-war Dutch migration, Dutch-Australian migration dynamics, double-perspective migration studies
Background:
Joed Elich is a Dutch sociologist and migration scholar best known for his landmark double-perspective research into post-World War II Dutch migration to Australia. He conducted fieldwork in both countries in the 1980s, interviewing hundreds of Dutch emigrants and returnees and analysing policy frameworks on both ends of the migration corridor.
His PhD dissertation, De omgekeerde wereld. Nederlanders als etnische groep in Australië (The Upside-Down World: Dutch as an Ethnic Group in Australia), is considered a foundational text in Dutch-Australian migration studies. Elich also contributed to volumes such as The Making of a Pluralist Australia and wrote extensively about the challenges and contradictions of assimilation, cultural retention, and policy-making in a transnational context.
Joed Elich’s work remains one of the few systematic sociological efforts to understand both the sending and receiving sides of migration — a method he attributes to the influence of Thomas and Znaniecki’s seminal The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1938).
