Henry Parkes
"For a generation - long before some of the men who are listening to me took any part whatever in public life - and. at all times, I have opposed the introduction of Chinese upon these, as I conceive, national, and to a large extent, philosophical grounds. I maintain that in a country like New South Wales it is our duty to preserve the type of the British nation, and that we ought not, for any consideration whatever, to admit any element that would detract from, or in any appreciable degree lower, that admirable type of nationality. "
- Henry Parkes, Second reading of the Chinese Restriction Bill
Henry Parkes, commonly referred to as the "Father of Australia" was a fervent Nationalist, in the second half of the 19th century - it was Parkes who planted the seeds of nationalist thought that bloomed throughout the years. Personally campaigning across the colonies for a single, federated and White Australia, Henry Parkes found support all throughout the country, workers unions, business owners, moral leaders and patriots.
They are not an inferior race. They are a superior set of people. A nation of an old, deep-rooted civilisation. It is because I believe the Chinese to be a powerful race, capable of taking a great hold upon this country, and because I want to preserve the type of my own nation, I am and always have been opposed to the influx of Chinese.
Having lived through the experiences of multi-culturalism and multi-racialism in the mid 1800s, Henry Parkes saw the enourmous conflicts and troubles it caused - seeing that non-white Immigration caused such conflict, he sought to root it out completely and did so by placing the Chinese Restriction Bill or ( Influx of Chinese Restriction Bill ) before the New South Wales colonial parliament, which was passed with some great success - after years of emigration, it seemed that the idea of White Australia had indeed been built in reality, the highly homogenous and morally fervent communities then went on to establish a working man's paradise unbefore seen in the world.
Now, I would like for a moment to examine the ground on which I stand. I contend that if this young nation is to maintain the fabric of its liberties unassailed and unimpaired, it cannot admit into its population any element that of necessity must be of an inferior nature and character. In other words, I have maintained at all times that we should not encourage or admit amongst us any class of persons whatever whom we are not prepared to advance to all our franchises, to all our privileges as citizens, and all our social rights, including the right of marriage. I maintain that no class of persons should be admitted here, so far as we can reasonably exclude them, who cannot come amongst us, take up all our rights, perform on the ground of equality all our duties, and share in our august and lofty work of founding a free nation.
