Kevin McCauley - The Labor Party and White Australia

The Labor Party And White Australia: by Kevin McCauley

Sydney: June 2001

Preface.

What follows in this pamphlet are extracts from the parliamentary speeches of Australian Labor members of parliament. All extracts are taken from ‘Hansard’, the printed record of these speeches. Dates are generally provided for each extract.

The reader should note that this pamphlet is part of a series which includes also: Queensland Labor Leaders, Labor Premiers of New South Wales, Federal Labor Leaders: Watson To Calwell (1901-1966), White Australia Defeated W.M. Hughes Over Conscription 1916.

History tells us that those people who don’t learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat it in the future. The problems that confronted Australia after Federation are the same problems that confront Australia now. Globalisation, economic rationalism, privatization and the New World Order are new terms for policies which in other forms, have been around since the nineteenth century.

In the 1890’s a group of patriots formed the Australian Labour Party. These people fought for and won the battle for a 'White Australia'. They won the battle for protecting Australian industries with high tariffs. They also won the battle to establish a centralised wage fixing system that gave the Australian worker the highest standard of living in the world. All the gains that our forefathers fought for, some-times with their blood, have been thrown away. The Labor Party of today advocates policies that are exact opposite to the policies of the party of yesteryear. Today, Australia should look back on the founding fathers of the Labour movement, not just as some characters in a dusty history book, but as real men who made Australia for a time, a great nation that passed on to its children the benefits that they fought so hard for. In presenting the quotes from the following Labor members of parliament, the reader should be aware that the gains which have been lost must be won – again!

Kevin McCauley, Sydney.

King O’Malley

Kingston O'Malley

Born United States of America in 1854, died 1953. Labour and Insurance Agent. Elected to the House Of Assembly, South Australia for Encounter Bay April 1896, representing that constituency until April 1899 when defeated; elected to the House of Representatives for Tasmania General Election 1901 and on the division of that State into electorates, for Darwin in general elections 1903, 1906, 1910, 1913, 1914; Member of Select Committee On Old Age Pensions in 1904 and or Royal Commission on same 1905-1906; Minister For Home Affairs April 1910 to June 1913 and from October 1915 to November 1916; Member of Royal Commission On Powellised And Other Timbers; defeated in General Election 1917. O’Malley was the driving force in the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank, Old Age Pensions, Trans-Australia railway and the foundation of the national capital in Canberra.

“I am pleased that the House, as the mouthpiece of the people, so shortly from the people, is going to be united upon the greatest question which ever came before a nation to solve - one of the problems of the age. If the Australian people had only lived in the southern states of America – as I have – and had seen the dire results of the present mingling of the Africans with the whites, they would put their feet down and say – we are going are going to profit by the terrible mistake of the American people, and we are not going to leave it to posterity to solve such an unholy problem……

I wish to point out that the educational tests proposed in this Bill will keep out the labouring people. It will keep out a million Canadians if they want to come here – men who are splendid farmers, but who cannot read English….

But from my experience in the East, I cannot assure Honourable Members that the education test proposed will not shut out the Japanese if they desire to come to Australia. It will not shut out the Indian toff who becomes a human parasite preying upon the people of the country. It will not shut out the intellectual Afghan. We have more to fear from the educated coloured people than from the ignorant coloured people, because the latter will not attempt to mingle or associate with the white race. My experience in the southern states of America is that a first class education disqualifies the black people for any kind of work whatever in the line of industrial creation. They at once go forth to the big cities, and settle down to live upon their wits just as some white men do. That class of people will not be shut out by the pro-posed educational test. Its adoption will only add to the great volume of the parasitical element which is now sucking the lifeblood out of the worker in Australia…

Then again let us look at the Chinese merchant. Does the proposed test shut out the educated Chinaman, who is the very worst man we can have in the community? I remember when the Chinese drove the servant girls out of California, and when all the farm hands cleared out because they could not compete with the six Chinese companies. How did it wind up? It wound up by all the little farmers selling out to the big men and leaving the country. Then the big men engaged Chinese from the six companies which bossed the show ….

I heard the late Henry Ward Beecher say that God made America for all nations and all people. ‘Let them come’, he said, ‘oh! Come ye to the waters, our wine and milk we will freely give to all your sons and daughters.’ That is all very fine coming from the pulpit but when the people of the Pacific Slope persuaded certain members of Congress to visit California they dropped them down in the Chinese dens and left them there for a night. The result was that the Congressmen went back to Washington and passed a law shutting out the Chinaman for twenty years…

We are here upon a Continent set apart by the Creator exclusively for a southern empire – for a southern nation – and it is our duty to preserve this island-continent for all eternity to the white race, irrespective of where they may come from.”

September 6 1901

“I do not say that Orientals are inferior to Europeans – I an not speaking from that standpoint, but I contend that they cannot be assimilated with white populations. The poll tax imposed by the United States proved utterly inadequate to exclude Chinamen from that country. The six big companies of California not only paid to ship captains the $500 deposit required by the customs officials, but also bribed them to allow Chinamen to get away from their ships…

The public will not be fooled into the belief that Chinamen will be kept out whilst it is possible to bribe ship captains and others to bring them in here. It was reported recently that Chinamen were stowed away in the coal-bunkers of a vessel which recently arrived at Freemantle, and there is no doubt that shop captains are being bribed to bring coloured aliens to Australia. Everyone in this country who is not a millionaire is endeavouring to become one as soon as possible, and many people are not particular as to the means which they employ to that end. Is it to be supposed that men who are anxious to become rich will be proof against the inducements which could be offered to them under a measure of this kind to introduce Asiatics into Australia? Bad as the Chinese are in America, in that they drive white workers out of certain employments, the Japanese are infinitely worse…

The Japanese now own a large number of the orchards of California. They do not spend a single dollar in the country, they import everything they want from Japan, and send their money to that country. That might be very good for Japan, but it would not be of benefit to a country like Australia. If the Japanese settled in Australia in any large numbers, whether in the Northern Territory or elsewhere, they would gradually acquire vested interests, and, if we attempted to regulate tem, would appeal to their government, and bring upon us a trouble similar to that which arose from the settlement of Uitlanders in the Transvaal….

It is a well known fact that the recent boycott of American goods in China was inspired by the capitalists of the United States, who wished to create a feeling in favour of weakening the Alien Immigration Act of that country. Their objective was to be able to do as the millionaires of the Rand had done – import Chinese as slaves to work in the mines. Files of the American newspapers to hand show that American capitalists wished the Chinese to brought into America in order that they might replace white men by docile slaves. They desire to substitute Chinese slavery for black slavery.”

December 16 1905.

James Page.

James Page

Labor Member for Maranoa. , born 1860, died 1921. Rural worker and hotel keeper. Member for Maranoa (House of Representatives) 1901-1921.

“Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to talk to the House upon the subject of a White Australia. It is one of the objects for which I have been fighting for many years. The first gentleman who aroused enthusiasm in me upon this question is, I am pleased to say, a colleague of mine in this chamber. I refer to the Honourable Member for South Australia, Mr. V.L. Solomon. I read many of his pamphlets upon the exigencies of the situation at the time he was conducting his anti-Chinese crusade. That was when the desire was awakened in me that Australia should be reserved for the Australians…

The Japanese are practically acquiring the ownership of the whole of northern Queensland. They are going on inch by inch, and retaining their hold, simply because the white man leaves it to them. Then the planters say that there is no white labour available. Why is that? Simply because there is no labour for the white man to stop for. Therefore, there is the same old cry, ‘Go West Young Man, Go West.’ And out west the young men go. The Japanese and other eastern races, however, are following them there….

I am anxious to do all that I can to get rid of these aliens and keep our race pure. Everyman knows what happens when coloured races get in among us. They at once bring the white races down to their level, instead of rising to the level of the whites. Those who do raise themselves to the level of the whites get as cunning as foxes, and, not withstanding our laws and our detective skill, they beat us at every turn. For that reason, if for no other, I would assist anyone, no matter what his political opinions were, to rid Australia of the curse. What do we find as to their vile eastern diseases? Who brought the plague to Australia? Did it not come from the eastern countries? Where did the leprosy come from? If Honourable Members would only pay a visit to the Queensland lazarettes the opinion would no longer be expressed that the time is not opportune for dealing with this subject….

Who brought this disease to Australia? The vile eastern races, which I am pleased to say, the Barton government is going to keep out. These are some of the evils that follow in the train of the Asiatic. There are many more…

During my election tour in Queensland I saw a contract called for clearing between Bundaberg and Gladstone, in the Honourable Member for Wide Bay’s district. The price offered was so low that no white man would take it. The consequence was that a sparkling subadur went up with a new shipment of Hindoos – full-blooded bucks from Bombay – who took the contract at one twentieth of the lowest rate for which a white man could do the work. That is another reason why we desire to get rid of these aliens. They not only enter into competition with the white worker, but with the white store-keeper, and it is because of the fact that we polled such a solid vote in Queensland for a white Australia. Everyone knows the danger….

When they go down to these centres they inhabit certain quarters of the towns, and as everyone else gives way to them, property goes down in value, and they are left to their own sweet will. This is why there is such an outcry for a white Australia from the middle-classes. The only way to induce this class of people to take the proper democratic view is to touch their pockets, for immediately they feel the grievance they seek redress. In several of the towns out west in Queensland, the Hindoos have established themselves, sold their goods at prices well below those at which the white trader could obtain them, and have practically hounded the white store-keepers out of the place. Some people might say that this is the fault of the white people who, proceeding on free trade principles, buy in the cheapest market, and I am sorry to have to admit that by adopting these principles we are cutting our own throats.”

September 6 1901.

"It has been urged that the white Australia vote was a catch-vote. But what was the voice of the Commonwealth upon that principle? How is it that the cry of a white Australia caught on from one end of the Continent to the other? The explanation is very simple. When the Premiers of the different colonies – on their return from the Jubilee celebrations in England, where they had conferred with Mr. Chamberlain upon the introduction of legislation for the exclusion of undesirable immigrants – made a compact to give us a white Australia, the Queensland Premier ratted and made a secret treaty with the Japanese government. The country at the time knew nothing about it. The fact had to be completely dragged out of him before the public knew anything about it. These are the sort of men who have been at the head of affairs in Queensland….

Yet we are asked why we have not freed Queensland of this black labour before. We are here to do it. All honour to the Prime Minister when he says that he is going to give us a brand spanking new white Australia for a New Year’s gift….We came here to make that state white….

These white men in Queensland are going to fight for the black man, but they brought white men from Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania to down us in Queensland, and take the bread from our mouths ten years ago, and that is the sort of thing that the men I have the honour to represent in far western Queensland would very much resent. They only wish that those who are dissatisfied with this Bill would rebel. We should then give them a dose of their own physic. There is nothing that would give me greater pleasure than to take up one of those magazine rifles that the Minister For Defence has asked us to practise with, in defence of a white Australia, and there are many thousands more who would do the same thing. We should very soon settle the Kanaka business. I only wish they would rebel but talk is cheap.”

October 10 1901

“As long as I occupy a seat in this House, I shall vote for the exclusion of the coloured races. The honourable and learned member for Corio put the matter very well this afternoon, when he stated that it is the force of Japanese arms which is making Australia apprehensive. I am getting on for fifty years of age, but I am quite prepared to take up a gun in the defence of Queensland and there thousands more who would follow my example…

The honourable member wishes to break down the existing barriers. It is the swindling mining syndicates which have been formed – not the Labour Party – which have ‘cooked’ Australia. The Labour Party endeavours to purify politics, and it is doing it. We are opposed to alien immigration.”

December 6 1905.

George Pierce.

George Pierce

Born South Australia 1870, died 1952. Carpenter, secretary Carpenters’ Union, Western Australian Labor Senator 1901-1916, first Labor Minister For Defence under Andrew Fisher 1908-9, 1910-1913 and under Hughes 1914-1916. He sided with Hughes over conscription in 1916. He once said outside of parliament: “the only doctrine these races respect is the doctrine of force. Our White Australia legislation is so much waste paper, unless we have rifles to back it up.:" While he had opposed sending troops to the Boer War, he supported conscription and citizens’ military training after Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japan War of 1904-5.

“The Labour Party have been supporting the government in an effort to rid Australia of a large number of people of a coloured race, and on which side have honourable Senators been in that discussion, who are now so anxious to take the extreme step of complete exclusion to which the Labour Party is pledged? They have been most severe in their criticisms of the attitude the Labour Party have taken up upon that question, and yet they are then men who led the movement for an extension of time for the planters in Queensland. That is a significant incident in a week’s proceedings, and should be sufficient to make us pause before we again walk into the spider’s web. If anyone is responsible for the present position it is the free-trade party, and their lack of organization, and their lack of loyalty to their leaders…

On the other hand, the free trade party said – ‘we will go the whole way with you, and vote for complete exclusion’. In good faith we brought forward our proposals for complete exclusion, and honourable Senators of the free trade party united with us to create a blank in the Bill. But when we wished to fill in the blank, what support did we get? We were in a minority. In one division we had a majority of six, and in the next we were in a minority of two. Now we are again asked to move the Amendment again, but we have to remember that this is not the last stage of this Bill, and we may have to depend on the men who have failed us once to fight this Bill if we come into conflict with the other House….

Like the last speaker, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that the principle Act which this Bill seeks to amend, has largely accomplished what it set out to accomplish. It has not only not prevented a large number of Asiatics from coming to Australia, but it has served as a warning throughout eastern nations that the ports of Australia are closed to them, and that has been efficacious in practically stopping numbers of Asiatics from coming to our shores….

Take first the question of the education test. Is it not a fact that the education test has been found to be faulty, and that at least three Chinamen have been added to our population because of the faulty application of that test?"

1905

Hugh Mahon.

Hugh Mahon

Born Ireland 1853, died 1931. Member of the House of Representatives for Coolgardie 1901-1913 and Kalgoorlie 1913-1917, 1919-1920. Post Master General April-August 1904 under Watson’s Labour Government; Minister For Home Affairs 1908-9, Assistant Minister For External Affairs September-December 1914, Minister For External Affairs 1914-1916. Mahon was the only Member of Parliament to be expelled. His expulsion in 1920 was for supporting Irish independence and his statement describing the British Empire “as this accursed and bloody empire”.

“Now it seems to me that the people who advocate the continuance of this traffic must be strangely oblivious of the teachings of history. Never yet has a servile race existed alongside a superior race without sooner or later resulting in the downfall of the civilisation and institutions of that country.…

This traffic has gone on for very many years, and so long as I have been in Australia I have heard it objected to. For over twenty years I have known of an agitation against the continuance of the importation of labourers from the Pacific islands. In view of the fact that the parliament of Queensland has legislated against the traffic, and at one time had actually resolved to stop it, and that the evils of this system have been generally recognized in the state in which the Kanakas are employed, nothing is likely to be gained by delaying our decision on the question. I have carefully read most of the literature on this subject, and I have not been able to ascertain that we are likely to ascertain any further facts by delay. Neither do I find that the advocates of Pacific islands’ labour agree as to the remedy. I fid that Mr.Philip, the Premier of Queensland, says one thing and that the Chamber of Commerce of Mackay says another…

I find that the Premier of Queensland contends that because some of the representatives of that state hold extreme views in regard to socialising the means of production, therefore their opinions in reference to coloured labour should not be received with any consideration in this House. That seems a most extraordinary contention.”

November 6 1901.

Dr. William Maloney.

Born Victoria 1854, died 1940. Member of the Legislative Assembly for West Melbourne 1889-1903, Member of the House of Representatives for Melbourne 1904-1940. Arthur Calwell had served as one of his campaign managers and took over the seat at Maloney’s death.

In the decade between Japan’s victory over Russia and the First World War, many Australians made it their business to travel to Japan; one of these was Dr. Maloney. He had been pro-Boer and anti-Empire, but the Japanese menace modified his views. With the help of a journalist, Maloney gave an account of his journey. In a booklet in 1905, entitled Flashlights On Japan And The Far East, he said, “in this decade or in the next, the East will most assuredly insist on what she may regard as her rights. And those rights may include the domination, if not the occupation, of the Eastern Hemisphere. How stand we then? Little will all that home defence avail us, if once the whole volume of the East is permitted to break on our shores. The dividing line must be drawn on the ocean and far to the north of Cape York.’

He went on to criticise Britain for not arming Russia against Japan who will claim leadership of China and India. Maloney advocated Indian independence in order to prevent her falling into Japan’s clutches, but this was but a delaying tactic:

“The awakened East, which, obedient to the natural laws of expansion, all in retaliation, or in the undying and unchangeable desire of conquest, must seek to advance. Consequently, it is the business of the Commonwealth to begin forthwith to arm every man, to fence with the latest and most terrible scientific devices, every port, to establish armouries and arsenals, to put its people in a position both to make and wield arms, so that the whole may stand as one strong man, well armed whenever the foe may seek to intrude.”

Anticipating Curtin by thirty-six years, Maloney called for an American alliance, a popular idea in pre-1914 Australia. Advocated on strictly ‘racial’ grounds, it was put forward to secure White Australia and national sovereignty.

“America is, therefore, not only a sentinel in the Pacific against the military dangers of the future, but in the present day is guarding us against the spread of disease from eastern countries. In what is, perhaps the most eventful epoch known in history, forty seven million people have suddenly slipped into a first place among the nations of the world, but that is no reason why we should open our doors to them. If the peril is to come, the white races were never stronger to meet it than they are today. As the years roll on, the organization of the mighty millions in China, and also in India – where the natives are not too fond of English rule – will become more complete. Millions of native races in India, not withstanding the high intellectual standard of many of them, are in a state of semi-slavery, and will never be permitted to have a vote. On the other hand, the Japanese are allowed to exercise the franchise….

I think that the proportion is larger, but there are tens of thousands of Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotsmen who are not thought fit to have a vote. The Japanese, therefore, have that which many white people do not enjoy. Then again, they have never insulted the Chinese, as our white races have too frequently done. That in itself constitutes a serious menace. If George Washington – that man of mighty intellect and splendid character, who threw aside the crown that was offered him – had with his compatriots stood between the Americans and the Africans and had said, ’these coloured men shall not come to our shores’, would not the people of America have revered his memory even more, if that be possible, than they do so now? The Labour Party in Australia is standing up for a White Australia, and the Prime Minister will endorse my statement that the two words which aroused the audience at the defence meeting held in Melbourne last week to the highest pitch of enthusiasm were a White Australia….

We do not give fair play to the people of our own race. The honourable member for Kooyong why we do encourage people from Great Britain to immigrate to Australia. It is because even in this sparsely populated country the land has gone into the possession of the few. Our land system is a huge monopoly. As the leader of the government of Western Australia, the Treasurer succeeded in placing on the statute book of that state better land laws than we have here. Hundreds have to leave Victoria to seek holdings elsewhere. These are the men who would help us against the attack of alien races. If the removal of one offensive word from our statute book will enable the splendid diplomacy of the Japanese to assist us in our desire to keep Australia white, no one will welcome the change than I shall do. Peace is always better than war, but if the Japanese come here, it will be our duty to force them away by every means in our power. I do not think that the United States of America would see us controlled by an Asiatic race. If there is to be a realisation of the present fear, I hope that the Europeans will join, not in a marauding crusade, like many of those of ancient days, but in a true crusade in the interests of the white races. I hope that it will be a crusade of the Latins, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the great Anglo-Saxon-Celtic races. But no word of mine will ever give offence to the Japanese. I have too much admiration for their art and splendid inventive genius to insult them.”

December 6 1905.

“What is the Labour Party’s view of migration? The Labour Party believes that we should open our arms in welcome to all the white races, first of all to the British Race, next to the Nordic races and then to the people of Switzerland and then to the northern part of Italy. It would seem that this country was given to us by Providence to hand on as the heritage of the white race. I should like the honourable member for Wentworth to know that, in my opinion if there should be in the future be a struggle between the East and the West, the colour of the people who will control the future of Australia will be the colour of those who will ultimately dominate the world. Australia is the fifth continent and the last to be settled. If we permitted it to pass out of the hands of the white race I believe that in a short space of time Europe and America would suffer a similar fate. It behoves us, therefore to people our empty spaces with immigrants of the white races, but we should not introduce people merely to lower our standard of wages. The settlement of a country like Australia is an economic question, and if women and children are brought in in order to lower our standard of wages that will tend to prevent people of the white race from making good in Australia…..

If we give white workers a chance in Australia we shall have no need to advertise for immigrants from the old land. There never was so fine an advertisement for immigrants as that which was given by the fact that we paid our soldiers who fought in the Great War more than was paid to its soldiers by any other nation, not excepting the great white republic of America. Diggers have told me that English tommies when they heard what they were getting said, that is the land for us by and by. We want no privileged classes in this country. We want men and women to know that their children will have a chance, and we should do away with class privileges such as existed in older countries, and particularly in England, where I spent so many years….

Every honourable man should work to keep this country as a heritage for the white races so that ultimately Australia may reach a pinnacle of civilisation enabling it to become the school-house of advanced legislation for the whole white world.”

July 15 1925

“We should ask the Japanese in the sacred name of reciprocity to listen to us. We should tell them that if they desire to settle in Australia we are willing, provided they tell us how many Australians are settled in Japan. No Australian owns a square inch of land in Japan. We should tell the Japanese that as the population of Japan is thirteen times greater than the population of Australia, they are welcome to thirteen times the quantity of land in Australia that Australians own in Japan. This is the one continent in the world throughout which the same language is talked, spoken and read, and we hold it as a sacred trust for the millions to come after us. We should tell the Japanese that, for every Australian settled in Japan we are prepared to welcome the settlement of thirteen Japanese in Australia. In my two visits to Japan, I met only some ten Australians who were settled there, and three of them have since left the country. Using the same word reciprocity, we should tell the Japanese that as they have adopted certain measures on the advice of Herbert Spencer, to safeguard the integrity of their country, they cannot blame us if we follow their splendid example. As imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, the Japanese cannot help being pleased if we decide to follow in their footsteps. I hope that the Attorney General, Mr. Latham, who will represent this great white Australia at the Assembly of the League of Nations, will make it plain that Australia will in no circumstances permit the White Australia Policy to be tampered with. I should prefer to see every man, woman and child in Australia dead rather than lower that flag of ours.”

July 30 1926.

Edward James Holloway

Ed J. Holloway

Born Tasmania 1881, boot-maker, official of the Boot-makers’ Union, President and General Secretary of the Melbourne Trades Council, state and federal president of the ALP, Member of the House of Representatives for Flinders, 1929-1931 and Melbourne Ports 1931-1951, Assistant Minister for Industry and Assistant to the Treasurer 1931, Minister for Health and Social Securities 1941-3, Assistant Minister for Labour and National Service, June – September 1943, and Minister 1943-49, Acting Prime Minister and Acting Minister for External Affairs April-May 1949.

“I recall that when I attended a conference at Geneva, the principle of the White Australia Policy arose, and among the representatives of three or four nationalities, exception was taken to it. I was able to point out that the White Australia principle was a matter of national policy, and was not dictated by any hatred of coloured races. I declared that our Constitution differed from that of any other country in that that there was no colour bar. We did not make a black man walk on the side of the road or prevent him from riding in first class railway carriages if he desired to do so. There are, however, such inconsistencies as that which I have mentioned which spoil the general trend of the Australian Constitution.”

October 1936.

Senator De Largie

De Largie

Born 1859, died 1947. Miner, General President AWA, Senator for Western Australia 1901-1923.

“If I were to judge from the tenor of the speeches of some honourable senators this afternoon, I should come to the conclusion that the White Australia question was one of no great importance at the last election. It has been described as being a mere political cry, and those who favour it have been represented as rather hunting after popularity than anything else. While I do not presume to thoroughly understand the full purport of the question in relation to the eastern and southern states of the Commonwealth, I can with much more certainty speak of the feeling that existed at the time of the Federal elections in the western state. I can assure the Senate that there could have been no greater unanimity or enthusiasm on any subject than there was on the question of a white Australia. So much was that the case, that no candidate at the election could have had a possible hope of support unless he was thoroughly sound upon this particular question. There was no counterfeiting about the cry for a White Australia in the state I represent. Every Senator returned was elected upon that question. Therefore, as far as the western Senators are concerned, we have no doubt whatever about our position. Perhaps that has been brought about owing to the fact that in Western Australia we have had a taste of what the Asiatic curse is. We have also had in operation here legislation similar to that proposed in this Bill, and we have found out how very deficient it is. We have thus come to the conclusion that the proposals of the government are altogether inadequate. Senator Harney last night struck the keynote of the position as far as the educational test is concerned. We have tried it in Western Australia, and it has failed so miserably, that we are able to produce figures which although incomplete, prove our contention…

Perhaps this is an Imperial matter, but in my opinion, it is far more of an Australian question. So far as I have been able to understand it, the people at home, with the exception perhaps of the officials in Downing Street, do not care how the question is decided. It is a matter of indifference to them. They have not given much consideration to it. It has been said that the small population is presumptuous enough to desire to dictate to the Empire in this matter, and that we want the forty million people at home to play second fiddle. I am confident however, that not one million out of the forty million have ever allowed this matter to cross their minds. Downing Street may have given much thought to it, but there are millions of Britishers who have not. The question naturally arises whether we are to listen to the notions of Downing Street in this regard, or to consider the demand of the electors of Australia. Putting it in a nutshell, the question is whether Downing Street or the people of Australia are to be the governing power in this instance….

How would the very people to whom such frequent references has been made – the Japanese – act if they were in the same predicament as that in which we find ourselves? Would they have any doubt in the matter if they felt that they were in danger from an influx of foreigners to such an extent that their country would be swamped by these foreigners. Would not the law of self-preservation dictate the action they should take? Would they want to elicit the opinions of people on the other side of the world before determining how they should meet the case? It is absurd to say that because Mr. Chamberlain looks upon the colour test with displeasure, we should not carry out the wishes of the country. Whether it be an inconvenience to Chamberlain, or any other British statesman, I should be prepared to vote in accordance with the wishes of the country. I should like to read some expressions of opinion given in Western Australia upon this question. They are not very long, while they are very much to the point. They come from people whose opinions are well worthy of consideration in a matter of this kind. I shall first read a telegram from the President of the Australian Natives’ Association in Western Australia, which is one of the most powerful and influential friendly societies there.

The President was instructed to telegraph the opinions of the society, and he wired me as follows: ‘Australian Natives’ Association of Western Australia strongly supports total exclusion of Asiatics. Protests against consideration of anything but Australia interests. Let Australia’s loyalty be for Australia first’”

Senator Gregor McGregor

McGregor

Born Scotland 1848, died 1914. Store-keeper, labourer, trades union official, South Australian State President of the ALP 1893-99, Member of the Legislative Council for Southern District 1894-1901, Senator for South Australia 1901-1914. Leader in Senate 1901-1914.

“We shall talk about half a loaf when we cannot get the whole loaf. Those who are opposed altogether to legislation of this description are opposed to it for various reasons. I propose to indicate some of those reasons in my own way. Some say there is no necessity for this legislation. Others say - for the view has been given expression to here, if not directly, then inferentially – that it would not be advisable to exclude the people of some of these Asiatic countries, first, on account of the tropical character of some of our territory and secondly because some of them are British subjects….

I feel confident that the reason why Australia has not been invaded to a far greater extent by coloured aliens is that legislation has been passed in some of the states, and that very hazy ideas in their minds with respect to Australia put them in such a state of doubt that they can hardly tell which state they can come to and not be debarred from entering, and sooner than run any risk they stop away. I believe that several arguments have been used to show that there is no absolute necessity for aliens to be brought in to develop the resources of certain portions of the Commonwealth. All that is required is proper opportunity for the Australian people, and those who may come from countries more civilised than do coloured aliens, to carry out that development. Even with the very limited opportunities which aliens have had for coming to Australia and in spite of the restricted legislation in some of the states, a great evil exists…

Did not the honourable Senator use the term ‘parrot cry’ in a more extended sense than that? He said, in the words of a great man who is gone, that it is the virtues and not the vices of these races that we have to fear. Even against the authority of Senator MacFarlane and Mr. Gladstone, I deny that it is their virtues that we fear. We are told that it is their frugality, industry, and energy that we fear. Is it thrift to live on rice, and almost the most degrading offal that our animals live on, when nature has provided us with a world that will give us everything of the best.? Do honourable Senators call it energy or industry for aliens to work almost all the night and the greater portion of the day for the purpose of getting together this heap of offal, and that they may live on it? Are the aliens to be compared with the Australian people, who desire to get everything they possibly can from the land they belong to, to live in the best and most civilised manner that nature will allow, and to do all this in reasonable hours, to have sufficient time for recreation, the cultivation of their intelligence.”

November 15 1901.

John West

John West

Born 1851, died 1931. Plumber, official Master Plumbers’ Association, delegate to trades council, Member of the House of Representatives for East Sydney 1910-1931.

“That is a small matter compared with the maintenance of our White Australia Policy. I remember that Sir Henry Parkes, as Premier of New South Wales, placed a poll tax of one hundred pounds on Chinese, there was quite a turmoil on Circular Quay, numbers of men, each armed with a lump of wood, being prepared to meet the immigrants. The Chinese were on the ships in the harbours, and I asked Sir Henry whether he intended to prevent our stopping a Asiatic races from entering this country of ours - whether he would like his daughter to bring home to tea on a Sunday one of the Chinese as her young man. Would you like a lascar for your son-in-law, I asked. He replied, Jack, I certainly would not. Then, said I, you should not do anything that would make it possible for any girl to put her father in that relation. That would be the result of any departure from our White Australia Policy. Either the white population would be driven out of our northern areas or they would be dragged down to the level of the coloured and Asiatic races. Any attempt in this direction must be sternly checked. The authority of state governments must give way to the will of the national parliament.”

August 1924.

Frank Brennan

Frank Brennan

Born Victoria 1880, died 1950. Member of the House of Representatives for Batman, 1911-1931, 1934-1949, Attorney-General 1929-1932.

“That, according to honourable members opposite, is the danger which confronts. In the discussion of the Development And Migration Bill, the argument was advanced again and again that unless we populated this country some other country would challenge our right to hold it. We have been told on more than one occasion that nations which have overcrowded populations may challenge by force of arms our right to hold this country. The honourable Member for Richmond, Mr. Green, says that we will fight for it. I ask him if he really means that we shall fight for Australia, or hang on to the apron strings of the mother country…

Does the honourable member accept the popular view of his side that our fight will be futile and hopeless if we stand alone?…

What right have we to talk about a White Australia if we are not prepared to back up our claim by our own strength? That brings me to the point that, if we cannot defend our policy of a White Australia, upon what ground can we expect Great Britain to support that policy for us?…

I suggest that by no right – moral, international or legal – can we call upon Great Britain to unsheath the sword in defence of the policy of a White Australia, without making her appear utterly ridiculous – and worse still, odious – in the eyes of the nations of the world. Does the honourable member recognise what are the constitute parts of the British Empire? Does he know that hundreds of millions of coloured people go to the making up of that Empire? The white people in our Empire are comparatively insignificant in number compared with the coloured races. According to the arguments of honourable members opposite, there is a possibility of our being attacked by a nation whose population is over-crowded, because we are selfishly holding for a handful of people a vast, unused territory of potential wealth. If we are attacked upon that ground we shall be called upon to defend an immoral position, and Great Britain’s support of such a position would be ten times more immoral and untenable….

Therefore, I come to two conclusions – that if the policy of a White Australia is challenged by force of arms we shall be absolutely thrown upon our own resources, and that from the military point of view it would be impracticable to attempt to defend ourselves….

That we cannot look to Britain to defend a White Australia….

What has become of the strategy of the German Empire, the greatest military nation in the world? She has thrown it all adrift. Germany is said to have lost the war. In God’s name, in what way has she lost the war any more than Great Britain or France has lost it? Certain it is that we have all lost by the war, and even the light of international jealousy fails to show what country was more particularly to blame than another for the curse that came upon us…

We all lost the war, unmistakably, no country gained by it, or gained anything but death, devastation, and debt. Let us have no misunderstanding about the real facts.”

July 30 1926

Senator Albert Hoare

Senator Hoare

Born South Australia 1880. Labourer and storeman. Trades Union official, Senator for South Australia 1923-1935.

“Senator Millen expressed the fear that the White Australia Policy was in danger. I go further and say that the whole of the white races of the world are in danger. Their position is such that it was folly on their part to war with each other a few years ago. The coloured races must have viewed with much complacency the trend of events in Europe which gave rise to the war that shattered western civilisation. In all probability there is now approaching a war even greater than was the last – a war between the coloured and the white races of the world. Therefore, the white races should come to a common understanding, and present a united front to the potential enemies. We say that the policy of a White Australia is worth defending and we are prepared to defend it…

In speaking thus of a White Australia, I am well within my rights as a member of the Labor Party. I repeat that the White Australia Policy is worth defending, and that we are prepared to defend it.”

August 13 1924.

Senator Ogden

Born Victoria 1868, died 1932. Miner, President AWA 1904. Member of the House of Representatives for Zeehan 1906-1909, for Darwin 1909-1922. Treasurer October 1912. Chief Secretary and Minister for Mines and Labour 1914-1916, Senator for Tasmania 1923-1932.

“I believe in implicitly in the principle of a White Australia, but I do not think it can be maintained simply by waving a sheet of paper containing the dictation test. If we want to preserve it, and I am sure we all do, we shall have to provide means for maintaining it, by force, if necessary. We cannot keep out the people of the Japanese race by means of a dictation test, and we do not want them to come into competition with Australian workers. There would be a public outcry if Parliament removed the present embargo against the introduction of Asiatic labour. What would happen if we cast adrift our defence policy and severed our connection with Great Britain? I do not say that the Japanese would attempt to come here by force of arms, but if we were no party to the scheme of empire-protection, they would certainly insist on the removal of certain provisions in our Immigration Act, and would then invade Australia by the process of peaceful penetration.”

1924

Thomas Glassey

Tom Glassey

First Labour member of the Queensland Parliament and first leader of the Queensland Labour Party in the 1890’s. Elected Senator for Queensland in the first Commonwealth Parliament.

The True Aim Of The Labour Party 1893. (Speech To North Brisbane Electors, 21 April 1893, The Worker 29 April 1893.)

“The Labour Party has been described as the lawless party, disturbers of the peace, and destroyers of the sugar industry. They had been credited with a desire to acquire other people’s property and so forth. They had on various occasions and in various parts of the country been obliged to contradict these wild, outrageous, and nonsensical statements made by certain interested parties to destroy the influence of the party to which he belonged. That party did not want to destroy the sugar industry. They wishes, if possible, to place the sugar industry on a more satisfactory basis than it was at present, and he believed that that could be done in a reasonable and equitable manner, and that, too, by the employment of white labour and white labour alone.

The charge that the Labour Party wanted to get hold of other people’s property was absolutely false. What the Labour Party had aimed, and would aim, to do, was to prevent as far as possible the people’s property, from being unjustly confiscated by those who had been hitherto, and now were, in power. The Labour Party wished to protect the girl behind the counter and in the shop-room from being sweated. They wished to protect the child who was unable to protect itself from being robbed of its education in consequence of the impoverishment of its parents. The Labour Party aimed at elevating and not injuring, and at establishing the right to oppose – as far as in them lay – wrong.”

1893.

“Honourable Senators have correctly said that this in a most important measure. I think it is one of the most important measures the Federal Parliament has yet had to consider, or that the Federal Parliament is likely to have to consider, and it deserves all the care and attention which the Senate has given and no doubt will give it. The subject has been a thorny and debateable one in my own state for many years, and I have myself taken a most pronounced and unequivocal upon it. Not merely for political reasons, nut, I trust, higher and nobler reasons than those suggested by Senator Downer and others. I think one Honourable Senator characterised the demand for a White Australia as a mere parrot-cry, and if Senator Downer did not characterise it in the same language, he said that it was merely platform business for political reasons. I am sure that those Honourable Senators, if they give the matter more attention and thought, will find that there are higher and more important reasons behind it. The leader of the Senate in the excellent and lucid speech which he delivered in introducing the Bill, with the calmness, deliberation, and clearness which characterise his utterance, said, I think truly, that Australia has determined for all time that it shall be preserved for the white race. It is with no view of flattering the Honourable and learned Senator, because I am sure I shall not be accused of pandering to anyone, that I say his utterance was the utterance of a statesman and well-worthy of the high exalted position which he occupies. In saying that, I am sure I echo the sentiments of many Honourable Senators, as well as myself, if I do not echo the sentiments of an overwhelming number of the people of Australia. Australia, for all time, is determined that it shall be preserved for the white race, and I am sure that no Honourable Senator, who has emphasised those remarks wishes in the slightest degree to offer any insult to, or to wound the susceptibilities of the people of any nation, or any colour on the planet. I am sure that the sentiment finds an echo in the hearts of the people of Australia, and that it will remain not merely for today, but when it comes to be read in history, will be enthusiastically received by millions yet unborn, or who do as yet inhabit this continent. I think it is a splendid sentiment uttered in fine and emphatic language. Might I suggest, in passing, that if American statesmen in the past, prior to the founding of that great commonwealth could have foreseen the disasters likely to overtake their great country in the years then to come, and had taken the precautions which the people of Australia are taking, the dire calamity which overtook that great country some years ago would never have taken place. It is not a substantial argument to advance that because a mere handful of coloured people are here, it is not worth our while to take all this bother and trouble, and to take the stand we are taking. What is it for? For the establishment and vindication of a great principle. The people enunciated with such clearness and in such magnificent language as was given utterance to by the vice-president of the Executive Council – that this continent shall be the home preserved for a White Australian people for all time. I well remember, as I am sure other Honourable Senators do, that great calamity and catastrophe which overtook the great American Republic a way back in the Sixties. I remember it as well as yesterday. I followed the fortunes of that war, and the fortunes of those who advocated for many years persistently, and sometimes with great injury to themselves, the abolition of that iniquitous and villainous system called slavery, in the United States of America. I followed the fortunes of those people with great interest, and I followed every step of that great war with the utmost sympathy for the final victory of the North American arms, which was to abolish slavery once and forever in that country…..

There is no desire to give offence to the people of India and Ceylon, or to a friendly power like Japan. It has been alleged that the people of Japan would adopt a similar policy, and keep out British people. We could have no cause for complaint if they did. I should regret their action, but I should not complain of it. I speak with every possible respect for that young and rising nation. Members of parliament ought always to speak with a feeling of responsibility for their utterances. The Japanese are a proud and susceptible people who have made marvellous progress during the last thirty or forty years.”

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates. November 14 1901.

Andrew Dawson.

Andrew Dawson

Andrew Dawson has the unique position of having been the Premier of the first Labour government in the world. It could have scarcely have been called a government since it lasted only from December 1 – 7 1899. It was defeated on the floor of the House on its first day in the Parliament. Born of poor parents in Rockhampton in July 1863, he soon afterwards shifted with them to Brisbane. After the death of his parents he stayed in an orphanage until he was 9 years. He was taken by an uncle to Gympie where he attended school until 12 years. He then left for Charters Towers and worked in the gold mines, becoming head amalgamator at one of the principal batteries at only 19 years. In 1885, he went to the Kimberleys but lack of success brought him back to Queensland in 1887. In this period of significant growth of unskilled and semi-skilled unions, he became president of the local Miners’ Union and successively chairman of the 1891 strike-committee and vice-president of the Queensland Provisional Council of the Australian Labour Federation. At the time he was associated with the formation of the Charters Towers Republican Association. Like so many unionists who were keenly interested in politics and in the formation of a political Labour Party. He used the press as a forum, writing in the Charters Towers Northern Miner and in 1893 becoming the first editor of the Charters Towers Eagle. He entered politics in 1893 and was elected for the two-member electorate of Charters Towers. The area about that town and the Gulf proved in this election to be strongly pro-Labour, returning seven out of the party’s sixteen members. In Parliament, Dawson spoke mainly on matters affecting mining and railways. He also took a keen interest in the Kanaka problem of Queensland. He was returned with increased majorities in 1896 and 1899 and when Glassey announced in 1899 that he would not stand for re-election as leader if he was to be opposed, Dawson was nominated and elected leader by nineteen votes to four.

Dawson had been a firm believer in Federation which he had supported in parliament Consequently, he resigned for the state House and stood for the Commonwealth Senate, heading the poll in Queensland. As the only ex-Premier of the new Federal Parliamentary Labour Party, he chaired the first meeting of that party in Melbourne which subsequently elected John C. Watson as its leader. In Watson’s first Labour government in 1904, Dawson was given the Defence portfolio.

He retired from politics and died destitute in July 1910.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates December 9 1905.

“I will say at the outset that, while I am generally in agreement with my Honourable friend, Senator Givens, who has just resumed his seat and with others who have addressed themselves to the question of the desirability of the strictly enforcing the White Australia Policy, and while I would assist in every possible way to that end, at the same time I confess that I am absolutely unable to follow them when they declare their intention to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that Senator Pearce’s position is the right one and just here I should like to say that I believe that every member of the party to which I belong agrees…..

The only reason given for the amendment is that a particular nation, which has proved its power on the water and in the field, is particularly sensitive and in order not to offend its pride it is desirable not to refer to it as Asiatic. Senator Playford and those who support him – I refer particularly to Senator Best, have not furnished us with a tittle of evidence, or quoted any authority – to show that the test in a European language has worked any evil. No attempt has been made to prove that the proposed amendment will strengthen the White Australia Policy. There is only the one excuse, which I regard as, to a large extent, a pretence, that the Japanese people are extremely sensitive about being regarded as Asiatics, and that, therefore, it is necessary it is necessary to alter a satisfactory law in order in order to meet their views. We have not been told that this is done at the request of the Japanese nation, as expressed in any official communication. As a matter of fact, a challenge to show that any such communication has reached Australia has reached Australia has not been responded to. What is the reason for the break-neck rush with this measure at the tale end of the session? One is led to believe that there is some justification for the suspicion of Senator De Largie, that there is more in this matter than appears on the surface. Up to the present, the sensitivity of the Japanese Consul is about the only fact which has been laid before us in support of the amendment, but, apparently, that Consul did not speak on behalf of his government, or on behalf of the people of Japan, through his government. If we are to take the touchy nature of Japanese into consideration, what about the Chinese or the Indians, the latter of whom belong to the British Empire? Honourable Senators have said that the variation of the test means practically nothing, indeed, one Honourable Senator described it as a farce, and the Minister declared that it was a subterfuge, and perhaps both are correct. The intention may be, as indicated by the Minister, but at the same time there is a very great danger in the amendment. Is it intended by the amendment that some other language, than an European, is to be used as a test?…..

The leader of the government says that the intention is to only to add some other Asiatic language to the European language – then what is the use of the amendment? If the amendment is not to be acted upon, it might as well be put into the waste-paper basket, which is perhaps, the best place for it, although I have no particular grudge against the basket. The wording of the clause conveys the idea that it is an intention to prescribe languages other than those provided for in the principal Act, and before we proceed any further, it is the plain duty of the government, and if they have any particular language in their mind, to let us know what that language is….

The clause, as presented to us, lends a very strong colour to the idea that this amendment is a mere pretence. If the Japanese language is contemplated, I should have a very strong objection. Some people may elevate Japan to a high pedestal of civilisation, and place it on an equal footing with European powers, but I, for one, do not. Personally, I view the influx of Japanese with a great deal more alarm than I should the influx of three times the number of Chinese. It is very difficult to collect information of a satisfactory character as to the relative merits or demerits of Chinamen or Japanese. I have travelled from Thursday Island in a Chinese boat, the white officers of which all protested that Chinamen are the most trustworthy and reliable men possible, but that a Japanese cannot be trusted out of sight. On the other hand, the white officers on a Japanese boat gave a certificate of character to the Japanese with which nobody would quarrel, but declared that a Chinaman cannot be trusted as far as he can be thrown by his pig-tail……

Regulations are the most deceptive things imaginable, and are mostly a dead-letter. Frequently when they are brought into active operation, they are used for purposes for which they were not originally intended. Mention has been made of the introduction of Japanese into Queensland under certain regulations and it is true that Japanese labourers were admitted to work on the sugar plantations. There was a regulation providing that they had to be under engagement for three years, and also an agreement that the Japanese government should send out an inspector or overseer, who would be responsible for their return to their country. The Japanese came, but they remained in Queensland, and absolutely flooded one of best industries, namely pearl-shelling, which is still in their hands at Thursday Island and thereabouts. Numbers of white men were previously doing very well in the industry, but the last time I was at Thursday Island the only white man employed in any way in connection with the business was an artisan who supervised the repairing of the boats by Japanese. So much for regulations and agreements, the statement that Japanese workmen do not desire to come to Australia is all humbug. There would be no need for an Immigration Act at all, if it were not for the fear that Japanese would come here and work for less wages and under worse conditions than do Chinamen. We have no desire to see them here. They do not hold our ideas of civilisation or morality, of which is a living wage, or a fair standard of comfort. There is absolutely no possibility of any assimilation between either the Chinese or the Japanese and ourselves. We have declared our determination to have a White Australia. We have a policy imprinted in concrete – on our statute book, and I see no reason why it should be departed from at the invitation of this or any other government….

There is this difference in the method of destruction, in my opinion, the result of carrying the amendment moves by Senator Givens will be to destroy the whole Bill, and there is a lot of merit in this measure. If the other method is adopted, we shall destroy only a provision which is a danger to our White Australia Policy, and will still be able to take advantage of what is meritorious in the Bill. Senator Drake took a responsible part in the establishment of the White Australia Policy. He should be proud of it, and should be prepared to do all he can to see that it is not weakened in the slightest degree. There are certain limits beyond which they are not permitted to go by the imperial authorities. Memories have been revived and I can remember very well when an amendment in the very words now proposed by Senator Givens was submitted in this Chamber and we supported it. Every amendment of the kind was also cheerfully supported by some Honourable Senators then in Opposition. Not because they were in favour of a White Australia, but in order to kill the Bill….

I do not think that it is applicable to Senator Clemons, because from its inception, I believe the Honourable and learned Senator said that he was in favour a White Australia Policy. But I know that Honourable Senators on the Opposition side, and on this side, assisted members of the Labour Party to carry those amendments. We were in this ridiculous position that sometimes the government won by the aid of the votes of the Opposition Senators, and sometimes we won by the aid of the same votes until I believe that the word ‘that’ was about the only word left in the clause and ultimately we decided that the test should be in ‘an European language’.”

1905.

Matthew Reid

Matthew Reid

Leader of the Queensland Parliamentary Labour Party.

“I do not think we shall ever go to war with Japan on the question of White Australia. When we do go to war with Japan, other things besides the White Australia Policy will be at issue.”

1905.

Thomas Ryan

Thomas Ryan

Elected to the Legislative Assembly of Queensland for ‘Barcoo’, General Election 1909, holding this seat until October 1919. Premier, Attorney-General, Chief Secretary, Secretary for Mines and Vice-President of the Executive Council from June 1915 – October 1919. Was a leading opponent of Conscription during World War One.  Threatened with gaol by William Morris Hughes for his stance on Conscription. Ryan has the distinction of avoiding wartime censorship of a speech by delivering the speech under privilege in parliament; Hughes ordered police to seize the Hansard record, creating a massive public outcry and thereby swinging more votes to the anti-Conscription camp in 1916. Elected to the House of Representatives for West Sydney in 1919. Member of Royal Commission On Cockatoo Island Dockyard 1921. He was born in Victoria in 1876; died at Barcaldine, Queensland, August 1 1921.

T.J. Ryan’s Election Speech At Barcaldine, 1915: A Review.

“In every state we have the relics of liberalism’s monumental indifference to the national welfare and its profound contempt for the genius of administration is evidenced by the startling fact that until recently defence was unthought of and as I speak, our railway system in each state recklessly built on different and varying gauges stand as a pathetic testimony to the parochial spirit and the purblind statesmanship of its revered leaders. Such necessary works as trans-continental railways were left unconsidered and enterprises like the Commonwealth Bank and note-issue were not proceeded with for the very obvious reason that their success would interfere with the profits of the friends of liberalism. The ideal of a White Australia was not respected, and liberal science and liberal culture could only find expression in the raising and spending of huge loan monies which were very often expended wastefully and in the end left to posterity to redeem.” 1915.

T.J.Ryan was the Australian delegate to the International Socialist Conference in Amsterdam. When the vote was taken on the issue of the League Of Nations’ imposing universal free trade and unrestricted immigration, Ryan dissented from the other delegates and insisted on his dissent being recorded. Whereas in Australia an audience would have appreciated his references to White Australia, in Europe, thirteen thousand miles from Australia’s principal fear, Japan, people were “not aware that we confronted with the problem of coloured labour”. “If the resolution were adopted we would have in Australia to compete on unfair terms with the poorly paid Japanese labourer and with nations whose industrial requirements and conditions are essentially different to those of our nation.”

To explain more exactly what he meant to the members of this group, impelled by a belief in the ‘brotherhood of man’, to attend such a conference, he went beyond his normal enunciation of the sanctity of White Australia concluding “perhaps you have not been confronted with the problem of the coloured races, but if coloured labour is freely admitted to Australia, it will lead to the deterioration of the race and results will follow which would not be an advantage to labour anywhere.”

Edward J. Theodore.

Ed Theodore

Sometimes nick-named ‘Red Ted’ Theodore, he served as Premier of Queensland, after Ryan. He served as Federal Treasurer in the Scullin government, losing office in 1931. He is remembered for many things, but his northern Australia development scheme was most remarkable. Theodore was particularly worried about maintaining the White Australia Policy. A proposal by the conservative Premier of South Australia, Mr. Barwell, to bring in “Asiatics” into the Northern Territory was attacked by Theodore as being both “dangerous” and “unpatriotic”.

Theodore’s radical idea included the ceding of the Northern Territory to Queensland or its union with the northern portion of Queensland to form a separate state. On February 2 1922, Theodore spoke of the “betrayal” of the Burnett Land Scheme. He said that he had been told at the Premier’s Conference that Queensland had been “humbugged”. It was essentially a Theodore-Hughes issue and Billy Hughes had sabotaged the Scheme. When H.S. Gullett, Commonwealth Superintendent of Immigration, resigned in February 1922, he revealed that Hughes had not even familiarised himself with the detailed plans that Theodore and others had drawn up. This Scheme of Land Settlement was to have been the basis of Theodore’s long-term solution to the problem of Queensland’s unemployment.

He had indicated his willingness to resign the premiership of Queensland and serve as commissioner of the proposed new State.

Thwarted in regard to his wider development plans, Theodore turned to the organisation of agriculture within Queensland.

The plan to develop the Northern Territory and northern-western Queensland suffered a further setback when in November 1922, it was announced that the Federal Government was not prepared towards railway access.  It was clear that the recommendations of the Public Works’ Committee had not been presented to the Federal Parliament until the closing days of the parliamentary-session. Theodore never relinquished his interest in northern development. When turning the first sod of the Kyogle-South Brisbane Railway on January 17 1925, he spoke of a scheme he had devised for railways and ports in the Northern Territory and the northern part of Western Australia. He envisaged a railway from Derby in Western Australia to Camooweal in Queensland, linking with the Northern Territory line at Newcastle Waters. Branch lines were to be built from Camooweal to Burketown and Anthony’s Lagoon and from Victoria Downs to the mouth of the Victoria River with a branch to Wyndham. Ports were to be developed at Derby, Wyndham, and the mouths of the Victoria and Macarthur rivers. A new State was planned north of 20 degrees south with a provisional government to administer it for a period of five years. The undertaking was to be financed by a loan of twenty million pounds from the Federal Government and it would safeguard the White Australia Policy.

The campaign literature issued by Theodore for the 1928 Federal Elections contained numerous references to the failure to develop the Northern Territory, and it was unfortunate for northern Australia, that his brief period in Federal politics coincided with the economic depression. Theodore was particularly interested in bringing large numbers of southern European immigrants to populate this new state.

During the anti-conscription campaign against Hughes, the speeches made by T.J. Ryan and his deputy, Theodore, were censored at the instigation of Prime Minister Hughes. The two ministers read the offending passages in the Queensland Parliament. Theodore had the banned pieces emphasised in bold type in Hansard. Hughes attempted to have Hansard copies seized by the new Commonwealth Police. After a vigorous campaign, Hughes backed down. Hughes tactics encouraged the high Queensland ‘no vote’ to conscription.

‘White Settlement In The Tropics’, Brisbane Courier, 1928.

“About four hundred thousand square miles of occupied territory would be embraced in this State, which would be suitable for the raising of cattle and sheep, dairying, cotton growing and general agriculture. This new state would be equal to northern Queensland in its potentialities and would ultimately support millions of people. In this way the area would become a well-developed, well-populated, progressive and prosperous state. That would be the surest means of safe-guarding the White Australia Policy. It would take a great load off the back of the Commonwealth Government regarding the development of the Northern Territory.”

1928.

James .S.T. McGowan

J McGowan

First Labor Premier of New South Wales.

“Australia will be what Australians want it, white, pure and industrially good.”

1908.

John Storey

John Storey

Labor Premier of New South Wales, 1920. After the Labor Premier of New South Wales, William Holman, sided with William Morris Hughes over conscription, thus splitting the New South Wales Labor Party, John Storey, a firm anti-conscriptionist, was elected as the new leader of the state party. He led the party to a massive election victory in 1920 which resulted in Holman losing his seat, the only New South Wales Premier in history, to do so.

In March 1919, John Storey said:

“We stand for the cultivation of an Australian sentiment based upon the maintenance of racial purity and the development in Australia of an enlightened and self-reliant community, the securing of monopolies and the extension of the industrial and economic functions of the state and municipality.”

1919.

Jack Lang.

Jack Lang

Born 1876, died 1975. He was Premier of New South Wales 1925-7 and 1930-1932, when dismissed from office by Sir Philip Game, because of his stand taken against the payment of interest on loans to foreign bankers, the parasites who called for a reduction in the living standards of the ordinary people. Lang was Henry Lawson’s brother-in-law, and his writings and speeches express a fervent popular nationalism. Some of the achievements of the Lang government were: widows’ pensions, workers’ compensation, child endowment, controls over the ability of gas companies to increase the price of gas, increase safety regulations for coal mines, the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the establishment of New South Wales state lotteries, the revenue which funded the Public Hospital system, rental assistance for low-income earners. It can also be argued that Lang was one of the first ‘green’ politicians. He brought in legislation which includes penalties for shops which discharged oil into harbours, as well as legislation for the protection of native flora. It can be said that Lang and his ally Eddie Ward were the first politicians to question globalisation. Both were opposed to the Bretton Woods Agreement and the Australian economy being tied into the emerging global economy after 1945.

He used his newspaper, The Century, in the early 1970’s, to warn against the destruction of the White Australia Policy.

Extract From Jack Lang’s autobiography, I Remember, 1956.

“White Australia must not be regarded as a mere political shibboleth. It was Australia’s Magna Carta. Without that policy, this country would have been lost long ere this. It would have been engulfed in an Asian tidal wave. There would have been no need for the Japanese to have invade this country. We would have been swallowed up by the rolling advance of a horde of coloured people, anxious to escape the privations of their own countries and prepared to impose their own standards on this country….

It is necessary only to examine the racial composition of present-day Fiji, where the Hindus have elbowed the natives out of the picture, to visualise what could have happened in this country had the White Australia Policy not been fought for doggedly at the end of the nineteenth century. We were then fighting for our national survival. Had we weakened, the floodgates would have opened and the natural increase of population according to Asian standards would have done the rest. It would then have been too late, this country would have been a push-over for the Asiatics….

Those who advocate admission of coloured labour quotas invariably ignore the economic reasons responsible for the White Australia Policy. While they had their origin in the anxiety of Australian workers to maintain their standards of living, the White Australia Policy has more than justified itself on national security grounds. If this country had admitted Japanese even to the same degree that Honolulu admitted Japanese, what would our position have been in 1942? Would it be safe to admit unlimited numbers of Indonesians, Hindus, or Chinese today?…

Had we listened to the do-gooders and the crusaders for international brotherhood and racial equality, the barriers would have come down long-ago. Our living standards would have been destroyed. We have had intermarriages of races, half-castes and quarter-castes with all the social dilemmas that it invariably follow such racial mixtures. We would have had a black, brown and brindle streak right through every strata of our society. Instead we risked the charge that we were drawing the colour line. We decided to keep this country as a citadel of the white peoples. Australia is still White Australia thanks to those who battled against those who wanted to exploit coloured labour for their own ends. We must keep it that way.”

Commonwealth Parliament Hansard, March 25 1947.

“The pivot of our foreign policy is a White Australia Policy. Until the war we never regarded ourselves in Australia as having a foreign policy. White Australia seemed to be just an article of faith that stood alone. Now it seems for the first time in our history we have a real foreign policy and that for the first time in our history we have a government which is seriously thinking of tampering with the White Australia Policy. Some Ministers are prepared to say that the government will stand firmly to our article of faith, but our foreign policy has always been a murky, secretive sort of thing, and Ministers’ speeches have not always been enlightening. Behind the Ministry is an army of administrators. Where once we had a handful of officials in a key office, we now have a large foreign office filled with diplomats, professors and similar people, and with them there I fear that our White Australia Policy is doomed. The dominant and learned men hold in common with this government the general atmosphere of defeatism that pervades it and say that our White Australia Policy cannot be maintained, anyway, and that we may as well make a gesture of it. It is not a gesture, White Australia is the most vital plank our national policy. It is because of a White Australia that our fertile semi-tropical lands are the most heavily-populated. Drop the White Australia Policy and what becomes of our sugar industry, our tropical fruits industry and similar industries in Australia? Are we to employ coolie labour to work the farms? If we do, we shall have in Australia our problem of displaced persons. We shall have our Australians displaced from their own farms. If not coolie labour, then perhaps we shall meet the situation be removing tariff barriers against the products of the coolie labour of neighbouring countries.

Official propagandists say that there is no need for anything like that. In their opinion, the trouble is that our White Australia Policy is too stark and that it is insulting. They say that we should allow a token immigration from neighbouring countries. Indeed that statement is made over and over again. The official propagandists contend that the White Australia Policy is offensive. This token immigration is called a ‘quota system’ and the official propagandists urge ‘just a little quota’. If the government really thinks that it can establish this quota, it is pulling its own leg. It is certainly not pulling anyone else’s leg. Our White Australia Policy is vital not only from an economic standpoint. That Policy was originally implemented in order to build up and maintain a high standard of living in Australia.

But that Policy is more important today from the standpoint of security. Until now, we have benefited very greatly from our geographical position. Our isolation has been our salvation. But with the centre of affairs moving to the Pacific, our geographical position will no longer assist our security. Instead of being our salvation, it exposes us more seriously to trouble and difficulty. In Pacific affairs, geography places Australia in a position not unlike that which Belgium occupies in European affairs. The use and support of Australia is vital to any nation or any group of nations expanding into the Pacific. Australia is of the most vital importance to any nation or group of nations that sets out to curb any expansion in the Pacific. Nature gives us a far better chance of looking after ourselves than Belgium has in Europe. But we should be frittering away that opportunity if we were to allow this country to be over-run with permanent fifth-columnists. Our position would be hopeless. If we had large groups of people who were interested only in the fortunes of contending countries and who cared nothing at all about Australia or its welfare. Complaints about the lack of interest in foreign affairs are futile when the people of Australia see the parliament avoiding the one question which is of paramount importance to them. The nation would be greatly heartened if it could get from the government a forthright guarantee that, in all circumstances, it will not tolerate any departure from the White Australia Policy as we know it today. Whenever the opportunity occurs, the government should let the world know that that is its vital point in foreign policy, and it should never run away from it. It should notify the world of it and on every possible occasion, assert that vital point of our Australian policy.”

1947.

John Watson

John Watson

John Christian Watson was the first leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labour Party and became the first Labour Prime Minister of Australia. John Watson was born Valparaiso, Chile, on the 9th of April 1867. The family moved to New Zealand and settled in the South Island in a small town called, Cave Valley. At the age of nineteen, Watson arrived in Sydney.

A printer by trade, he joined the Typographical Union. Watson rose rapidly through the union and was chosen to represent it on the Trades and Labour Council. At the age of twenty-three, Watson was elected President of the Sydney Trades and Labour Council. In 1894, Watson stood for, and was elected, for the seat of Young in New South Wales. During the 1890's, Watson was Chairman of the Anti-Chinese League

Watson was a firm believer in Federation and stood for, and won, the seat of Bland in the Federal Election of 1901 and subsequently for South Sydney in 1906. Watson, on a resolution, proposed by Josiah Thomas, was chosen as the first leader of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Labour Party. Watson was only thirty-four.

The first years of Federation saw the establishment of three political parties in the Parliament: the Labour Party, the Protectionist Party and the reactionary Free Trade Party. Watson was the ideal leader for Labour at this time, for he was a skilled negotiator and as Labour sat on the cross-benches, it provided flexible support to the Protectionist Party in return for concessions to Labour policy.

Watson was a great admirer of Alfred Deakin. On April 23rd 1904, Watson was invited to form the first national Labour government in the world. However, without a majority in either House, Watson's government found it difficult to be really effective. Watson resigned as Prime Minister on August 17th when Labour lost an amendment in the Federal parliament. The leader of the Free Trade Party, George Reid, became Prime Minister. Watson immediately re-opened negotiations with Alfred Deakin's Protectionist Party on the possibility of a formal alliance, but elements in that party got cold feet and his plan came to nothing.

Watson encouraged Deakin to move against Reid and assured him of Labour support in the Parliament. In July 1905, Deakin became Prime Minister with Labour support. Watson remained as Labour leader until October 1907 when he resigned due to ill-health. He remained in Parliament until 1910.

In 1916, during the Conscription campaign, Watson sided with the conscriptionists and was expelled from the Labour Party; however, his expulsion left none of the bitterness that was directed towards Hughes. Watson took no further interest in politics after his expulsion. But Labour retained a soft-spot for its first Prime Minister.

On Watson's death in 1941, John Curtin interrupted a caucus meeting and paid him deep respect.

“While it may be said that the feeling in this Chamber, even in this parliament, is so decided upon this matter that debate is unnecessary, yet it must be recognised that the step we are taking, although it is one upon which the people are unanimous, is in itself so important and so likely to lead at least to diplomatic negotiations with the older land, that it is due to the statesmen of the old country at least, that our reasons should be stated clearly, and that none of them should be overlooked in regard to the decision which we hope this parliament will arrive at. In view of that, I feel it is not necessary to apologise for supplementing, to some extent, the reasons put forward by the acting leader of the Opposition. As far as I am concerned, the objection I have to the mixing of these coloured people with the white people of Australia – although I admit it is to a large extent tinged with considerations of an industrial nature - lies in the main in the possibility and probability of racial contamination. I think we should gauge this matter, not alone by the abstract possibilities of the case, but by those considerations which appeal to our ordinary human weaknesses and prejudices. The question is whether we would desire that our sisters or our brothers should be married into any of these races to which object. If these people are not such as we can meet upon an equality, and not such as we can feel that it is no disgrace to intermarry with, and not such as we can expect to give us an infusion of blood that will tend to the raising of our standard of life, and to the improvement of the race, we should be foolish in the extreme if we did not exhaust every means of preventing them from coming to this land, which we have made our own. The racial aspect of the question, in my opinion, is the larger and more important one, but the industrial aspect also has to be considered….

There is a good deal in the contention put forward by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports in regard to the conversion of a number of people on the question of coloured immigration, because of the ramifications of the coloured races having extended of late to a much greater degree than was the case just a short time ago. We know that a few years ago businessmen – speaking by and large – looked upon the Chinese or other coloured undesirables as men who could be very well tolerated, because they took the place of labourers, of men who might be unreliable, or not quite so cheap, but when it was found out these Orientals possessed all the cunning and acumen necessary to fit them for conducting business affairs, and that their cheapness of living was carried into business matters as well as into ordinary labouring work, a marked alteration of opinion took place among businessmen, as far as the competition of the ‘heathen Chinee’ was concerned. At the present time in Sydney, we have whole streets which are practically given up to the businesses conducted by Chinese, Syrians, and other coloured aliens, and one cannot go today into more than five towns of any importance in the country districts of New South Wales without finding two, three, or perhaps half a dozen coloured store-keepers apparently doing a thriving business. In each and every avenue of life we find that the competition of the coloured races in insidiously creeping in, and if we are to maintain the standard of living we think necessary, in order that our people may be brought up with a degree of comfort, and with scholastic advantages which will conduce to the improvement and general advancement of the nation, some pause must be made in regard to the extension of the competition of the coloured aliens generally. Another aspect of the question is that in the northern parts of Australia, both on the east and on the west coast, we find that coloured people have gained more than a footing – they have practically secured control. In the northern parts of Western Australia the pearl fisheries are being run with coloured divers, and large numbers of these men – Malays, and other coloured aliens – are still being imported under contract to work as divers upon the pearl shelling grounds. I do not say that these men are allowed to overrun the State, but they have established themselves on the coast from which they work the fisheries…..”

Immigration Restriction Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 1901-1902, Vol. 4, First Parliament, First Session, pp. 4633 – 4634.

“We can stop them also from landing and making the shore a base of operations and the probability is that if they had no base from which to work, our white people could compete successfully against these coloured aliens. It is because these men can use the Australian shore as a base that they are able to work the pearl shelling beyond even the three-mile limit.

It would, at all events, prevent them from having a base in sufficient proximity to enable them to carry on the industry. Then on the Queensland coast, we find the Thursday Island is today a coloured settlement containing the most heterogeneous mixture of races it possible to conceive. We find too that the Japanese, Javanese, and various other coloured peoples, have been coming to the mainland of north Queensland in such numbers as would, I think, be most alarming to the minds of the people if they thoroughly understood how far this immigration is proceeding. The honourable member for Kennedy reminds me that since the affirmation by the Queensland government of the treaty which was arrived at between the British and Japanese governments, the number of Japanese in Queensland has increased within eighteen months or two years by over three thousand. These figures represent the immigration from one nation only, and do not include the Javanese, Malays, Manila-men, and the hundred and one different kinds of coloured men who go to make up the peculiar collection of races to be found in northern Queensland. Again, in the interior districts of the various States, we find Afghans and Hindoos employed, some as camel-drivers, and some as hawkers, and in each instance becoming a menace to the people in the sparsely populated districts. I do not suppose there is one man who has not read or experienced the trouble that these coloured hawkers give, especially where women or children are left – and necessarily left – unprotected, in the sparsely settled districts. It is common knowledge that these men are not only insolent, but actually threatening in their attitude towards women and children unless trade is done with them. This menace has been brought under the notice of the police and in some instances action has been successfully taken against these hawkers. All these things go to show the danger that confronts us, and the necessity for some definite action being taken. It is said by some of those who object to legislation of this sort that, while we may be justified in keeping our Chinamen, Japanese, Manila-men, Malays, or Assyrians, we have no justification for attempting to keep out of Australia the coloured British subjects of His Majesty, the King. I would direct the attention of people who think in that way to the fact that the British government today admit the power of this Commonwealth and of the people of Australia to differentiate between Indian British subjects and white British subjects, because they themselves differentiate between them. The British government do not think of putting the Hindoo or any other native of India upon the same plane as the people of the United Kingdom……”

Immigration Restriction Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 1901-1902, Vol. 4, First Parliament, First Session, p. 4634.

“I am convinced that in New South Wales – as to Tasmania, I do not know – that the Natal Act has not been efficient, and I am convinced further that the Bill proposed by the government if passed in its present shape, will not achieve its object. That is the whole objection I have to the Bill. I quite sympathise with the object of the measure, but I content that under its provisions it will be possible for a man to pass the examination and still be one of the most objectionable immigrants imaginable. We know that education does not eliminate the objectionable qualities of the baboo Hindoo…..

With the Oriental, as a rule, the more he is educated, the worse man he is likely to be from our point of view. The more educated the more cunning he becomes, and the more able, with his peculiar ideas of social and business morality, to cope with the people here. I do think there is any advantage in restricting the admission of coloured people to those who are educated, and, in any case, I contend that the number which will filter through under the government’s proposal will still be sufficiently large to constitute a great menace to the well-being of the people. Then, it is undesirable, to say the least of it, that we should attempt to place any bar in the way of white people, as is proposed by the Bill. We know that many uneducated white people are proved later to be valuable colonists. I am not now speaking of one particular race as against another, but we can at least say that, Great Britain has benefited to a very large degree in the past by the steady invasion by a portion of the more northerly European races, which has been going on for many centuries. That invasion has helped to build up a national character which is unique and which certainly is in no way inferior to that of any other European nation. With this experience behind us, it would be an error to pass any legislation which would place a bar in the way of immigration from other European nations, so long as that immigration does not get beyond reasonable bounds – so long as immense hordes do not come over….

While it continues merely in driblets of people of an enterprising character who wish to make a better living for themselves then there is a chance of their doing in their own countries it would be a mistake to interpose a barrier. We have room for every man who has a standard of living equal to our own, and whose general tone is in no way inferior to that of our own people. We have room for all such in Australia, and I for one would be slow indeed to put a bar in the way of their coming here, unless, of course, it is shown we cannot achieve our objective in any other way. But I contend that it is possible to achieve our object in another way. I believe that we can get past the provision of which I have given notice, and here I would like to say that I do not intend to press the latter part of the amendment, which has reference to Pacific Islanders, the government having given notice of their intention to deal with this in another Bill. My proposal is to insert a sub-clause ‘a’ in Clause Four, prohibiting the immigration of any person who is an aboriginal native of Asia or Africa and I believe that the Colonial Office will not be likely to reject a Bill containing such a provision. If the Colonial Office authorities are likely to reject such a Bill once, I do not think they are likely to reject it a second time. If, however, as some honourable members contend, the Bill is rejected a second time, then, as I said yesterday, the sooner we understand what our powers are, and how far this autonomous government with which we are supposed to have been endowed is a reality or how far it is a mockery, the better it will be for all.

Immigration Restriction Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 1901-1902, Vol. 4, First Parliament, First Session, p. 4636.

“I quite understand the attitude of the honourable and learned Member for Parkes, because he comes at the Bill from an utterly different standpoint from that of a large majority of this committee. Judging from his speech the other evening upon the main point at issue he was prepared to allow into Australia any citizen of the world, coloured or white, so long as he was able to pass the education test. But that attitude is not sympathised with by the majority of this committee, in fact the honourable and learned member is in a minority of one.

Just so, even the honourable member for Melbourne is not with the honourable and learned Member for Parkes, as to the admission of blacks, and he is, therefore, in a minority of one. From the point of view of the honourable and learned member, I can quite understand the desirability of making this test of the character he suggests, but so far as subterfuge and equivocation are concerned, of which he speaks, he deliberately with the assistance of his vote, committed himself to that course. A number of us thought that we should take the straight out course of declaring the desire, intention, and fixed determination of Australia on this point, but we were in a minority, owing to a set of circumstances it is not necessary to go into again. Those who went to make up the majority on that occasion are not at one in the intention or method of the honourable and learned Member for Parkes desires, and so so those members, and the majority of the committee as a whole, being desirous of making this measure as effective as it will in its essence allow, favour the course proposed under present circumstances by the government. That course is that, although the government have not seen fit to take the straight method – the straight method in our opinion, anyhow – those of us who desire to see coloured people kept out must have a weapon in the hands of the government of the day that will allow them to bar any person who may have qualified in one particular language but who nevertheless, is a most undesirable immigrant. If we make the alteration suggested by the honourable and learned Member for Parkes, it will be quite possible that the millions of coloured people about whom he spoke the other evening as being well educated and therefore able to pass a test in some European language, may gain entry. ’’

Immigration Restriction Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 1901-1902, Vol. 4, First Parliament, First Session, p. 5571.

“In 1897 we were assured that the Natal Act would be effective, and as one who voted at that period for a more complete measure, I was prepared to give it a little trial in view of all the difficulties, and especially in view of the fact that at that time, there was a probability of Federation being consummated within a short period, and of our being able – according to the statements of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister and other advocates of the Bill – to speak to the British government in such a manner to ensure what we desired. I was prepared then to let things go for a short time, but that is no reason why we should continue in that course for all time. With all respect to the Attorney-General, and having regard to the possibility of going further, I want to know how long we are to wait? We have already experimented for four years in the various States, and now it is proposed we shall make another experiment for another few years before a further Bill is demanded. Whilst with proper administration, this Bill might be made effective, I am afraid it will be extremely difficult to ensure that, on all occasions. I do not wish too imply that the Custom House officers or those charged with the detailed administration of the Bill are by no means dishonest persons, but I do say that occasionally it is found that some of them are dishonest, and where large interests are involved, or where people have a pecuniary interest in securing the admission of undesirable people, there is always a danger that the officer will not be so careful to put the test in the complete way that the Minister may desire. No such escape would be possible to the officer if the colour line were drawn, and I think the only clear and definite way of attaining our end is to declare that coloured aliens are unfit to mix with us, and that they shall be excluded. There are other provisions in this measure which to my mind mistake it of some value, and for that reason I do not propose to vote against the third reading. There is even a hope that another branch of the legislature may see that it is desirable to conform to the wish of what undoubtedly, in my mind, is a majority in this House, and a majority of the people of Australia. I do not think that in his Maitland speech the Prime Minister made any mention of the educational test, but a distinct promise was made to the people of Australia that the government would work for a ‘White Australia’. I do not remember the exact phraseology of the statement, but I remember that the impression borne in upon me was that the government were going to exclude Asiatics and other undesirable persons, and as far as people could glean from that speech, there was no other interpretation to be placed upon the intentions of the government than that they proposed to absolutely exclude coloured aliens. If Ministers led the people to believe that they were going to take steps to absolutely exclude these aliens from Australia, how is it that without making a fight and without firing a gun, they have, on the first invitation surrendered to the British government?

Immigration Restriction Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 1901-1902, Vol. 4, First Parliament, First Session, p. 5826.  

“The feeling that I entertain upon this question is even if it means the absolute annihilation of the sugar industry, I am prepared to vote for the abolition of the kanaka. In my appeal to the electors of my constituency I expressed that opinion in no uncertain terms. But I am convinced that there is no likelihood of the annihilation of the industry because of the action proposed to be taken. So far as the general question is concerned, I think that the people declared very distinctly upon it on that occasion. With regard to the statements put forward, this evening by the honourable member for Melbourne, and advanced a few days ago by the Premier of the State of Queensland.

The statements made by those two gentlemen were to the effect that if the people of the Queensland had known of the treatment likely to be metered to them in this respect, they would not have joined the Federation. I desire to say that the man who being a resident of Queensland and knowing the feeling of the southern States – which had been for years past against coloured labour – was not aware at the time of the Federal Elections that all the probabilities almost the certainties, were in favour of the abolition of kanaka labour, must have been politically and commercially, very simple indeed. It seems to me that those of the sugar planters of Queensland who voted for Federation were quite alive to the probability of the kanaka traffic being stopped, but they thought that the opening up of the large markets of the south would be worth more to them than the retention of the kanaka. I do not say that their votes alone were sufficient to carry the Constitution Bill, because we find that there are only some 2,600 white men engaged in growing sugar cane. Their votes would be an exceedingly large factor in the determination of the matter, but so far as they did cast a vote for Federation,  it seems to me that they had their eyes fully open to what was likely to occur. They reckoned on getting a market for their sugar, with Protection against the whole world and on being placed on a better position commercially than they were before. Now, having got the market secure, with the probability of some protection against imported sugar, they desire to keep both the market and the black labour. I have always shown a leaning towards the Protectionist side of the fiscal question, but if the planters do not get rid of black labour, they will get no protection from me. I have no ambition to pay more for the sugar that I consume, or to force others to do so, in order to keep in employment a number of degraded individuals such as these kanakas. These gentlemen in the north are rather overreaching themselves in the demands they are putting before the country at the present time.”

Mr. Isaacs: “Protection is to maintain the standard of white labour.”

“Precisely. That is the only justification from my point of view for the contention of the Protectionist. It does not seem that we can get these gentlemen to view the matter from anything like a reasonable standpoint. Another aspect of this question is its industrial bearing. While I believe that the white man is not likely to be employed under present conditions in the general field work of sugar growing – although I understand that a large proportion of Queensland is grown by white labour and white labour only – I would point out that it is useless to refer to the scarcity of white labour while the rates of pay now being offered, obtain…..

The whole question is one of wages and general conditions, and if white men are offered fairly good wages, and have a reasonable prospect of steady employment, there is no doubt that in the greater proportion of Queensland they will be found to do the work reliably and well. White men will go wherever they can get good pay and perform their tasks in all extremes of heat and cold from one Pole to the other, much more efficiently than any black men. It is stated that, unless we are prepared to allow the kanakas to be employed in Queensland or in the Northern Territory generally a large proportion of our resources there will remain underdeveloped. We have to consider not only the probability of the contamination of our race, but what work of development can be carried on by means of kanaka labour in the Northern Territory, that is to say, how many of our own people will find profitable employment. I do not desire to see a development which means only the encouragement or the bringing into existence of a large number of Legrees, who take advantage of the slave labour which is, practically, at their command, but I would rather see a development there under conditions which will permit of our own people living in comfort, and allow them to bring up their children in the proper way…..

They are bound to do that, for wherever there is an opportunity of getting coloured labour cheaply, a variety of excuses is always available to those desiring to employ it. In New South Wales, the planters are just as ready as are those in other sections of the Commonwealth to take advantage of an excuse of that character. I do not thin it is necessary to say much more on this matter. I have only taken that general interest in the question which the citizens of Australia, outside of Queensland, have so far exhibited. Ther4e are I am glad to say, in this House a number of honourable members who are more closely associated with the industry, who, at any rate, because if its proximity to themselves, have had a better opportunity of giving it a detailed study than have most honourable members. Therefore, we may expect from them a greater attention to details, and a close acquaintance with, the whole bearings of the subject than has been exhibited by the honourable member for Melbourne. As far I am concerned, whatever the position of Queensland itself might be, I would still argue for the abolition of the kanaka traffic in that State. Those of us who hold that opinion are at least confirmed in our general intentions by the verdict of Queensland itself. Not only so, but in view of all the circumstances that were likely to arise, and in view of the almost certainty that the southern States would declare for a White Australia, Queensland entered the Federation. Also, in the election which has since taken place, that State declared by an overwhelming majority in favour of a White Australia….

I understood the honourable member to say that he was not returned as a supporter of the kanaka in the sugar industry. If I was mistaken, I apologise. In any case, the important fact to be borne in mind is that a majority of the members returned to represent the State of Queensland in both Houses – not only a majority in sectional districts, but a majority for the whole of Queensland polled as one constituency – has declared in favour of the abolition of kanaka labour. Every man in the Senate representing that State is opposed to black labour, whether it be in the form of kanakas, or other coloured persons. In this Chamber I do not know that there are more than two honourable members who were returned in favour of black labour.”

Immigration Restriction Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 1901-1902, Vol. 4, First Parliament, First Session, p. 5852.

Andrew Fisher

Andrew Fisher

Andrew Fisher was the second Federal Labour leader and in 1908, became the second Labour Prime Minister. He was born on August 29th 1862 in Scotland and went to work in the coalmines at the age of twelve. In those days, coalmining was both dangerous and unhealthy, with many miners suffering from phthisis which was known in those days as 'miners' complaint'. At the age of seventeen, Fisher became a union official; in 1885, when Fisher was twenty-three, he decided to migrate to Australia.

Fisher settled in the Gympie district of Queensland and secured employment in goldmining. He soon became an executive member of the Miners' Federation. He stood for, and was elected, to the state seat of Gympie in 1893. He was defeated in the next election but was returned in the 1899 election. According to Jack Lang, it was Fisher and Andrew Dawson (Queensland's first Labour Premier) who led the fight in Queensland against Kanaka labour. Andrew Fisher stood for, and was elected to the seat of Wide Bay, in the first Federal Parliament in 1901. When Watson formed the first Labour government in 1904, Fisher was made Minister of Trade and Customs. In 1905, he was elected as deputy leader to Watson, and on Watson's retirement, Federal leader. He became Prime Minister in November 1908 until 1909. The Labour Party swept the polls the following year and controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives. With control of the Senate, the dynamic programme of the Fisher government started. The achievements of the period included the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank, the note issue, invalid pensions, maternity allowance, Kalgoorlie-Port Augusta railway, the establishment of the Military Academy at Duntroon and the establishment of the National Capital were among one hundred items of legislation passed. Fisher was one of the greatest Prime Ministers this nation has produced and while his quote of "standing by Britain to the last man and last shilling" are remembered, it is largely forgotten that he also said in 1911 at Ballarat just before leaving for an Imperial Conference in London that: "he would not hesitate to haul down the Union Jack if Australian interests demanded it."

Then came the challenge of the constitutional powers to give real effect to Labour policy. Greater power was necessary with trusts and combines, monopolies, corporation and industrial powers. However, the electorate was not up to the task of continuing the great nation building programme of the Fisher Labour government and Labour was defeated in the 1913 election by one seat in the House of Representatives, but Labour still controlled the Senate. The Cook Liberal government lasted for fifteen months; Cook, unable to govern with effect due to Labour control of the Senate, and loosing popular support, called a 'double dissolution of the both houses of parliament'. The result was that Labour under Andrew Fisher was returned to office with a large majority. Up to 1915, the Labour government was united. However, this did not last. W.M. Hughes was becoming tired of waiting for his turn as Prime Minister. Tensions came to the surface. Relations with Hughes deteriorated. It was apparent that the strain of office was starting to tell on Fisher. Relations with Hughes broke down to the extent that Fisher asked Hughes whether he would accept the position of High Commissioner in London. Hughes replied that he had no intention of acceptance. Fisher then said: "then I will". Fisher then immediately informed his Cabinet and party. The convenient excuse was tiredness and ill-health.

In the London office of High Commissioner, it was found that Andrew Fisher was not particularly comfortable. He came under the instruction of Prime Minister Hughes. He annoyed Hughes by not publicly supporting conscription but stayed silent on the issue. Fisher also found it difficult to attend functions; he made no pretence of being an after-dinner speaker. On his return to Australia after resigning as High Commissioner, Fisher told his Labour members of the true facts of his resignation as Labour leader.

Andrew Fisher lived quietly in retirement in London until his death on October 22nd 1928 at the age of sixty-six.

“Before we go to a division I should like to say a word or two in reply to the honourable member for North Sydney, in as much as he has repeated a statement made by the Premier by way of interjection. When the Prime Minister stated that there is no public man who has declared emphatically on the hustings for a White Australia without reservation. “

Mr. Barton: I never said that. What I said was that at the time I made my declaration in favour of a White Australia, the only measures that had ever been introduced for the restriction of coloured immigration, apart from that of the Chinese, and had been assented to, were measures such as this and I had heard no proposals from public men to achieve that object by any other means.

“That is a fuller explanation of the views held by the Prime Minister. I feel reasonably assured that there are dozens of honourable members who emphatically declared to the electors that the one principle they thought vital to Australian interests was a White Australia. I should like to know the method by which we can arrive at a White Australia without directly excluding Asiatics. If the only possible way of attaining that object is by such provisions as are contained in this Bill, it was the duty of the Prime Minister to say emphatically to the Australian people that this was the kind of legislation the government believed in. I know that it is not always necessary or wise for a Minister going to the country to state in detail what he proposes to do, but this is a question of such vital importance, which cannot be put to one side or equivocated upon, that it was the duty of the leading men on either side to make the matter clear and definite to the electors. If there was a misunderstanding amongst Members who have been elected to the House, how is it possible for the electors of Australia to understand what the Prime Minister then meant? So far as I am concerned, I have no doubt at all. I asked for the vote of my constituents, without absolute freedom to exclude by legislation all Asiatics from the Commonwealth. “

Mr. Watson: That was the inference from the Prime Minister’s speech at Maitland and that is what he is not doing.

Mr. Barton: I am doing it.

Mr. Watson: No.

Mr. Barton: I say yes.

“I leave this point because I do not wish to address myself to side issues…….

If I thought there was to be a contest between this Parliament and the offices of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain over this question, I should say that the sooner that the contest took place, the better. It is wrong for a responsible Minister to stand up in our national Parliament and endeavour to create the impression among the Australian people that we are not a self-governing community at all, that we are not competent to carry on our own legislation unless with the consent of His Majesty’s Ministers, sitting in a country which is perfectly safe from undesirable immigration of this kind. I recognise the great and valuable services which have been rendered by individual members of the government to the cause of a White Australia. I should like to have supported them upon this measure because they have the same object in view as myself. But the one disturbing element in my mind regarding there position upon this occasion is the broad hint which they threw out that we are not free to deal with this question…..”

Mr. Isaacs: It is an effort to strengthen our endeavours to keep Australia white.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, September 27 1901, pp. 5344 – 5345.

“I should be inclined to put in the whole of the figures showing the production of sugar in Queensland from the beginning right up to the present day. Perhaps, however, it would be unwise to do that. I shall take the liberty of replying to the remarks of the honourable member for Oxley in regard to those who violated the pledges they made to the people in 1888. Sir Samuel Griffith and Sir Thomas McIllwraith coalesced, and behind the backs of the people and without their authority, and against petitions and the resolutions of public meetings, demoralised the Queensland parliament, and passed a law abolishing what had previously been done according to the express wishes of the electors. How did this coalition take place? Sir Thomas McIllwraith, in the statement just now read, that he was never in favour of doing away with the Kanakas, and he was too strong and bold a man to surrender his principles. In 1888, however, the year of the general election in Queensland, he found the position so strong against him, and the electors so determined that there should be no further recruiting of Kanaka labour, that he was compelled to issue a manifesto in which he said that although he could not abandon his principles, he would promise that he would not countenance the introduction of any further Kanaka labour. What happened? He returned to power under this sacred pledge. He quarrelled with his colleagues, and coalesced with Sir Samuel Griffith, who had also pledged himself to the electors to oppose the introduction of coloured labour. I had the pleasure of hearing Sir Samuel Griffith in 1888 deliver a speech to the electors of Queensland, and I well remember that, when speaking on the black labour question, he warned the electors of Queensland that the question was not settled. He stated that the matter was not at an end, not withstanding that he was then in favour of putting it aside, and of not introducing any more Kanaka labour. He knew what the position was, and he told the people so, but in later years, after again becoming Premier in coalition with Sir Thmas McIllwraith, through circumstances over which he hardly had control, he was almost compelled to repeal the Act he had passed in 1885. What can be said of a government that acted contrary to its pledges to the people, and reversed the distinct verdict of the electors? What would the people of Australia say if this government did anything of the kind and would they be entitled to say of honourable members who took action that was capable of that construction? They would regard them with scorn. We Labour members asked the government of Queensland to conduct themselves as honourable men, and to go to the electors upon the question, but they did not do so. I would ask honourable members who have read the history of this movement, what were the causes of the great depression that has been so much spoken of? What were the causes of the small financial institutions being in trouble at that time? Many of the larger financial institutions were also in trouble, but the Labour Party could not be blamed for that. Is there an honourable member who would argue that, because the financial institutions were in difficulties, as they were throughout Australia, as in other parts of the world, we should submit to having undesirable labour thrust upon us in opposition to the verdict of the electors. That was the position when the coalition government in 1892 reversed the policy of Queensland. It was during that session of that parliament, which was the last to be elected for a term of five years, that the Queensland government reversed everything that had been done, presumably from a democratic point of view. They passed an electoral law which destroyed a third of the working men’s votes. At the general election in 1893, the electors of Queensland returned fifteen brand new Labour members to the Queensland parliament, although one third of the working men’s votes had been destroyed in order to secure the return of a conservative majority. Speaking from memory, the votes that were cast for the Labour Party numbered 27,000 as against 29,000 cast for the whole of the ministerialists. In spite of the fact that we as a party polled nearly as large a number of votes as all the ministerialists put together, some people told us that the electors of Queensland had been converted, but the electors had never been converted into believing in black labour of any kind. Nor do a majority of the electors of Queensland believe in the employment of Kanaka labour.

Pacific Islanders Labourers’ Bill, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 6 November 1901, p. 6907.

“Why was it that when the Federal elections were announced the Brisbane newspapers, which have been so highly spoken of, should have been so confident of success, in consequence of the result of the State elections, that they issued a challenge to the Labour Party, pointing out that the question before Queensland was, ‘are we to have the coloured labour necessary to develop our northern land?’. If there be any blame for this throwing down of the gauntlet to the Labour Party that blame must be attached to the Brisbane Courier. The challenge was not left a day unanswered. The immediate and everlasting reply of the Labour Party to questions of that kind has been, and, I hope, always will be, that so far as we are concerned, we do not think Kanakas are profitable in Queensland or necessary for any industry, and that, even if they were necessary, there are evils inseparable from their being recruited and their remaining in the country, which more than counterbalance any benefit gained from their presence. For that reason the Labour Party are entirely against the traffic, and we take up the position at our own risk. We are told that two thirds of the electors are against us. If that be so, what a stupid lot of politicians we must have been when, seeking our own aggrandizement, as we have been told by the press, we asked the electors to give us power to exclude Kanakas whenever we thought fit as members of the Federal parliament. Not a Labour candidate, either for the House of Representatives or for the Senate, asked for any terms at all. I always said that we were prepared to be generous and liberal, and we have been generous and liberal. Had we been revengeful or had we felt any feelings of resentment against those who fought us so hardly, we should have agreed to the proposal of the honourable member for Parramatta for the immediate abolition of the traffic, but we did not do so. We intimated that we did not wish to deal with this question in any other but a fair way. I will say for the government that, taking this Bill in conjunction with their fiscal proposals, they have dealt with the question in a statesman-like way. One of the points which was made during the elections by the distinguished and enlightened press we have heard so much about, was put forward in graphic language by a defeated candidate for the Senate, namely, the honourable A.J. Thynne, a very able man. That gentleman after the Labour candidates for the Senate had been announced, said that when he saw the character of the men who had been nominated to represent Queensland, he thought it his duty is bounden duty to come forward and give the electors an opportunity to send a fit man to the Federal parliament. The defeat of that gentleman has not to me so much significance as his words. They are a proof of what I have seen indicated in Queensland for a long time. There is growing up in that State, as in every State and country where servile labour is employed, a feeling that the well-to-do and the professional people are a superior class removed from every-day workers who make a country worth living in. If that feeling continues to grow together with the interests which control Kanaka or semi-civilised labour, sooner or later one part of this continent will be the scene of racial strife, which will be dangerous to the welfare of the Commonwealth. What happened when this great man, Mr. Thynne, made the announcement to which I have referred? According to the other side, men like Mr. Thynne were plunging in to save the reputation of the State, but Mr. Thynne was handsomely defeated. Is that not a warning that the hearts and minds of the people of Queensland are in the right direction? The report of no Royal Commission can be equal to the verdict just recently given by the people, when there was simply the one question to be decided. The fiscal issue, in my opinion, did not turn twenty votes in Queensland. There was not one word of the fiscal issue except, in the district represented by the honourable member for Capricornia where they have no Kanakas and where the people are strongly Free Trade.

That is a district in which, I am sure, the honourable member would have found it difficult to succeed had he been in favour of Kanaka labour. This is not a matter for amusement. If the electors, who know the condition of affairs, are dead against the traffic, surely that is a good reason for its abolition. There are times, I admit, when a whole electorate or a whole State, may go mad on a particular question, but when we find for twenty years the liberals and radicals of Queensland have been fighting with the one object of ridding that State of coloured races and especially with the object of stopping the traffic in Kanakas, we must admit that it was not a spasmodic effort to be moral when they sent a number of representatives to this House and to the Senate, pledged against the further recruitment of Kanaka labour. I have said that this Kanaka question has ruined the reputations of many public men. Immediately a public man, however eminent, has felt himself compelled to interfere with this question, or to depart in any way from the straight path, he has lost his position and all this was an indication of what was coming to pass….

Although Queensland has had all the assistance it could have from Kanaka labour and is being now governed and guided by a Ministry which denounces the Federal Prime Minister, men travelled from Bundaberg, Maryborough and other places to Brisbane looking for work. Surely, if the policy of employing Kanakas is a good one, this state of things would not exist? The facts are, however, that the men cannot get work because the Kanakas are employed in their place. One of our greatest difficulties in dealing with this question is to deal with it in a rational way, because of the taunts and jeers we have to submit to. In Queensland the white man is nerver free from the taunt, ‘why don’t you compete with the Kanaka?’ You say you don’t believe in him.’ The whip of the Phillip Ministry made a challenge to any white man to go to a northern Queensland plantation and compete there with the Kanakas picked out by the manager.

Mr. Macdonald:

But he would not put up the money when the time came.

Mr. Fisher:

That is so, though I am not concerned about it just now. I ask honourable members if the fact that a white person is physically incapable of greater effort than a coloured person is a proof of his inferiority. We have advanced a stage since it was believed that ability to club one’s neighbour was a sign of superiority. Imagine the excruciating pain that a sensitive, delicate white man must feel when he is told that he is not to be compared with the Kanaka. The challenge I speak of was delivered in a speech made on the 30th of July, and appeared on page 203 of the Queensland Hansard report. To show to what lengths people will go in denouncing those who take the side of the white labourer, I should like to make a short quotation from Mr. Hamilton’s address:

‘The other day we saw in a southern newspaper I think the Herald – a letter written by Major Reay, in which he had said he had been to the north, and was perfectly satisfied white men could do the work. Major Reay experience was to go in in the dead of winter for about an hour in a cane field. But I recollect hearing something about Mr. Reay from a Melbourne man who was here the other day. This gentleman and some others sent …(a)… wire to Lord Kitchener to the following effect – our cup of joy is full, owing to the manner in which our colonists have distinguished themselves. If you will only put Reay where he will get shot our cup will flow over.’

That is the utterance of a distinguished gentleman, who received his information from a Melbourne man. Is there any honourable member in this House who believes that there is another man in Melbourne who would make any such statement? These are the kind of men we have to meet as opponents on this Kanaka question, and is it to be supposed that they will scruple to tell little stories to their own advantage? These are not matters of ancient history, but they are the utterances of our opponents, who are in the Queensland parliament.

Mr. Isaacs:

Who said that?

Mr. Fisher:

Mr. J. Hamilton, the government whip in Queensland. We hear a great about the distressing character of the work that has to be performed in the cane fields, and we are told that white men cannot do this or that, or the other kind of work. It has long been contended that white men cannot work in the canefields, but it is now being argued that white men cannot work in the mills. If the political pressure were not so great they would not be able to work at any occupation in any part of Queensland…..

I was in the Queensland parliament in 1893, when the Sugar Works Guarantee Bill was introduced. There was an ambiguous clause in that Bill and as we had found from previous experience that we must use exact language in dealing with those who were desirous of employing coloured labour, we introduced an amendment to exclude all coloured people from the mils that were being erected with State money. We ‘stonewalled’ all night, with the result that early on the morning of the following day Sir Thomas McIllwraith stated that while he was not prepared to make a special exception with mills erected with State money, he was entirely against the employment of coloured labour in thee mills, and that if he found later on that coloured labour was employed in mills he would pass a measure dealing with the question and putting all mills on the same footing. No such measure has however, been passed, and coloured labour is creeping into the mills. I have a communication from my electorate, stating that one mill is using coloured labour and that as a consequence are being unfairly competed with. Surely this is a question that is worthy of being mentioned although it is not one of the matters that the Federal government has touched. I entirely agree with the proposals of the Federal government that the law shall be administered by the States as far as possible. It is best for us to touch this question as lightly as we can – to say what shall be done, and allow the State authorities to carry out the law in the light of their own experience. They are mostly sympathetic with the planters and will no doubt render them every possible help under the circumstances. We all of us desire to assist the planters, but we cannot depart from our principles. If we were to try to help everybody by giving up our principles, we should land ourselves in a state of chaos and destroy all industry. The Kanaka is not essential to the success of the sugar industry and I contend he should be displaced by white labour at the earliest possible moment….

I come now to the larger question, with which I shall deal very briefly. As I have already pointed out, there is in Queensland a class of people which is in touch with a band of speculators resident outside of Australia. For years past these people have been intending that the white race should not attempt to cultivate the soil of, or, indeed, to live in, a large part of Australia except as governors and directors of semi-servile races. That aspect of the question has been forcibly put in London again and again. In Queensland the leading newspaper openly urges the same point. But whilst this journal is pleading for delay by advocating the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the sugar industry, it has maintained that it will never be possible for the white race to develop the tropical portion of Australia. When a newspaper of such standing adopts an attitude of that kind with the object of leading the average elector to suppose that it is opposed to the employment of Kanaka labour, we should be trading on very dangerous ground if we listen to it. We are not afraid of the facts. At the same time, I fear the result of delay in the settlement of this question. The speculators of whom I have spoken are a sleepless body who are gaining wealth by the employment of this class of labour. Many of them are living comfortably in other countries. I ventured the prediction a short time ago that if the industry and the interests involved were three times as large as they are, civil war would result. A prominent politician in the northern State in reply, said ‘if the interests were three times as large as they are, you would not be able to deal with the industry.’ Yet we are asked in circumstances of this sort to delay action. The question admits of no delay. It can be best dealt with now. We have told the world by means of the Immigration Restriction Bill that we do not desire the presence of coloured aliens here, I hope that we shall tell the world just as emphatically by means of this Bill, not only that do we not need coloured labour to develop our States, but that we deem it inadvisable to have it in our midst. I desire that we shall be able to proclaim to the world that the whole of Australia, and not a part of it, has been reserved for the use of white man. If the northern tropical lands are not developed so speedily by the white race as they would be by Asiatics – and I admit that they will not be – we shall have at least as a set off against that disadvantage one race and one people who are equal in voting people and who are ready and able in time of emergency to defend our shores. I do not admire those advocates of coloured labour who urge that Australians are equal to any men in the world when they go forth to fight the battles of the Empire, but who, when they are sent to earn a pittance of four shillings or five shillings a day in Queensland, say they are inferior. Every other page of the Brisbane Courier contains an insult to the white man. It is urged that he will work for two or three days and then get drunk, that he cannot be relied upon. In my early days it was said that the white man could not be relied upon because the gold field might break out, and he would leave his employment to tempt fortune upon the diggings. The truth is that the white man can never be relied upon if he is to receive only poor habitation conditions and twenty five shillings a week. How can we expect men to foresake all the attractions of a city life for a wage of twenty five shillings a week?…

Is there an honourable member in this House who would give protection to the sugar industry if it had to be carried on by coloured labour? I do not believe that any government would be strong enough to force a protective tariff through parliament, if the employment of Kanakas in the sugar industry were to be continued. The policy of the government is in the interests of the planters themselves. The other day sugar was seven pounds ten shillings a ton in London. Surely, if we are to go to the outside world for the cheapest labour we cannot logically object to compete with every kind of labour. The taunt is sometimes used that so far it has not been proved that white labour can be successfully employed in the thrashing of cane. My reply is that nearly twenty per cent of the sugar growers grow their cane by solely white labour. The Kanaka labourer, our opponents declare, can do more work in the canefield than can the white man and for less than half the wages. I have the greatest admiration for a man who will compete against the Kanaka. At the earliest opportunity we should pass this measure into law, so that the white workers who are prepared to cultivate cane by means of white labour will be entitled to the rebate provided in the fiscal proposals of the government. If I am taking a wrong step upon this question, I am taking it cheerfully. I have received no indication from my constituency which practically produces half the sugar of Queensland, that this measure is an unpopular one, or will be injurious to that particular district. I have in my mind quotations which would be a complete set off to those submitted by the honourable member for Oxley, but I shall not detain the House at this juncture by using them. Immediately the tariff proposals were submitted, Mr. Harrington of Maryborough, an astute businessman, stated that if they were carried every portion of the land in the Wide Bay district which is capable of growing cane should be put under cultivation immediately. Surely that will be a benefit to that district. I ask honourable members where we shall find an inferior class of labour upon inferior land? I have never read or heard of it. It is upon the best lands of Queensland that we find the Kanaka, as it is on the best lands in other countries that we find servile labour. Such as class of labour cannot exist anywhere else. After the first fertility of the soil has departed, and the land has become impoverished, the white man has to go in and till it. Whether it be at Bundaberg, Mackay, Cains or further north, the same rule prevails. Only on the most fertile spots do we find the Kanakas employed and is it the aim of the government that the best lands shall be utilised by inferior labour? I think that the actions of the government will be beneficial to Queensland, will certainly be beneficial to Australia and I am proud to have the honour of assisting in the passing of this measure….

I feel strongly that no interference on the part of Great Britain will be tolerated on this great question. I am ashamed of those in the State of Queensland who talk about appealing to the Colonial Office. If they are going to appeal to the Colonial Office to frustrate the wish of the parliament, I shall oppose them very strongly. If there is to be an attempt to work up an agitation to show that Australians are an inferior class of people, who are to be governed and guided by Downing Street.

Pacific Islanders Labourers’ Bill, Commonwealth Parlia-mentary Debates, 6 November 1901, p. 6911, 6913 - 6916.

William Morris Hughes.

Billy Hughes

William Morris Hughes was the third Federal Labour leader and its third Prime Minister. Hughes was born in 1862 in London, of Welsh parents. In 1884, he left Britain for Australia. Hughes spent the first eighteen months travelling the New South Wales and Queensland outback. In 1890, Hughes opened a mixed shop in Balmain. Hughes made a living mending umbrellas and doing odd jobs while his wife took in washing. Hughes was a member of the Labour Electoral League and in 1892, he joined the Socialist League as well. Hughes was editor of a short-lived radical weekly called The New Order and in the years 1893-1894 served as a political organizer for an area of New South Wales extending from Yass to Parkes. He was elected for a State seat based upon Pyrmont and Ultimo in inner-Sydney and held it until his entry into Federal Parliament in 1901. While in the New South Wales Parliament, Hughes showed that he was a shrewd political operator by convincing the Labour caucus to switch its support from George Reid to the Protectionists in return for concessions to Labour's programme - such as the early closing of shops. During the 1890's, Hughes consolidated his support in the trades unions; since the 1890 Maritime Strike, the waterside unions had been weak and powerless. Hughes helped change that using his status as a MP, Hughes built up a network of organizers and members before launching the new Wharf Labourers' Union in December 1899 with himself as secretary. His powers were wide and Hughes made the Wharf Labourers' Union one of the most powerful in the country. Hughes gained substantial improvements in wages and hours. Hughes was such a popular union leader that he was also elected president of the Trolley, Draymen and Carters' Union as well.

In 1901, Hughes was elected for the seat of West Sydney, which included the waterfront and he was easily elected. Billy Hughes took a keen interest in defence matters. He foresaw that Australian and British interests may clash in the future. He was convinced that Japan posed a real danger to Australia and was concerned that the British alliance with that power. The only responsible solution was the formation of a national militia. Hughes argued that the state used compulsion in health and education so why not national defence as well? He continued to campaign on this issue and joined the All-Party National Defence League and was vindicated in 1908-9 when the policy was adopted with the support of all major political parties. In Watson's first government, Hughes served as Minister For External Affairs.

In the years 1907 -1911, the Daily Telegraph invited Hughes to contribute a weekly column called 'The Case For Labour'. Week after week, Hughes argued the merits of the labour movement and socialism. In 1907, the leadership of the ALP passed to Andrew Fisher with Hughes elected as his deputy. In 1908, Hughes became Attorney-General.

In April 1910, the voters turned against Deakin and in a landslide Fisher became Prime Minister with large majorities in both Houses of Parliament. During the next three years of Fisher's government, Hughes took a leading role in the Labour government's reform programme. Hughes accordingly sought to extend the Federal government's powers at a referendum; four questions were proposed extending Federal power over commerce, trade, labour and employment, and granting authority over combinations and monopolies. Unfortunately, the state governments resisted any encroachment by the Federal government into these areas and as a result, the changes were rejected.

Billy Hughes was energetic in trying to pursue the extension of Federal power and at the Federal Election held on May 31st 1913, the four questions were submitted, this time separately. Again, they were defeated; although three states voted 'yes', all were defeated by a narrow margin. At the election, the Liberals under Cook won with a one seat majority. The Cook government lasted until June 1914, when Cook obtained a double dissolution of Parliament. Labour won the election and Hughes became Attorney-General for the third time.

The war changed Hughes's economic thinking. Hughes was once a free-trader; now he believed firmly that Australia must develop and control its own industries. Andrew Fisher under increasing strain resigned as leader in October 1915. Hughes was his unopposed successor.

Hughes as Prime Minister believed that Australia had not been consulted adequately regarding the deployment of Australian troops overseas. So he journeyed to London. Hughes also had deep concern about the future of the Pacific. Australian and New Zealand forces took control over German colonies in New Guinea and the South Pacific, but Japan as a British ally seized German islands north of the Equator as well as concessions in China. Hughes feared that the Japanese would use their position to force changes to the White Australia Policy and Australian trade policy. He was also suspicious of British intentions.

After his arrival in London, Hughes made an immediate impact. He said that the British Empire should abandon free trade and create its own tariff bloc.

Hughes also took time to visit Australian troops at the frontline in France. Indeed, Hughes caused some concern to the generals by his willingness to venture too close to the frontlines where his safety was at risk. The Australian troops were so taken by this that they named Hughes 'the little digger'. The terrible conditions at the front sickened Hughes and he came away with a deep admiration for the Australian soldiers. At this time, Hughes began to think that conscription may be necessary to maintain the Australian forces fighting in France. On his return to Australia, Hughes put forward his proposal for conscription. After it was put to the people and defeated by referendum, Hughes's enemies moved against him. A special meeting of Caucus was called. During this stormy meeting, Hughes rose and said: "Enough of this! Let those who think with me, follow me!" Hughes left the room and took with him a third of the Caucus. He then formed the National Labour Party with Liberal support in the Parliament. Attempts were made to re-unite the two Labour parties, but to no avail. The National Labour Party and the Liberals merged to form the Nationalist Party. Hughes put forward a second referendum to introduce conscription, but again it was defeated.

After Hughes was deposed as Prime Minister in 1923, he remained as a back-bencher. He believed that the Bruce-Page government had moved too far in defence of big business and against the workers. Hughes and his supporters within the Nationalist Party crossed the floor and helped bring it down in 1929.

Could it be possible that Hughes realised that his real home was in the Labour Party? If Hughes thought that by helping to bring down the conservative government and bring Labour to power (which happened!), that the Labour Party would welcome him back into the fold, he was sadly mistaken. Too much bitterness from the conscription battle remained. Hughes remained in Parliament and many times crossed the floor or refused to toe the line (such as refusing to resign from the Advisory War Authority when instructed) by his party. Hughes remained as a Federal Member of Parliament until his death in 1952.

"Our chief plank is, of course, a White Australia. There's no compromise about that. The industrious coloured brother has got to go - and remain away! While on that question, no doubt, we shall be able to do something to prevent the influx of European pauper labour by instituting educational tests and making it necessary to have enough enough money to last a month or two without wok. Also importation of labour under contract must be prohibited. Then there's the codification and amendment of the banking laws and the establishment of an Australian national bank, to be run on strictly business, as distinct from political, lines. There are other things, plenty of them, but the great questions are - White Australia - Old Age Pensions - National Bank - and a democratic military system. We shall, at the jump, tackle the question of making the Old Age Pension system apply to the whole continent."

The Bulletin, 16 February 1901.

"I feel that to endeavour to offer any kind of criticism on the most admirable speech delivered by the Attorney General would not only be ungrateful but entirely uncalled for. No man could have put the question, considered from every conceivable aspect, better - few could have put it as well - as the honourable and learned gentleman. I am sure every honourable member and every one outside who reads his words will re-echo their sentiment with reference to the necessity of maintaining the purity of our race. I realise thoroughly that the Attorney General, in putting forward such a defence - I will not say of the provisions underlying this Bill, but of the spirit that animated it - did so because it may be necessary to show those elsewhere that the honourable and learned gentleman speaks not for himself or for his government, but for all Australia in this matter. I am very certain that no government could possibly afford to falter with this question. Certainly the Bill brought forward is one which cannot be held, judged by the standard of previous bills in the same direction, to fall short of what one would desire. While agreeing entirely with all that the Attorney General said as to the necessity of exclusion, while admiring the honourable and learned gentleman's argument in favour of pursuing one course rather than another, yet I venture to think that he did not make his reasons clear for adopting this particular course, rather than that outlined by the honourable members for Wentworth and Bland.

If the honourable and learned gentleman did not it is well. No one would accuse the honourable member for Wentworth of disloyalty, but as to the attitude adopted by the honourable member for Wentworth and the honourable member for Bland, I desire to offer one or two remarks. It has been urged by the Attorney General, as a reason why a prohibition of coloured aliens should not be substituted for the educational test in this Bill, that in the despatches that have been passed and that in the general negotiations that have taken place between the Home government and the colonies, the Home government has stated that although it would not, if pressed, carry out its objection any further, still it would pain Her Majesty to have to assent to a measure which would give offence to Her Majesty's Indian subjects and to foreign nations. I desire to deal with that point for a moment, because is the crux of the whole question. My honourable and learned friend says that the Natal Act met with no objection on the part of Her Majesty's government, and that the Natal Act, as adopted in the states, has been successful….

The Attorney General said that it might be reasonably presumed that the Natal Act would be successful if applied to the whole continent. That is the position taken up. We have no guarantee however, that His Majesty's government would consent to the Bill now under consideration. The honourable and learned gentleman said, as we know, that Her Majesty's government did assent to the Natal Act and the Acts based upon it in the states. Those Acts adopted any European language as the test. Surely that is a very different thing from the adoption of the English language as an educational test in these matters. I want to point out that, if it be a source of offence to discriminate between coloured and white people, if it be a source of offence to the Japanese nation to be included amongst the Polynesians and the degenerate people of the Archipelago, then how much more will it be a source of offence to the European nations to be forbidden entry under this Bill unless they speak the English language? There has never yet been any attempt to adopt a test of this rigorous character as applied to Europeans, and I venture to say, excepting in the case of America, where such a thing may be occasionally done.

I would point out that even if it were accepted in reference to a state, it by no means follows that a measure of this kind would receive the assent of the government when applied to a nation. For my own part, I see absolutely no evidence adduced by the Attorney General to show that we should stop short at this Bill instead of going on to a complete and satisfactory measure for the prohibition of undesirable coloured aliens. Let us see what the Attorney General says. He puts forward as an argument that these aliens who come here are uneducated and ignorant, that the educated and higher classes of coloured aliens do not come here. Then the honourable and learned gentleman delivers a eulogy of the Japanese, of their adaptability, their readiness to accept the teachings of civilization, their pride and their success. All these things are undeniable, and if this measure is aimed at the Japanese it will prove a failure. I do not believe there is a nation more capable of acquiring a knowledge of foreign languages - certainly no Eastern nation - than the Japanese, and I say that a German would as readily be prevented by this Bill from entering Australia as a Japanese. A Russian certainly would, what difficulty is there in the way of a Japanese acquiring a knowledge of fifty words in English? Who would apply the test? The test as applied in New South Wales in many ways is a farce. It is notorious amongst people, whose credibility can hardly be doubted, that the men appointed to make the test supply the information. I do not say that they do so upon receipt of a consideration, but they supply the information, and the candidate gets through. If a person has to write or read fifty words in the English language, and a complaisant official supplies the necessary interpretation, what difficulty is there in the way? Absolutely none. As a matter of fact I am assured, by information received, from the Custom House, that this is done, at least in New South Wales if not elsewhere. The aliens can avoid the test by the simple expedient of getting the Custom House official to supply the information…..

I admit the greatness of the English language whether as a vehicle for the conveyance of the gems of English literature or as a medium for commercial intercourse. I would remind the Attorney General, as a matter of fact, there are a very large number of people in the British Isles who cannot speak a word of English. At least twenty per cent of the people in the country from which I come would be unable to pass this test. Until I was about eight years of age I could not speak one solitary word of the language which is required to be written under the test provided for in this Bill. Not only will many Irishmen and Gaelic Scots be excluded by this test, but also the inhabitants of the Channel Islands whose loyalty, as compared with the average Englishman, is most effusive. The same thing would apply to the French Canadian who, although he may occasionally entertain some doubts as to the wisdom of his allegiance to the Empire, taken him all in all, been a loyal subject during this last century. We are asked to pass provisions which would exclude a number of amiable, industrious, and desirable people, but there is nothing in this Bill to keep out the people we want to keep out. The provisions in the Bill would, I admit, keep out the Andaman Islander or the low-caste Hindoo, but they would not keep out the Japanese, and I doubt whether they would exclude the Chinese. I do not think they would do anything more than shut out the very lowest type of Asiatic. As to excluding the Assyrians, I doubt whether they would have that effect. The Assyrian is a very intelligent man, who engages in commercial relations with white people, and in some cases achieves no paltry success in business, and surely he many be assumed to be able to pass this test. Apart from all this, it is clear from the Attorney General's own admission, that there is no certainty that this Bill will do what it is alleged it will do…

The Attorney General says this is the beginning of a series of Bills - a series which is to end, probably, in the total prohibition of coloured aliens. If we are not to end there, where are we to end? And if we are to end there, why we should we not begin there, why should we hesitate? I can understand the attitude assumed by Her Majesty's government when it is very well known that Her late Majesty, the Queen, entertained a personal affection for her Hindoo subjects which grew on her with advancing years, and caused her to have a personal antipathy to signing anything that would have the effect of excluding them as a race from a part of her dominions. But I have yet to learn that even the personal likes and dislikes of a sovereign of the realm is to guide the destinies of a free people….

It is notorious that today Great Britain stands almost without an ally. She is now driven into a corner and she is dependent upon the support, tardy and reluctant, of Japan, Amongst all the nations of the world Japan is the only one to support Great Britain - that is what I understand, although I do not venture to enter upon a discussion of foreign politics the end of which is a labyrinth and chaotic. I would point that His Majesty's ministers are reluctant to assent to such a Bill as that desired by the honourable member for Wentworth and the honourable member for Bland not because it will offend His Majesty's subjects in India, and not because it will offend the fine susceptibilities or tender feelings of our brothers in Japan, but because it will rob Great Britain of an ally of which she will in the future stand dearly in need ..…

The Attorney General says that those who oppose this principle are in negligible quantity and that whatever their opinions may be they speak them in faint and unintelligible tones. A little while ago there were men who spoke against the exclusion of our coloured brethren from this country but these are now either dead or have been converted, or are suffering from some affliction of the vocal organs, and are dumb as far as this community is concerned. We hear them not, and therefore we are speaking as one people….

The honourable member for Wentworth wished to disclaim any wish - as do we all - to consider the question of what would happen if the government of Great Britain refused to agree to such as measure as we desire. For my part I do not desire, and I do not think there are five per cent of the people of this country who desire separation from Great Britain, but while I do not wish it, I do not fear it. If it is to come it is to come from no act of mine, and it is to come from no act on the part of those who think as we do, but it is to come because we are denied that which we have an alienable right to have. We are to work out our destiny unaffected by that terrible blot referred to by the Attorney General as affecting America, without the leprous curse that is spreading its way through Queensland unhampered and unhindered and which threatens to make it a country no longer fit for a white man, because it will shortly be a country where no white man can compete with our cheap, industrious and virtuous, but undesirable Japanese and Chinese friends. The Attorney General has said that we object to these people, because of their very virtues. I do not object to their virtues, but I say that many of their virtues, when weighed in the economic scale, become vices. For a man to work for a wage of two pence a day a day is a vice which, if it became general amongst white men, would reduce society to chaos. Where would our manufacturers and merchants and storekeepers be? Where would that noble and palatial enterprise, which was honoured by a visit from honourable members of this House today, be if men only earned and spent two pennies a day? There is no vice, and I say it advisedly, like the vice of small expenditure when carried to a ridiculous and un-European length, and as this alien competition aims a blow at the very basis of our industrial system, we oppose it. We are to try this matter not by the standard of some faddist, who writes as of how to cure the unemployed difficulty by teaching people how to live upon six pennies a day, but from the standpoint that it is only be maintaining a certain standard of living that wages are kept up to a decent level. Reduce the standard of comfort and immediately the wages go down. If a horse could live upon a straw a day then a straw a day would be the keep of a horse. Similarly, if I could live on a penny a day, a penny a day would be the amount of my wage. We object to these people because of their vices and of their immorality and because of a hundred things which we can only hint at, and our objections are not to be met by the declaration that the imperial government will be embarrassed by them. We must approach this question as the Americans did the question of the right to govern themselves - in a calm and deliberate spirit. The Attorney General has obtruded into this debate nothing of a personal character - there is no necessity to be personal. This is a matter upon which we may have legitimate differences of opinion. I am an Englishman, and I claim to be as loyal to the Empire as is any man in it. I should be sorry indeed if any act of mine or of any other person, severed the ties which bind us to the Empire. But, just as one may have an undesirable relation who one would hesitate to consign either to a lunatic asylum or to jail, and yet be compelled to do so, so occasions may arise when it may be necessary to be cruel to be just, or even to be kind…..

We must face this matter whilst there is still time. We have talked about their peddling, about alien hawkers. But these are merely the advance guard of the great army of coloured men who, when they go back to their country as the advance guard of the Israelites did of old, will tell their compatriots of the splendid opportunities which await them in the Promised Land. Then the higher classes of coloured men will come in, and the educational test will be swept aside by men who can learn any trade in half the time which it takes a European to acquire it, and who in their own land will erect factories - and who are now making intricate machinery, manufacturing rifles and other things, which are equal to anything produced by the European. And we propose to stop men by the educational test…

We have to decide whether, warned by the lessons of other men, we shall say that we will have a White Australia by the only possible and sure way of getting it, namely, by absolutely prohibiting the introduction of undesirable aliens."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates. 12 September 1901, pages 4819, 4820, 4821, 4822, 4823, 4824

Billy Hughes: christened the 'Little Digger' by Australian troops; popular with the servicemen.

Frank Tudor

Frank Tudor

Frank Tudor was the fourth Federal Labour leader, and was in fact, the first Australian-born leader. He was born on January 27 1866 in Williamstown, Victoria. In his teens he was apprenticed to the felt-hatting trade. At the age of 23, he decided to journey to Britain where he became involved in the felt-hatting industry. He also involved himself in union affairs. He then travelled to the United States for further experience at his trade. He then returned to Australia and became involved in the union movement. In 1899 at the age of 33, he was elected president of the Melbourne Trades and Labour Council; the following year he was elected to the State seat of Yarra and later became a member of the first Federal Parliament. In the first Labour government of Watson, he was chosen as 'whip'. In Andrew Fisher's first government of 1908, he was elected to Cabinet rank. He remained thereafter, whenever Labour was in office, as a Cabinet member. After Prime Minister Hughes put forward his plan for conscription, Frank Tudor resigned from the Cabinet on September 4 1916. On November 14 1916, Prime Minister Hughes and twenty-five members of the Labour Party in Federal Parliament walked out. This was the first and most divisive split the party suffered. Tudor was elected to replace Hughes as Federal leader. He threw himself into the fight against conscription with the remaining forty-three members of the Federal parliamentary party. Hughes lost the Conscription Referendum in 1916 and in 1917 put the proposal forward again and lost by an even larger margin. Frank Tudor remained leader until his death in 1922.

"The question with which we are now dealing is one entirely beyond all party consideration. Australia spoke with a unanimous voice on this subject of shutting out coloured aliens at the time of the Federal Elections, and I think I went further than most honourable members when I stated I was prepared to stop the influx of coloured aliens immediately. I preferred to cut off the tail of the dog at once, instead of taking it off a joint at a time - as much as for the sake of the dog as for the sake of the person performing the operation. If we mean business - and I believe honourable members are unanimous as to the desirability of excluding coloured aliens - the Home Government will have no hesitation in assenting to a measure as will carry out our wishes. Honourable members need not be afraid that there will be any delay in the matter, because when the Home Government are made aware of the unanimous feeling that has been expressed during this debate, they will without doubt, assent to the measure. The Attorney-General in his speech referred to the utterances of the Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain when the Australian premiers were in England in 1897. At that time Mr. Chamberlain said that the Home Government would offer no opposition to any law that might be brought forward, even though it might be painful to the British Government. It would be more painful to us, seeing that we have suffered from the effects of this coloured immigration, if we could not do something to restrict the influx of such undesirable additions to our population. If the Home Government conceive any idea we are willing to accept half measures, they may feel inclined to concede us only a quarter of what we really require, but if we are bold and firm in our attitude, they will accede to our wishes with a good grace. The effects of the introduction of aliens amongst us has been very serious in some parts of Australia. In Victoria some trades have suffered particularly, and in the furniture trade the competition which has been brought about by Chinese workers has been such that, had it not been for the Factories Act, that trade would have been wiped out of existence so far as European workmen were concerned. I recently formed one of the deputations which waited upon the Premier of Victoria with reference to this question, and upon that occasion employers and employees were unanimous in stating that the Chinese were continually endeavouring to break down the Factories Act - that they were not law-abiding citizens, but were continually transgressing the Act which others were compelled to obey. I took the trouble to go through the Factory Inspectors' Reports and I found that whilst there had not been one prosecution for a breech of the Act amongst the 242 European manufacturers, there had been over fifty prosecutions and convictions amongst the Chinese manufacturers. Fully forty per cent of the Chinese manufacturers had been before the court in twelve months, and had been convicted f breeches of the Act. These men would still be in our midst even though we passed the Bill in its present form, and I would go further and support the Honourable Member for Coolgardie in the amendment which he intends to propose to the effect that whenever any of these aliens who are now amongst us are convicted of any offence against the law they shall be deported. I suggested to the Premier of Victoria that some such action shall be taken in that State. It was then represented that it was very hard to secur4e convictions against these men, but my feeling is that when they are caught steps should be taken so that they may not have an opportunity of offending again. We know that the conditions under which these people live are not such as to commend themselves to Europeans, and the experiences I have gained in travelling through my electorate where there are a number of Chinese gardeners would enable me to throw a good deal of light upon that aspect of the matter. It has been said that the white workers are to blame for patronising Chinamen who trade in the metropolitan and other areas.

Mr Page: So they are.

Mr. Tudor: I have never dealt with a Chinaman in my life, but I know that some other people do, and I am aware in the country districts particularly the Assyrians make themselves such a pest that many women are glad to purchase goods from them in order to get rid of them. The Chinese have not only gone a very great length towards monopolising the furniture trade of Victoria, but fully five sixths of the men engaged in market-gardening in and around Melbourne are Chinamen, and we find that their numbers are increasing, not withstanding statistics which seem to point the other way. I trust that the government will not be satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as they now stand, but will be prepared to rise to greater heights and to accept the amendment of the Honourable Member for Bland, and also that of that Honourable Member for Coolgardie."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, September 12 1901, pp. 4830 - 4831.

"That reminds me that, in 1905, I was told in Mackay, Queensland, that if we insisted on applying the White Australia Policy to the sugar industry the grass would be growing in the streets of Mackay. The grass is not growing there yet, the sugar industry is more flourishing than ever, and two years ago, despite the White Australia legislation, more sugar was produced in Queensland than ever before. I sincerely hope my honourable friend's prophecy will be falsified as completely as the prediction of the black Labour Party on the other side of the House in 1905. "

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, May 20 1916, p. 8161.

Mathew Charlton.

Matthew Charlton

Matthew Charlton was the fifth Federal Labor leader. He was born in Ballarat on March 15 1866. In 1871 his family moved to Newcastle, New South Wales. At the age of 12 Charlton started work as a coal miner in the Hunter Valley. At the age of 18 he was at the coalface and mining three tons of coal a day for four shillings and twopence a ton. In the 1880's there was a depression in the coal industry; due to this, Charlton made his way to Kalgoorlie and tried gold mining. He stayed in Western Australia for about two years before returning to Lambton. During his time in Western Australia, he took an active part in the formation of the Amalgamated Mine Workers in that State as a foundation member. On his return to New South Wales, Charlton became active helping the miners in the Newcastle area. Hundreds of people went to him for advice with their problems. It was inevitable that a man of such outstanding qualities and beloved by the vast number of Hunter Valley people would be approached to stand for parliament. He stood for and was elected for the New South Wales State Electorate of Northumberland where he remained until 1909. The next big step for Charlton was his election to the Commonwealth Parliament for the seat of Hunter in 1910. He was made a temporary chairman of committees; in 1914 he was made the chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, a position he held until 1922. After the Labour Party split over conscription, he became the closest associate of Frank Tudor. After Tudor's death, in 1922, Matthew Charlton was elected the new Federal Labor Party leader. During the years 1922 - 1928 Charlton rebuilt the Labor Party. A year after his resignation as Federal leader, Labor under James Scullin came to power.

"A great number do not register, and, unfortunately, some of the unemployed do not belong to any union at all. Unemployment is being increased by the Commonwealth Government's immigration policy and little consideration is given to those already here who are unable to get work. It is idle to quote the industrial conditions prevailing in Great Britain, when those in Australia when those in Australia are such that we cannot find employment for our own people. For the last three or four months the Prime Minister and other public men have been endeavouring to cause people to believe that Australia is in imminent danger of invasion. The same thing happened a few years ago when we were told that the White Australia Policy was menaced and if the people of Australia did not take some action to defend themselves, they would awake one morning to find an enemy on Australian territory. We were led to believe by a certain person that Japan had not sufficient elbow room for her teeming millions, and in consequence must look to Australia for territory on which to settle them. We were told that Japanese soldiers would land on the islands adjacent to Queensland and eventually establish themselves on Australian territory and we were asked what we could do to prevent them. I said at that time that I did not agree with those whom I termed 'war scare mongers' and Japan's subsequent actions justified my judgement. If Japan had had hostile designs upon Australia she would have made an attack while Great Britain was engaged in a World War. Everybody knows that Japan used her military and naval strength and money in loyally assisting the allies. After the war was over, and while Japan's attitude to the White Australia Policy was being discussed, that country, at the first appeal, agreed to do all in her power to bring about the world's peace, and became a signatory to the covenant of the League of Nations. Subsequently Japan was represented at the Washington Conference and subscribed to the agreement for a reduction of naval power, and advertised throughout the world that she stood for peace. Now the 'war scare mongers' are busy again, and the lessons of the war have been forgotten. My sympathies are with those who suffered for this and other countries in the recent war. Not withstanding the sacrifices made by the soldiers, the Prime Minister is still endeavouring to create among the people an impression that it is necessary to prepare for war. He tells us most solemnly that the only method of preventing war is to prepared for war. The history of the past teaches us that to those countries that prepare for war, war eventually comes. They develop their armaments to such an extent that when a slight quarrel with other nations, instead of trying to settle the dispute amicably they make it a pretext for war. War preparedness merely encourages nations to war upon each other. The proper means to prevent war is to look for peace, and I welcome peace by whatever means it is attainable. The Prime Minister twittered me the other day about always talking about the League of Nations. The honourable gentleman too, is an advocate of the League, and yet he said to me, 'let me tell the honourable member that if the League of Nations becomes a reality we must look out for what may happen in regard to the White Australia Policy.' While professing to be an advocate of the League of Nations, the honourable gentlemen yet asks us to believe that it would interfere with Australia's right of self-government. I believe that the League of Nations will have sufficient common sense to allow the different countries to manage their own affairs. That must be the first principle of the covenant if it be properly drafted, and it is idle for the leader of the government to endeavour to get people to believe that they are in imminent danger of war, or that the White Australia Policy will be menaced by the League of Nations. "

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, June 19 1923, pp. 174 -175

"The bill may be divided into two parts, one of which restricts the admission of immigrants, and the other provides for the deportation of persons resident in Australia. In his second reading speech, the Prime Minister devoted much time to explaining what the United States of America had done to restrict immigration. He pointed out that the American legislature had realised the necessity for restricting the number of immigrants into that country, providing, in the first case, for a quota of not more than three per cent of the number of nationals of each country domiciled in the United State of America at the time of the 1910 census ….."

"I wish to make it quite clear that I have nothing to say against the immigration into Australia of persons of white race if they can be absorbed and I shall discuss the bill from the point of view of an Australian, with reference particularly to the necessity of providing for the absorption of those who come here, whether from Great Britain or from other countries. I have always held, and still hold, that it is necessary, before embarking upon schemes intended to induce people to come here in large numbers, to provide for absorbing on arrival, those who it is desired to invite."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 1923, p. 562

"If migration were placed upon a proper footing and Australians were all employed, the Labour Party would have no objection to bringing migrants here. We wish to see this country populated, but it should be done in a proper manner. It is easy for honourable members opposite to say, in an airy way, "we want population. We have large undeveloped areas, and there is danger of invasion." But it is necessary to necessary to establish a basis upon which we can build a durable structure without impoverishing our own people in doing it. It has been contended that increased population is necessary in order to defend our White Australia Policy and, in that connection, the Northern Territory has been mentioned. But what are we doing to populate the Northern Territory? Is there not land there that is not capable of supporting settlers? The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) has stated that land is available there, he has told us exactly where it is, and that it can be used for raising certain tropical products which he has enumerated. "

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, June 29 1926, p. 3593

"Then the necessary machinery will be put into operation for convening the economic conference for the discussion of matters of domestic concern. In such an event, where will Australia stand? It is a matter of vital importance to us, and we should do everything possible to prevent our policy of a White Australia from being placed in jeopardy. It will be in jeopardy when the League deals with the question of migration. We shall not be able to shelter ourselves behind international law in a big conference which will have the power to change the whole aspect of our policy. We shall be entirely at its mercy. If we do not now lodge an objection against that proposal, we shall have only ourselves to blame. I have every confidence that the Australian delegation will look closely into this matter. It is only fair to ask that we should display an intelligent interest in what is happening. We have these reports to guide us and they show clearly what is aimed at. It must not be forgotten that many nations on the Continent of Europe are behind this proposal.

Mr Marks: "The probability of our having to make a struggle to maintain our White Australia Policy is coming closer every day"

Mr. Charlton: "Unless the British Empire says definitely "we do not agree to this matter being discussed", Australia will be in danger. We should have pointed out at the commencement of the proceedings that we agreed to the proposal to have an economic conference, but not for the purpose of discussing matters of domestic concern. It was not sufficient for the representatives of the British government to say that they preferred that the matter should not go to a preparatory committee for fear that it might prejudice the decision of the council. That was only a half-hearted way of expressing opposition. Would it not have been far better for them to have said: "we shall have nothing whatsoever to do with this proposal. It deals with matters that according to international law, are of domestic concern." If Great Britain had adopted that attitude, this committee would not consider these questions….

Although Great Britain and the Dominions were opposed to any proposal that was put forward, it would be possible for them to be out-voted by the other nations. Such a contingency can be prevented now by the vote of Great Britain or Australia on the floor of the assembly …..

But if action in that direction is not taken we may be led onto dangerous ground. If the economic conference decides that the questions of the tariff and migration have to be dealt with in the interests of all the nations, those countries that are heavily populated, realising that Australia is thinly populated, and possesses a great deal of territory that is capable of production, may exert pressure to have compulsion applied to us to admit their people free from any restriction. What then will become of our White Australia Policy? This is a matter of the greatest importance and it should be scrutinised by every honourable member."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, July 27 1926,  p. 4606.

James Henry Scullin

James Scullin

"The maintenance of

White Australia was the

primary objective of a

Labor government."

1928

James Henry Scullin was born at Trawalla near Ballarat Victoria on

September 18 1876. James Scullin contested the seat of Ballarat against Alfred Deakin in the 1906 Federal election. Scullin was defeated but Deakin was so impressed by his performance that he said in reference to this young man: "who might well become a future Prime Minister."

During the years waiting for the next opportunity, Scullin operated a grocery store, many a poor family was carried on his books, but he averaged it out. He was a foundation member of the Ballarat Labour League. In the Federal Election of 1910, he won the seat of Corangamite. However in 1913 he was defeated. He participated in the anti-conscription campaign, passing a Labour Party motion, passed also be Caucus, that no Labour M.P. who supported conscription or who left the Federal Party to join Hughes, could return. On the death of the Federal leader Mr. Tudor he was elected to his seat of Yarra in 1922. In 1927, he was elected deputy leader of the parliamentary Labor Party and in 1928 was elected Federal leader on the resignation of Mr. Charlton. The following Federal election saw the Labor Party returned to office in a landslide; however in 1929 the Great Depression began. The Labor Party did not have control of the Senate and several members of the party switched over to the conservatives. The Labor government was unable to put forward a clear programme as it no longer had a majority in the House of Representatives. The so-called Premiers' Plan was put forward which called for reduced wages, pensions and interest. Scullin did not accept the Premiers' Plan but wanted to go to the people and receive a clear mandate with a clear programme offered. However, many Labor M.P.'s feared losing their seats in an election. The party was deeply divided and Scullin gave in and accepted the Premiers' Plan. The Scullin government fell soon after and John Curtin was elected leader in 1935. Scullin died on January 28 1953.

Scullin was a committed Australian nationalist. He praised the first Fisher government because it established the foundations of "an Australian Navy manned by Australians, and owned and controlled by the Australian government." The basis for a much more populous and wealthy Australia lay primarily in Labour's policy of land tax, the nationalization of monopolies, higher import duties, a White Australia, increased powers for the Federal Parliament and a Commonwealth Bank. All this, boasted Scullin, "the true Australian ring about it". And Scullin warned that the country needed to develop its resources because "Eastern countries were casting greedy eyes towards Australia."

"The White Australia Policy has in it more than the mere racial question; it includes very largely the industrial or economic aspect. … I believe first in maintaining the purity of the Australian race…

I do not intend to argue that this infringes the White Australia Policy. That policy embodies the question of residence in Australia, quite apart from the manning of the boats. Whatever concession the minister might feel inclined to make to British shipowners who, even though they are not paying the Australian rate of wage, are at least paying wages that are fit for white men, whatever inroads he intends to make upon the progressive legislation that has been passed for the benefit of the men who "go down to the sea in ships". I suggest that he ought not to make any concession to those who employ cheap, sweated, coloured labour. In my opinion the bill is not required and it makes a very serious breach in important legislation the Commonwealth Parliament took many years to pass."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, January 1926, p. 402

"… Australians should be more appreciative of the beauties of their own land, for it truly was a land of the dawning awakening to a grand, glorious future ….. (and) …irrespective of creed, to join together with united force to make their country a great, grand, free, open-hearted White Australia …

Some people of course scoff at sentiment - hard-headed practical men who declare that Australia cannot live by sentiment. Sentiment is at the basis of every practical idea we have…"

Lecture to the North Richmond branch of the Labor Party, 1922.

"Any attempt to undermine the White Australia plank of our platform will be stoutly resisted."

Frank Forde

Frank Forde

Francis Michael (Frank) Forde was Prime Minister for exactly seven days from July 6 - 13 1945. His government was the caretaker between the death of Prime Minister John Curtin and the election by caucus of

Mr. Ben Chifley as his successor. Forde was Deputy Prime Minister during the whole Curtin government period and the Chifley administration until his defeat at the 1946 General Election. Frank Forde had represented the Queensland constituency of Capricornia for twenty-three years. Forde administered the most vital portfolio of the 'Army' during the whole period of the Pacific war. He was a very hard working Minister, but found it difficult to satisfy everyone about demobilisation. In 1947, he was appointed as the Australian High Commissioner to Canada. He retired from this important office in 1953 after a successful tenure.

Frank Forde also represented Australia as the leader of the delegation to the inaugural conference of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945.

Upon his return from overseas in 1953, he entered the State Parliament of Queensland constituency of Flinders. At the election of 1957, he was defeated by one vote. If Frank Forde had become Premier of Queensland instead of Vince Gair, the Queensland Labor Party may not have split and paved the way for the corrupt Bjelke-Petersen administration.

Frank Forde died in 1980.

"The honourable member looked at the position from the point of view of employers. Today, he would like to see thousands of men unemployed, so that there would be great competition and a rush for jobs.

Mr. Coarser: That is an unfair statement.

Mr. Forde: The honourable member knows that what I have said is perfectly true. He has seen the great transformation which has taken place in Queensland since the time when he was engaged in bringing Kanakas to work in the sugar plantations at .. (one shilling) … a day.

Mr. Coarser: Were not those same men anxious to join the Federation on conditions which would do away with coloured labour on the sugar plantations? I was president of an association that agreed to that.

Mr. Forde: The Labour Party in the different states blazed a track in connection with the White Australia Policy. Later, when the majority of the people were found to be behind that policy, certain other men who desired to obtain seats in parliament also subscribed to it. I remind the honourable member that all the members of this parliament of the time whose opinions coincided with those held by him, voted against the adoption of a White Australia Policy when the question came to the vote. Instead, they voted for the continuance of the employment of black labour.

Mr. O'Keefe: The members of the Labour Party at that time had to fight tooth and nail for their ideal.

Mr. Forde: At the honourable member for Denison (Mr. O'Keefe) was a member of another place. He knows the opposition that existed at that time to the White Australia Policy, and the strenuous efforts that were necessary to secure its adoption. It was vehemently opposed by the champions of black labour at .. (one shilling) .. a day.

Mr. Coarser: I rise to make a personal explanation.

The Chairman: The honourable member cannot interpose a personal explanation at this stage but may do so later.

Mr. Forde: Among the members of the National Party are still many champions of black labour.

Mr. Cunningham: 'Black' Barwell in South Australia, for instance.

Mr. Forde: Sir Henry Barwell, the ex-Premier of South Australia, when he advocated black labour for the northern portions of Australia, said that he expressed what a great number of his supporters thought, but were afraid to say. He spoke on behalf of a large section of the conservatives of Australia when he advocated black labour. I believe that in the National Party today, there are many men who would like to see black labour reintroduced. When Lord Leverhulme visited Australia -

Mr. Pratten: What did we say to him?

Mr. Forde: I do not know what was said to him by the party to which the honourable member belongs, but I do know what the Leader of the Opposition said to him. Mr. Charleton told Lord Leverhulme that he nothing about Australia, and the sentiments of its people, and that his views on this question of black labour would be hotly opposed by the Labour Party. A great many people on the Tory side in politics agree with Lord Leverhulme in this matter, but are afraid to voice their opinions. If, by any means, black labour could be reintroduced into Australia, they would welcome it. I have a met a number of employers of labour in different parts of Australia who have stated that, in order to develop this young country, black labour must be utilised in the northern parts of this country. The Labour Party, on the other hand, believes in a sound and sane policy of immigration, and not in the haphazard policy of bringing people to Australia some of whom are no longer wanted in the old country…."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates , 9 September 1924, p. 4087

"It is well known that in the early days of the sugar industry in Queensland thousands of Kanakas were introduced from the South Sea Islands to serve for a stipulated period at niggardly rates of pay. Owing chiefly to the attitude of the Labour Party in the Federal And various State governments, black labour has now been abolished in Queensland and the place of the Kanakas has been taken by Australians and by immigrants principally from Great Britain but also, in later years, from Southern Europe.

Mr. McKay: The honourable member's memory is conveniently bad in respect of the Kanakas.

Mr. Forde: That is not so. The Kanakas would have been in Queensland had it not been for the Labour Party.

Mr. Prowse: The honourable member believed in deportation for the Kanakas.

Mr. Forde: They were not deported, but restored to their own country from which they were taken away against their will ….. So were the Kanakas until they were forced to go to Queensland to be driven like slaves ..….

I welcome men who will be able to look after themselves and be able to create employment, but every opportunity should be given to poor men to make a start. It is no use dumping them down without assistance. It is often said that the Labour Party has been responsible for keeping capital out of Australia, but that is not the case. We welcome capital here, and we hope that the time will come when we shall not have to send practically the whole of our raw materials abroad but when, on the contrary, we shall manufacture it here. It is not true that the Labour Party has no definite policy on immigration."

Commonwealth Parliamentary July 16 -17 1925, p. 1169.

Ben Chifley

Ben Chifley

Joseph Benedict Chifley was born on September 22 1885, at Bathurst. He was the eldest son of a local born blacksmith and his Irish-born wife. Ben was separated from his parents and eldest brothers at the age of five. For the next nine years, he seldom saw them and lived on his grandfather's farm north of Bathurst where he slept on a wattle mattress in a humble shack with an earthen floor. He entered the workforce as a junior employee at a local store. He later joined the New South Wales railways. He progressed so rapidly that he became the youngest train-driver in the State. At this time, he became active in union affairs. During World War One, Chifley was a staunch anti-conscriptionist. During the Great Railway Strike, as one of the strike-leaders, Chifley lost his job. While railway workers in Sydney, dispirited, gave up the fight, the Bathurst railway workers wanted to continue the struggle. Chifley was ultimately re-employed but was no longer a driver, but he had to work under men he had trained. Lang finally restored the seniority rules of the railway workers.

Chifley won ALP pre-selection for the Seat of Macquarie, but was unsuccessful at the 1925 election, but was finally elected in 1928. As Defence Minister in the Scullin government, Chifley was quietly impressive. He gained valuable administrative experience. During the 1931 Federal Election landslide against Labor he lost his Seat. In 1940, Chifley was re-elected for Macquarie. In the Curtin government, Chifley was appointed Treasurer. He lifted taxation on the wealthy and increased company, sales and land tax. In 1942, wary of inflation, he introduces controls on wages, prices and profits and initiated a national income tax scheme. As Curtin's health declined, during the later phase of the war, Chifley took up more responsibilities. After Curtin's death, Chifley assumed the leadership from Forde's temporary position.

Shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Chifley announced Japan's surrender. Throughout his period as Prime Minister, he stayed in a small room at the Kurrajong Hotel rather than the official residence - The Lodge.

Under the Chifley government, returned soldiers were provided with a war gratuity entitlement to vocational training, special unemployment and preference in employment for seven years. Every effort was made to avoid the deficiencies in the conditions of returned men of the First World War. Australia's vital export industries were given post-war foundations. Plans were made for the rapid industrialisation of Australia with the establishment of a local motor vehicle industry. A bold immigration scheme was introduced. The Hospital Benefits Act established free public wards by giving subsidies to the States. Chifley maintained a tight rein on the economy, knowing that inflationary pressures were building. Prices, imports and rents were all curbed. Rationing was maintained and consumer demand contained. The financing of Australia's immense war effort did not result in an escalation of overseas debt which, in fact, was substantially reduced - an incredible achievement under the circumstances. The Chifley government was returned to power in 1946. The Snowy Mountains Scheme began, the Australian National University was founded and Atomic Energy Commission was initiated. An attempt to nationalize the banks failed, giving wind to the Liberal Party. The Communist Party sabotaged Labor's program through unnecessary political strike actions. These factors contributed to Chifley's defeat in the 1949 election. Chifley remained as Labor leader until his death in June 13 1951.

The conservatives began in the period after the war to undermine the White Australia Policy. From 1947 to 1949 the conservatives launched attacks against the Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell, for his rigid defence of the White Australia Policy. These "borderline cases" where Asians were deported by Calwell were beaten up in the newspapers and then reported in Asian newspapers and instead of the conservatives forming a united front to defend Australia's interests carried on to undermine it.

Chifley firmly supported Calwell.

"There is no possibility of a change in our attitude to non-European immigration. Most of our representatives in the East, are of course, constantly badgered about immigration matters and as they are associated a great deal with representatives of other countries, unless they are pretty strong minded, they are likely to be embarrassed. However, I have made it clear to each of them that while stationed in the East, they must be firm in regard to the matter."

Letter To Arthur Calwell, June 1949.

"The only way for Asians to achieve peace and prosperity for all their nations is through strenuous efforts in their own lands, not through migration."

L.F.Crisp, Ben Chifley: A Political Biography, 1961.

"The only reason that Asia is not aflame today is that Britain gave self-government to India, Pakistan and Ceylon, otherwise the white races would not have a friend today in Asia. One of the things to be faced in Asia - while remembering that the communist jumps on everybody's shoulders - is that the people of Asia no longer want white government. It should be remembered too, that most of the radical leaders in Asia are not wage-earners, but are most English university products, and that many of them are wealthy.

An Address To The Federal Conference Of The Federal Labor Party, March 2 1951.

"We do not have to be too soft-hearted to understand the big task before them. It must be an awe-inspiring task to settle in a new country. Not only have we to get the newcomers here, but we have to make them fit in as well as they can. We must do our upmost to smooth the rough path over which these people have to travel."

To aid his appeal to Labor men to subdue their fears of unemployment and migrant competition for jobs and homes, Chifley bluntly warned about another traditional Labour fear, an Asian influx. He told the Labor Party's Federal Executive:

"This is Australia's great opportunity … It may never come again. If we do not grasp it then Asian countries will undoubtedly be looking at us and there will be increasing pressure for an outlet for their population."

L.F. Crisp, Ben Chifley: A Political Biography, p. 320

Dr. Herbert V. Evatt

Doc Evatt

When Ben Chifley died in 1951, 'Doc' Evatt took over as Federal leader of the Labor Party. He held the position until 1960. Doctor Herbert Vere Evatt was born April 30 1894 in the coalmining region of the Hunter Valley in New South Wales. He was the fifth of eight sons of Maitland hotelier, John Evatt. When he was seven, his father died. The eldest two boys went to Sydney to work. Herbert Evatt was a brilliant student at Fort Street High School in 1915. Evatt graduated in Arts with First Class Honours in English Mathematics and Mental Philosophy. He won more scholarships and went to do his Master Of Arts and Doctor Of Law degrees. During World War One Evatt twice tried to enlist and was rejected both times. In 1916, Evatt began his legal career as secretary and associate of the Chief Justice of New South Wales. He appeared on the Edmonds Commission that investigated the promised restoration of jobs and seniority to which the Railway Commissioners had agreed to in the bitter railway strike.

In the 1925 State Election, he won the seat of Balmain and became a member of the Lang Labor government. The Scullin government appointed Evatt as Justice of the High Court of Australia. In 1926, Evatt attended an International Labour Conference where the White Australia Policy came under attack. Evatt, a fierce supporter of that policy, defended it with vigour. In 1940, he was elected to the Federal Parliament; in the Curtin government, Evatt was appointed Attorney-

General and Minister for External Affairs. After Japan entered the war, Evatt was sent to Washington to insist Australia was not merely one more British colony, only to regarded as a base of operations. In London and Washington, he demanded and got war supplies and a greater say for Australia. In the election of 1943, Labor swept the polls winning control of the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. When Curtin died and Chifley became P.M., Evatt retained his ministerial posts.

After the A.L.P. won in 1946, Evatt became Deputy Prime Minister. At the San Francisco Convention in 1945, Doc Evatt vigorously argued for a Charter Resolution which prohibited United Nations' authority from interfering in the domestic policy of member states. His concern was that pressure would be exerted to change the White Australia Policy, which he regarded as vital to the country's survival. Evatt emphasised a policy based on friendship with the newly emerged nations of Asia. He believed friendship did not involve interfering in other countries' internal affairs.

As Leader of Opposition, and after nearly winning the 1954 election, he became embroiled in the 'Petrov Affair' which damaged his credibility. He lost the 1955 election and the 1958 election and retired as leader in 1960. He thereafter served as Chief Justice for New South Wales.

"It is quite unnecessary for me to wait for the closing of any debate in order to give that assurance. I gave such an assurance during the debate on international affairs, but I point out that the subject was mentioned then only because a question on it had been addressed to me by the honourable member for New England. I gave the assurance then, and I give it now. If the honourable member likes, I will give it morning, noon and night. The White Australia Policy is absolutely basic to the economy and politics of this country. There has never been any suggestion, direct or indirect, that it would be interfered with. The subject has never been mentioned by me except in the circumstances in which I have recounted. I am obliged to the honourable member for giving me the opportunity to remove the so-called uneasiness which, if it exists at all, has been caused by what other people have said and not by anything that I have ever said."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates 12 March 1947 p. 527

"This debate has covered such a wide field, and many of the speeches on international affairs, have been most extensive that I feel impelled to remove some of the doubts which have been expressed and to clarify certain problems which have arisen. Before I deal with some of the early speeches, I desire to refer to several matters that were discussed this evening. First, the honourable member for Reid, 'Mr. Lang', said that the Australian government was 'tinkering' with the White Australia Policy. That statement is absolutely incorrect and quite unjustified. There is not a tiddle of evidence to support it. During this debate, the House has had a most clear and unequivocal affirmation of this fundamental principle of our policy, not only by me on behalf of the government, but also by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), on behalf of honourable members opposite. I said, in answer to a question which was asked during the last few weeks, that I should be prepared, if necessary, to state and restate the principle morning, noon, and night, but I do not need to do that when there can be no dispute about that principle in this Parliament or in the country. The honourable member for Reid was right when he said the White Australia Policy is related to the security of Australia. I state quite frankly that had the Policy not been applicable to the territories of Australia when war with Japan occurred, the result would probably have been the overrunning of a substantial portion of this country by the enemy. However, the thing is axiomatic. It is fundamental to all our way of thinking. Our relations with our countries to the north of Australia are not prejudiced or should not be prejudiced by that fact. Indeed, I do not believe that they could be prejudiced by it. If the declaration is clear, that is the basis for friendship and mutual understanding. So, it is necessary for me again to make that perfectly clear. That was the only point, I believe, made by the honourable member for Reid in his speech."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates 25 March 1947, p. 1135 - 1136

"Mr. Abbott: Was the White Australia Policy raised in the discussions with India?

Dr. Evatt: That matter has never been raised by India or by Australia at any stage. The subject was not mentioned on the appointment of an Indian High Commissioner to this country, on the appointment of the Australian High Commissioner to India, Sir Iven McKay, or on any of the very numerous occasions when our representative has been in touch with the Indian government, not merely before the recent constitutional developments, but also during those developments. A telegram that I have received only today confirms that view. Dealing with the migration policy in India, the Indian spokesman recently referred to in the press made no special reference to Australia. He was referring to the policy of migration in relation to all countries. A firm and lasting understanding with the people of India - this is not merely desirable but also essential - can be based only on a frank understanding of the immigration policy of this country. No nation makes more definite demands to the right to determine the constitution of their own population than do China and India. We demand that right for this country. No doubt honourable members will have some suggestions to make about this matter. I believe that a clear and frank understanding of our basic policy on migration is an absolute condition to rapid progress in cooperation between the two countries. I do not think there will be any difficulty in reaching that understanding. No doubt there are some rules and regulations that might be altered to connection with the visits to Australia by students, and also by representatives of commercial undertakings to permit a freer flow of trade between this country and Eastern countries. But the migration policy to which all members of this House are pledged is basic to our economy, and I do not think that the government of India would ever challenge it.  Certainly it has not done so in the negotiations or discussions that have already taken place."

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates 26 February 1947 p. 165

Arthur Calwell

Arthur Calwell

Arthur Calwell was born at 100 Stanley Street West Melbourne on the August 28 1896. He was one of seven children of a Catholic policeman. At age six he survived diphtheria that affected his throat and larynx and vocal chords for the rest of his life. When he was eight, his mother took him to Melbourne city to hear the man he would later succeed in the Federal Parliament, Dr. William Maloney. In 1913, he started work in the Victorian Public Service in the Department of Agriculture. At age eighteen, he was secretary of the Melbourne branch of the A.L.P. During World War One, Calwell was a fierce opponent of conscription and went to the mass meetings, 70,000 strong, to hear anti-conscriptionists such as Frank Brennan, Frank Anstey and others attack William Hughes over the issue. Although an opponent, Arthur Calwell volunteered for military service but was rejected. He stayed at the Victorian Department of

Agriculture until 1927 when he transferred to the Treasury, remaining until 1940, when Dr. Maloney died and he was elected his successor. In 1931, he was elected President of the Victorian Branch of the Labor Party. In 1943, Labor Prime Minister Curtin appointed Calwell to his Cabinet as Minister For Information. When Curtin put forward his plans for conscription, Calwell opposed him. Although it can be argued Calwell was wrong then, it must be said that his stand on the issue never changed through to the Vietnam War.

In 1945, Prime Minister Chifley appointed Calwell as the first Minister For Immigration, a post he held until 1949. It was Calwell who invented he term 'New Australian' to describe the new settlers from all parts of Europe. He should go down in history as the greatest Minister For Immigration Australia ever produced. His program was so successful that the Menzies' government maintained it. After the bitter years of Dr. Evatt's leadership of the Labor Party, Calwell took charge in 1960. In the election of 1961, the Menzies government scraped back on a few hundred votes in a single seat. This seat, Moreton, the Liberal candidate, Jim Killen, won the seat with Communist Party preferences. Nationally, the A.L.P. out-polled the Liberals.

In 1963, Menzies called a snap election a year before time and the result was that the Liberals won seventy-two seats to Labor's fifty. The result could be explained by the electorate's concern over the situation in South East Asia and the Democratic Labour Party's preferences favouring the Liberals.

In 1966, Calwell faced a new opponent in Harold Holt. The Vietnam War was popular with voters. Calwell opposed the Vietnam War and conscription. Interestingly, Gough Whitlam adopted a more moderate attitude Australia's involvement than Calwell's. Calwell attempted to adopt a modified isolationist White Australia argument in opposing the conscription of Australian youth for Vietnam. However 1966 was not 1916 and he lost the election in a Liberal landslide. During this election campaign, Calwell attended a meeting a Mosman Town Hall and after the meeting he saw a young man running towards his car. Thinking he was a well-wisher, Calwell wound down the window of the vehicle and a shot rang out. Mr. Peter Cocan had attempted his assassination. He lost his position as Opposition Leader in 1967 to Gough Whitlam, an ardent liberal internationalist who would go on to say: "The White Australia Policy is dead; give me a shovel, and I will bury it." (Spoken while he was toasting the health of the notoriously corrupt oriental dictator, Ferdinand Marcos who looted his countries treasury of billions of dollars which went into Swiss bank accounts Whitlam also gave the green light to the military dictator of Indonesia, General Sueharto to invade East Timor and who committed one of the worst genocides of the Twentieth Century.)

Calwell also stood up for the rights and heritage of Australian Aborigines, stating shortly after he entered parliament on June 25 1941:"I direct the attention of the House to the flagrant and disgraceful manner in which the Parliament and people of Australia are treating the Aboriginals." In believing that "we should try to assist" Aborigines "in every way possible", he showed himself a true patriot. He later said in his autobiography : "They are the only non-European descended people to whom we owe any debt." He appreciated that Aboriginal Australia and White Australia were bonded in the struggle against Asia.

"I stated on the previous occasion that Australia will not continue to be a white man's country even if we win this war, unless it has a population of approximately forty millions."

"No sensible man would honestly object to the immigration of white people under proper conditions."

"It would be far better for us to have in Australia twenty million or thirty million people of one hundred per cent white extraction than to continue the narrow policy of having a population of seven million people who are 98% British.

Mr Rankin: And commit national suicide?

Mr. Calwell: Yes."

"There will be no future for Australia unless it has a population to defend it when a militarized Asia, not a militarized Japan, moves south, at a time when Europe will probably have settled its many quarrels and when America may be disinclined to give us any further assistance."

"If we are to remain a white race, we can do nothing else than maintain the White Australia Policy. If we cannot get a population of twenty million or thirty million people in this country within a generation or so, by means of immigration and an increase of the birth rate, the day of the white race in Australia will be finished."

"I proudly take my stand with those who have issued a Christian program for social justice in the names of the Anglican Social Questions Committee, Catholic Action, and Christian Social Order Council, the way to have a sane and safe Australia is to give social justice to everybody. We shall not be able to hold this country as a citadel of European civilization in this part of the world unless we can obtain a population of fifteen million or twenty million within a generation."

"I do not agree that the White Australia Policy is of economic origin. Our immigration restriction laws are not based upon economic grounds. They are based upon our national desire to preserve the homogeneity of our race which is the right of every people Asian and European alike."

"The Indonesians have no claim whatsoever to Dutch New Guinea whether on ethnical, historical or other grounds … We shall never be able to make an alliance with Indonesia or other Asiatic country unless we give to the people of that country the same opportunity to settle in Australia as is enjoyed by Europeans, and we could do that only at our peril."

The previous quotes are extracts from a biography: Nelson Kiernan, Calwell: A Personal And Political Biography, pp. 79, 80, 81, 83, 171, 172.

"No red blooded Australian wants a chocolate coloured Australia."

"A man who is not proud of his race, is not a man at all."

From Arthur Calwell, Be Just And Fear Not, 1972.

(Note: Calwell's autobiography is such a rich source of material, that the reader should, indeed must, consult it. This book is a great statement of Australian nationalism.)

"So long as the Labor Party remains in power there will be no watering down of the White Australia Policy … No matter how violent the criticism, no matter how fierce and unrelenting the attacks on me personally may be, I am determined that the Flag of White Australia will not be lowered … A united race of freedom-loving Australians who can intermarry without the disadvantages that inevitably result from the fusion of dissimilar races, a united people who share the same loyalties, the same outlook and the same tradition … "

The Sydney Morning Herald, March 24 1949.

"The ultra-conservatives and land-barons would like vast pools of near-slave labour, the communists wish to bring about any condition of strife poverty and mistrust in the community which would make good government more difficult … Asians present a menace to our society. Australians are fearful of foreigners. They have xenophobia and they do not want their rhythm of life disrupted. Because of this, the established policy is the best one."

Arthur Calwell, Danger For Australia, Government Publications, 1949, p.7

"It is true that a measure of discrimination on racial grounds is exercised in the administration of our immigration policy. That is inevitable in a policy which is based on the concept that the homogeneous character of the population, which settled and developed the country, shall be maintained."

Arthur Calwell, Australian Tradition In Immigration, p.5

"The only claim ever made or implied in our policy is that there are different varieties of the human species distinguished from one and other not by skin pigmentation but by languages, religions, standards of living, cultures and historical backgrounds, and that it is wise to avoid internecine strife, and the problems of miscegenation which such differences have caused in all countries throughout history where races of irreconcilable characteristics have lived in the same community."

The West Indian Economist, March 1960,p. 26.

"Australians are descended, to a predominant degree, from people of English, Scotch, Irish and Welsh origins. That predominance should not be disturbed. Labor believes that our policy of assimilation and absorption is the only sensible policy for Australia to pursue. It is determined to continue to oppose, for many obvious reasons, any attempt to create a multi-racial society in our midst. We can and do absorb migrants from Asia as well as from Europe and we shall continue to do so, but a policy that avoids the tragedies of Ceylon, Fiji, Indonesia and Singapore to give but a few instances is one to be supported. It must have the support of all Australians, young and old, and whether born in this country or not, who are mindful of their heritage and the need to maintain and improve their living standards and social conditions."

Arthur Calwell, Canberra Times, November 11 1966.

In May 1972, the Ecumenical Council of Australia issued a joint statement on behalf of the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Bishops deploring the measure of race as the basis of selection for migrants to Australia. Arthur Calwell put up on the noticeboard in the Parliament House Press Gallery a last testament and warning to the people of Australia:

"I am neither terrorised nor influenced by the pious outpouring of those prelates who seek to stigmatize all red-blooded Australians who want to keep this country as our pioneers, those who were born here or came here before Federation, made it. Why can't the bishops develop a new theory on war? When will most of our Christian clergy stop pandering to the middle class in our supposedly Christian community and stop posturing when it comes to opening the floodgates to unwanted and unnecessary coloured migrants? The silence of Dean Maitland was eloquent alongside the mammoth silence of most of our church leaders on everything associated with the brutal, filthy, immoral, unwinnable, criminal, genocidal, civil war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia."