The Administration of the White Australia Policy

Citation preview

The Administration Administration of the

White Australia Policy

A. C. PALFREEMAN Senior Lecturer in: in Political Science

University of New South Wales

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS L O N D O N A N D N E W YORK; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

x.

Fits; /967 published 1967 First published Printed in Australia by Australia by Printed ire

,Melbourne University Press Press Melbourne University Registered in Australia for .for transmission as a book by Post post as

T1-IIS BOOK MAY BE COPYRIGHT, NO PART OF THIS WITHOUT PERM$1ON PERMISSION REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT

Dewey C1assiHcation Number 325.94 32.5.94 Dewey Decimal Classification Library Congress Catalog Card Number 67-13258 Library of Congress

Text set in I If point Georgian type

¢or

A CKNQWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Barbara Palfreeman Palfreeinan ment ment_._and_ and hel.B help .given given able. I am also much Rivett, and without

made this book possible. The Thel encourageby Deirdre and Pat O'Farrell were invaluindebted to Sandy Yarwood and Kenneth the willing assistance of the Department

]. Lee, and many or of of Immigration, Immigration, Mr William Liu, Mr W. J. the men and women affected by the policy, most of the material material

would have been unobtainable. unobtainable. The Associations for Immigration Reform were most most lippi-ul helpful in allowing me free access to their files. flies. I at! aria also grateful grateful to the Department of Tutorial Classes of the University University In Sydney ydney for permission to use material from the Current Cur-rent Affairs Bulletin, vol. 34, no. 4, 6 July Duly 1964, in chapters I Oo and-1 and i n1 .

A. C.P. A.C.P.

V V

CO ON NTTEENNTTSS

Acknowledgments

V

ix

Abbreviations

Introduction

I

PART

I

T H E P O LLIICCYY

I

White Australia in Action, 1901-1947

2

Parliament and Policy, 1947-1966

20

UP pa

The Problems and the Policy Chinese, their Problems The Chinese,

27

5

4 Students, Not-Chinese, and Some Different Problems

40

Families and Dependants. Principle and Practice

51

6 Naturalization, Permanent Residence and Political Asylum

59

D

-J

["-\

Deportation

67 II P A R T 11

TH I IEE S T A T U T E S

Legislative Contrbi Contrb-1 Legislative

Immigration Act 1901-1949 8S The Immigration Legislation Complcmc11taL1-y Legislation 9 Complementary PA AR RTT I IIII

SI"

re..

102

W H I T H E R W H I T E A U S T R A L I A ?P

[IO O

Pressures on Policy

1 1133

I I

Reaction, Iustiiication, Justification, Reform Reaction,

128 128

vii

viii

Contents Contents

Appendices Appendices II Non-Europeans in Australia-Statistical Non-Europeans in Presentation Presentation

and Residence Regulations Residence Regulations Entry and II Entry III Relevant Clzmses from the Statutes Relevant Clauses

I39 153 167

IV Policy Declarations

171

Selected Source Material

176

Index Ind X

181 181

ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS

A.L.R. .L R A .L C.L.R. R C .P. D C C.P.D. i " l - I - \ " § \

a.snim\eIa=r.

S.R. (N.S.W.) (n.s.w.)

V.L.R. Imm.. w.A.L.R.

Argus Law Reports Commonwealth Commonwealth Law Reports Reports

Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates Papers House of Representatives

Commonwealth Parliamentary Commonwealth

Sydney Morning Sydney Morning Herald State Reports (New South South Wales) Victorian Law Law Reports Western Australian Law Reports

ix ix

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

_

The origins of the White \Vhite Australia ideal lie in the early days of white settlement of the continent; its history has been COVere d adeouatelv `he official report on the importation of he otlicial adequate covered. .oO I India E11841, goldfields 841, the rush of Chinese to the goldfields of Victoria and New South Wales I g o s and and to QueensWales in the 185os land in the 1870s, the indenture of Kanal 1940, 1940, vol. 163, p. 787, Senator Foil. Senator Foil. Parte Lesiputiy; E x parte 25 Ex Lesiputry; Re M'w'phy Murphy (1947) (I947) 47 S.R. (N.S.W.) 433.

Hz

TIoI T

HIS E

l.-1:TTIIItI.€:1.L. L":T17II11;ar I.L.

1l l1F/ L - ll[[IITI - " r

.-1 rl

[T1"l.'T[III{T[77El'.l' 1T1Tr§1Tpri»1lll EFITTTTTT.TTTTIl'l' '1T[IN11T5="rNIII

[H

1-*III API

| !| |I |l || |I |I |l l| ,"]J| 1. .| -| 1"| |l ]' |I --

88

Administration of the White Ad1nirzistratio11 PVh~i2?e Australia Policy

'liable to be prohibited' prohibited' could apply only to a person who was already a prohibited immigrant, in this context therefore, a person person who had been been subjected to the dictation test. O'Keefe had entered Australia refugee and had Mrs O'Keefe Australia as .a refugee not not been given a dictation test, nor had she been given a certifiThe Court ruled ruled Tim cate of exemption. The that she could not be transformed immigrant uncle transformed into a prohibited prohibited immigrant under this section pointed out simply by making making her fail the dictation test. test. It was pointed by Sir Cohn Latham that there was 'no foundation to support the argument that a certificate of exemption can be issued in inoitum imiitum at the arbitrary will of the Minister or an officer'."" officer'." A

Hipulated that certificates were regulation made under the Act" stipulated obtainable only after application and the payment of a fee. in additional, the certificate must be signed by the applicant. In In addition, these circumstances circumstances it was not possible possible to force force a certificate these certificate on someone. It now became immediately necessary to redraft this

sub-section of the Act because, as Mr Calv ell put it, 'Our policy of restricted restricted immigration simply cannot be maintained if certain are not corrected'." tain recently discovered flaws corrected'.2B The certificate system had 'proved highly satisfactory in tiiicate of exemption exemption system every respect'. respect'. It had enabled enabled temporary immigrants to come every

...

the basic in from Asian countries without infringing the basic principles of the policy, development of trade policy, it had contributed to the development

and of friendly relations with our OUT northern neighbours; it had enabled the entry of persons who were technically prohibited immigrants immigrants but 'whose admission could not well be denied on humanitarian grounds', grounds and the system had the added advantage of enabling the immigration authorities to exercise exercise full con-

trol over temporary entrants during the whole of their stay. 'On all counts, therefore, it is most desirable that the principles on which the system is based and which have operated so successfully over 48 years should continue unchanged.'" unchanged. Calv ell interCourt decision to mean that unless unless the the entrant preted the High Court was declared declared to be a prohibited immigrant at the time of entry, or was subjected subjected to the dictation test and convicted as a pro~ as O'Keefe O'Kee}'e v. Caldwell Calv ell (1949) 77 C.L.R., at 274. 27 I926, no. no. 185, amended 2 7 In particular Statutory Statutory Rule, 1916, amended Statutory Rule, 1940, 1940, no. 144. no. i2s8 C.P.D., C.P.D., 1949, Ig4g, vol. 202, p. 806. 29 Ibid.

I9o/-1949 Immigration Act 190/-1949 The Immigration

89

hibited immigrant some time after entry, could not be issued entry, he could with not 'liable 'liable to be exemption-he was not certificate of exemption--he with a certificate prohibited prohibited'. The effects of this interpretation far-reaching. Many interpretation were far-reaching. non-Europeans under exemption had been in the country for over live immediately certificates were immediately five years, unless their certificates validated they theyJ would pass out of the control of the Department, because section 5(2) would no longer a.P_R apply. l . Those Those who had been in Australia for less than fiv,e}ea.rs... unless so Saimless Ive years would also do go they were transformed actual prohibited immigrants by prohibited immigrants transformed into actual being subjected to the dictation test, and then issued with new .......

...else d

certificates. Since there were some thousands of nonliiiropeans non-Europeans holding exemption diliiculties in administrative difficulties certificates, the administrative exemption certificates, following this course would have been innumerable. Another result of this decision was that, in the future, temporary entrants test and convicted as prohibited would have to be given the test immigrants on arrival solely in order to be issued with with exemption objectionable. proved most objectionable. have proved tion certificates. This would have To retrieve the situation, therefore, the Act had to be amended to enable certificates to be issued to persons who were actually prohibited immigrants, 'may be required to immigrants, and persons who 'may pass the Dictation other words, persons under the Dictation Test'; in other contingent liability dictation test within being subject to the dictation liability of being five years after arrival. g(2)). arrival. (under s. 5(2)). Eve Thus section 4(1) was amended to read : The Minister or an authorized officer may issue a certificate of exemption in the prescribed form form authorizing the person named in the certificate (being a prohibited immigrant or an immigrant who may be required to pass the dictation test) to enter or remain in the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, and the person named in the certificate certificate shall not, while the certificate certificate is in force, be subject to any of the provisions of this Act restricting Commonrestricting entry into or stay in the Commonwealth.

It was also necessary cates extant at certificates necessary to ensure that all certify the time remained valid and this was clone by section 4 of the amending Act." Its validity was upheld within a few months amending by the High High Court in the Koen Vising Lau case." Koon Vlfing 30 No. 31 of 1949. !949. 3 0 No. 3 1 Keen Lau v. Y. W'ing Lau Koon Wing 31

Caldwell 0949] 58,3(1949) 80 C.L.R. 533.

Administration Administrcztiovz. of the White Australia Policy

go

authorities now believed that the new forThe immigration authorities mulation satisfactorily overcame the sub-section's former weak-

ness. It stated clearly exemption could be certificates of exemption that certificates clearly that given secondly, to those who and, secondly, immigrants and, given to prohibited immigrants might be required pass the aictot-ion dictation test. Since it was the repaired Io _Pass might

Department of Immigration itself which determined who may be required assumed that there dictation test, it was assumed required to pass the dictation would be no further difficulty, and indeed it seemed that that the courts would endorse this view, in so far pa] as it concerned the kind of people to whom certificates certificates could be issued." To sum up, therefore, that an immigrant, immigrant, if seemed that therefore, it now seemed

given a certificate on arrival, was subject to deportation at the Minister's discretion as long as the Department ensured that the certificate's Even if, by accident, not expire. Even validity did not certificate's validity the certificate expired before the Department renewed it, it was still possible to deport the immigrant within within a reasonable time," still but it could issue him with a new certificate only only if he agreed to accept accept it. Finally, if an immigrant was not not given a certificate certificate

on arrival, he could be given one at any time thereafter only if he accepted it, and it was issued within five Eve years of his arrival. It followed that within five years years of an immigrant's arrival, he could be deported whether he had a certificate or not, and at

any time after his arrival he could be deported if he held a

valid certificate of exemption.

III Let us turn now to the question question of who is entitled to be considered as a member of the Australian community. exact community. The exact legal nature of immigration has, by no means, been the subject of uniform interpretation over the years. How has the policy on HOD-EL1FOPC&H that been affected by the interpretations that non-European entry been have been made? In two separate decisions made in 190534 the High Court took . an immigrant was a person who entered the m view Commonwealth, irrespective Irrespective of whether he intended to stay ,

3 44

II .

Ibid., p. 557.

uaruimannmaalilll

32 33 33

ll

a : m l : u a n

parte Lesip Lesipurry; Re (N.S.W.) 433. Le Murphy (1947) 47 S.R. (N.S.W.) Ex Parte Chip Gee v. Marti-n Martin (1905) 3 C.L.R. 649; .Mum Mann v. Ah On (1905) 7

W.A.L.R.

182.

The Immigration I9o/-/949 Immigration Act 190/-1949

91 go

for a short or long period. 'The term "immigrant" is clearly satisfied Commonwealth' coming into the Commonwealth." satisfied by the act of coming This rather facile definition; very soon proved inadequate. definition rather The following year, in the Ah Sheung case, c a s e , 5 S ruled that the power of the Commonwealth, under section 51 of the Constitution, to exclude persons from Australia could not be

Man

limited by introducing a distinction between British and Australian nationality. same time doubt time there was some doubt nationality. But at the same Q.f Parliament under section expressed expressed as to whether the power of case of Australians on a visit 51 extended to the case anitvzo anime . revertettdz. reveriendi. The question was partly z9oy," when the High partly answered in 19o7," Court ruled that the question of domicile was irrelevant to the

question of entry. Domicile had nothing to do with the political status of the person. The acquisition of Australian Australian domicile in terms of common law need not affect a person's status as an immigrant and the application application to him of the provisions of the Immigration reinforced the folAct. This view was reinforced Restriction Act. Immigration Restriction lowing year by another High Court decision, but this time a new formulation reasoning--that of 'memberformulation entered into the reasoning-that ship comrnunityi" Australian cotnrnunityis' ship of the Australian James Teung Ming, and Niinahan was the son of a Chinese, 'Young lames la{inahan Winifred Mina fan, an Australian. He was born in Melbourne in 1876, and in 1881 was taken to China by his father. James had no further contact with his mother, he was educated in China, his STaffer returned to Ausfather died there, and in 1907 he returned On arrival tralia. Oh. arrival he was given the dictation test, which he

failed; he was then charged before a police magistrate with failed, bl! immigrant. The being a prohibited immigrant. being The magistrate magistrate dismissed the charge and the Commonwealth Commonwealth appealed against this decision to the High Court. It was held MinCourt that, although lVlinof the Court majority of. held by a majority

ahan had. five and had lived in China had left Australia at the age of live for twenty-six abandoned his original home, years, he had never abandoned twenty-six years, and in returning returning to Australia immigrant within Australia he was not an immigrant the meaning meaning of the Act. In his judgment, Isaacs ]_ I, said : 35 Attorney-Gene-ral for the Commonwealth v. C.L-RSheung (1907) 4 C.L-Rv, A h Sheung Attorney-Gene-ral ,for . . 94936 Yin Chnstze (1907) 4. C.L.R. 1428. m v. Christie se Ah Y

.

as Adinakan 37 Potter vv _. M£nakan

(1908) (1909) 7 C.L.R., aact 508. _3o8.

92

Administration of the White Australia Policy

The ultimate fact to be reached as a test whether a given person is not is whether he is or is not at that time a con~ CCHan immigrant or not stituent community known as the Australian people. stitucnt part of the community Nationality and domieil are not the tests; they are evidentiary Nationality facts facts of more or less weight in the circumstances, but they are not the ultimate ultimate or decisive considerations. considerations,

This concept clarified in 1925 in another context, another context, concept was partly éiarifrea when the crucial point in the attempt to deport two men turned on the definition !rnmbersliip ' n m b e r s h i p of the Australian communityi munity?* Walsh had lived in Australia for thirty-five years, Johnson for fifteen. The court decided they could not be deported under section 8AA of the Act because they had made permanent homes in Australia and had become members of the Australian community, and that the immigration power of the Commonwealth did not not authorize Parliament to legislate

persons who had become members of that with respect to persons community.

In that Say came before that same year the case of Lucy Wong Sau the High Court.3"= having been Court." It decided that where a person, having born in Australia ad left and then reentered the country, Australia, had the criterion to be used in determining whether or not he an s .an h i .is immigrant is whether h o = * g whether he is returning ha Australia decided that, in view of Lucy Sau's long absence from Australia and of the fact that she spoke no English, it could not be considered off her Australian that she was returning home, in spite of ' tiered that SE, birth. She was therefore an immigrant within the meaning of the Act, and her original conviction as a prohibited immigrant had to stand.

Higgins J., who with Isaacs I., had dissented in the Mina fan decision, suggested that the difference between the two cases, that in the which in many respects were very similar, was that Minalian case the father took his son's certificate to China, son's birth certificate thereby indicating that Aus~ that he intended his son to remain an Aus» tralian, and his mother was an Australian of European stock, Say case, Lucy's mother Chinese and mother was Chinese Wong Sau whereas in the Wong 'there was not the slightest evidence of anything Australian 'there about the respondent except her `birth'. birth'. In retrospect, it is about so Ex Paris pane Walsh and Johnson; In re Yates (1925) 88 a Wong Say 404. San (1925) 36 C.L.R. 4.04. i ss Doro hoc v. ¥Vong

37 C.L.R- 36.

The Immigration Immigration Act 1901-/949 I9o/-1949

93 93

confusing determined, on confusing to follow the legal reasoning which determined, hand, that Mina Mina fan, born born in Australia, leaving at the age one hand, of live, living for twentyasix twentyssix years in China, and with no no. knowledge of English, was, in returning to Australia, actually return~ ing home, and, on the other, born a s horn other, that Lucy Wong Say, also in Australia, China for thirtileaving at the age of six, livinggin China Australia, leaving four years, also with no knowledge of English, was, in return~ ing to Australia, not returning home but was, in fact, an imrnigrant. also had the further further claim that she was married immigrant. She also to an Australian»domiciled Australiairdomiciled Chinese. The important difference in the two eases cases seemed to be that Minahan's mother was a European and lived in Australia, whereas Lucy's mother was

Chinese and had returned to China. Chinese This suggests that derivative domicile with respect to the that derivative mother played some part in the decision, although although it had already been decided in the Ah Yin ease that derivative domicile was irrelevant political status and_ to whether whether he was status and person's political irrelevant to a person's a prohibited immigrant nature not. Also unclear are the nature irnmirant or not. and force of the evidence upon which the Court decided, on the one hand, that Mina fan never abandoned, abandoned, and never intended Miiiahan Australia as his permanent home, and, on the to abandon, Australia other, that Lucy Wong Say did not intend to retain Australia it.*° But the \Vong San as her home and, in fact, abandoned it.*" ease probably does establish a somewhat stronger presumption case against membership of the 'Australian 'Australian comretention of inernbership against the retention mumty' by non-Europeans non-Europeans who return to the place place of 'racial 'racial munity' comparatively young and spend a long period origin' when comparatively there before seeking to return. before seeking there

As far as temporary concerned, it has never been temporary entrants are concerned, fully decided if or how they achieve Australian domicile in law. law. fully

Part of Mrs O'Keefe's argument in 1949 was that she.: had married an Australian, ustralia and Australian, had made her home in Australia become a member the Australian community. The member of the had become majority majority of the High Court did not discuss this claim since they decided in favour of Mrs O'Keefe on other grounds, but Dixon J., who dissented, was of the opinion that persons, who were expressly admitted for a temporary temporary period, during during that »

»5" Ministe.r.95"

The economic depression had made necessary a tightening up of the entry mechanism for people of all origins. The specific reasons for the introduction of landing permits, were, firstly, Firstly, in the words of the Minister for the Interior, to overcome the difficulty which arose when a white alien arrived without prior permission, not allowed to permission, and for existing policy reasons was not land. The dictation test had to be used to prevent his entry and this was 'not 'not a desirable desirable procedure procedure when an officer has to deal deal with an intelligent foreigner, who may be able to speak several intelligent foreigner, European languages simpler much simpler languages s 55 ?? Secondly, to provide aa much European and more satisfactory satisfactory method Si of control. To make make the holding landing permit permit a statutory requirement would ensure that of a landing the intending alien itnrnigrant immigrant would obtain one before embarking. embarking. landing permit included Administratively, the issuing of a landing

.

certain conditions governing passports, landing money, etc. Since dis this had not not been made clear in the statute and had led to some Act" some administrative confusion, in 1940 an amending ACt" substituted clause : substituted the following clause due oiiicerofiieerany alien who on demand by an officer fails to satisfy die (21) that he is the holder of a landing permit, issued by or on behalf (a) Minister, authorizing admission of the holder into Ausauthorizing the admission of the Minister, tralia, and that he is able to comply with the conditions specified

therein, OI' 56 No. 5 6 No.

ss 3 No. 5

s. 3. 26 of 1932, S. 36 of 1940, s. 3.

51' 57

603. 134, p. 1932, c.p,D., C.P.D., 193 2, vol. vol. 134, p- 603-

The Immigration Immigration Act I9o1-/949 I9o/-/949

IOI

(b) that his admission otherwise been authorized Australia has otherwise into Australia admission into by-or or on behalf of the Minister [could be declared to be a proby hibited immigrant].

It was now clear that even if the immigrant immigrant arrived in Australia with with a valid landing permit permit issued embarkation, issued before embarkation, he had still to satisfy the officer that that he could comply with the conditions The system was time of entry. The conditions of the permit at the time applied only to aliens. Its main purpose was to prevent unacciptunacceptable persons from ever embarking for Australia, and so saving time, trouble, expense and possible unpleasantness. For example, between 1947 and 1955 only fifteen persons were refused to-fused entry because they did not have landing permits or because they could not comply with the specified conditions. Fourteen of the fifteen were of European race." Landing permits did not means dictation test take the place of the _dictation eventing means entry, although it roi-ght might have been a much simpler procedure. 59 Annual returns submitted submitted to Parliament Parliament under s. 17 of the Immigration 5 9 Annual Act for the years 1947-55. 1947-55-

CHAPTER

NINE

COMPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION

I Clearly the exclusion of coloured immigrants found its chief

statutory validity in the Immigration Restriction Act, but there are other pieces of legislation used for exclusion. One was the \Var-time Refugees Removal Act. By 1949 some goo Asians who were admitted to Australia as refugees during the war were still in the country. It was Mr Calwell's policy to

ensure their departure. However, the Immigration Act, even before the O'Keefe case, proved inadequate to do dis. After the O"Keefe case, the statutory limitations to the power required by Calv ell were unsurmountable. Many of the refugees could not be deported under section 4 of the Act because they were not holding certificates of exemption. They had arrived at various ports and airfields during the war, and in many cases it had not been administratively possible to issue them with certificates. Neither could they be deported under section 5(2) of the Act because most of them had already been in Australia for over five years. The O'Keefe case decision made it impossible

for the certificate to be issued to the immigrant unless he

applied for it and accepted it. The government therefore decided that the simplest and most effective way of dealing with this 'recalcitrant minority', as Calv ell called them, was to brineD down new legislation rather than rely on amendments to the Immigration Act. The Bill, known as the War-time Refugees Removal Bill was introduced in Inn 1949 and became law on

12

_July.1 Section 4 defined the

people affected. These were every person 'who entered Australia

during the period of hostilities and is an alien, [and] who, during the period of hostilities, entered Australia as a place of * No. 32 of 1949. 102

Complementary Co fnpleme-ntary Legislation

.

_

103 103

refuge, by reason of the occupation . . of any place by an reiiuge, By enemy, and has not left Australia since'. Exempt, however, were persons domiciled in Australia at the time of entry, OF or who Australia, and diplomatic and consular officials were born in Australia, and their wives and dependants. The Act was directed at both aliens and British subjects. To provide prima facie evidence that a person was a war-time refugee, Minister had need only to certify so in writing. refugee, the Minister Section 5 reads: 'The Minister twelve any time within twelve Minister may, at any months after the commencement of this Act, make an order deportation of a person to whom this Act applies and for the deportation that person shall be deported in accordance with this Act.' The more more in _Bortant aspects of the legislation were tested im_portant_as_pects almost immediately High Court by a number of imrnediatelp before 4l.1w1alrawwg High Chinese been certified Minister as wartime war~tilne certified by the Minister Chinese who had been refugees under the Act and had been arrested prior to deports Part of the plaintiffs' case was that the August 1949.22 Part dion in Auguste entire Act was beyond the powers of the Commonwealth ParAet liament, or 01' that alternatively and 7 of the Act sections 4, 5 and alternatively sections liament,

Br

were beyond these powers? Three members of the Court held that the entire Act Act was

a valid valid exercise of the Commonwealth's Comrnonwealtl:1's legislative powers. One held that sections sections 4, 5 and 7 were valid. But Rich J. and Commonwealth had the although the Commonwealth J. held that, although Williams I. power to deport aliens, it did not not have the power to deport British subjects, either her under the deface power or under the immigration reasoned that the deface power could power could They reasoned power. They immigration power. not invoked because persons concerned concerned were no longer, longer, because the persons not be invoked

if they ever had been, a danger to Australia's security, and they thought subjects could British subjects relating to British thought that the clauses relating wrongly he beyond the reach were beyond be used to include persons who were of the immigration power." majority decision of power."' However, the majority the the Court recognized the validity of the Act. 'The power to suffirespect to immigration is, in my opinion, sufi make laws with respect scient ent in itself to authorize the enactment of all the provisions Act." of the Act." 2 Wing Lau v_ v_ Kohn W'£ng 3 Keen 33 a Cf. Appendix III, 3. 4

Ibid., at 586.

Caldwell (1949) 30 So C.L.R. 533. n Ibid., at 567 (Latham C.].). C.].}.

ION

104

Administration Administration

of

the White Australia Policy

It has already been shown that in December 1949 the incomdecided not to deport war-time refugees, government decided ing Liberal government and the Act was hardly used" after that date. It remained, remained, however, on the statute book-and may still be invoked to deport PC1"SOI'1S persons for whom whom deportation orders orders were made out under the Act before exactly known exactly Duly 1950. It is not known before 1 22 July outstanding, but orders, if any, are still outstanding, many of these orders, how many they very few. would be very they would

II The Nationality Citizenship Act plays a special part in Nationality and C_itizenshi_p . . . . . . .

the control or non-European non -l.11°OPC3.1'1 in-inigrants. Legislatlve power linnngrants. Legislative control of

in .relation an =Aliens' Aliens' was vested in the relation to 'Naturalization and Commonwealth by section .55(XIX) 51(XIX) of the Constitution. The first exercis exercise of this power resulted in the Naturalization Act I9o.3.7 It provided that persons who had been naturalized in of 1903.' the before the .passing passing of the Act would be the several colonies before deemed deemed naturalized under this Act. In the future an alien, resident in the Commonwealth o t being an aboriginal ' ' I l'not Commonwealth and native of Asia, Africa or the Islands of the Pacific, excepting excepting New Zealand', could apply for naturalization. The insertion of this specific reference to racial origin in the Act is surprising when it is considered that so SO much care was taken two years previously in framing the Immigration Restriction Act. It was then then held that any suggestion of specifically racial exclusion in the Act would be incompatible with the interests interests of the Empire

e

and would give needless offence to coloured c o l o r e d nations. The government originally framed by the government Bill originally Naturalization Bill The Naturalization did not give an automatic right right to preiszidlrslgg ralizedgigggpm persons naturalized previously no to acquire Commonwealth citizenship. citizenship. It was thought that the not intended lt was Inn discretion. Minister should reserve some discr . It mum-

to specifically specify cally deny naturalization to persons by reason of their racial origins but Barton 'thought E to allow for the it better an exercise with the accordance with discretion by the Minister in accordance exercise of discretion Comlnonwealth'.8 understood policy of the Commonwealth'.8 well understood Senate, however, on somewhat perverse reasoning, The Senate, -fNo.

6B An exception exception was 1~5_ It»5. " N o , I I of 1903.

Wong Man Commonwealth (1952) 86 C.L.R. Man On v. The Commonwealth Wong 4863C.P.D., 1903, vol. 16, p. 4863. s C.P.D.,

Complementary Legislation

105

introduced finally carried. which were finally amendments to the Bill which introduced amendments Minister any wide powers of discregiving the Minister It objected to giving tion in determining State-naturalized persons which of the State-naturalized determining which should be granted Commonwealth citizenship, this, it thought, should be extended to all State-naturalized aliens, whether

white or coloured. At the same time, it believed that a clear future naturalization of nonpolicy statement banning the future European aliens should he incorporated into the statute, and incorporated into European

this was done by by section 5. Barton tried to persuade the Lower House H! to reject it but failed. He agreed the wording would not be he as objectionable to the home government as would have been a specific exclusion clause in the ImmigratIon Act Act because the Immigration

non~European such by the recognized as such non~European British subjects were recognized Naturalization Bill and were not discriminated against. On the discriminated against. other hand, the measure did discriminate ~a.g_ainst against nationals

of countries with treaty and other links with Britain, notably 1particularly Iapan. However, a majority of the House was rlaarncularly

anxious that descent that obscure words as to persons of European descent shall not be substituted for the very clear words in the clause natives"." aboriginal natives'.° referring to aboriginal referring In 1920 this Act was repealed and a new Nationality Act substituted. substituted. The specific exclusion of aboriginal natives of Asia, Africa and the Pacific Islands was no longer stipulated. Its elimination elimination caused very little little comment in the debates on the Bill. The government merely explained its intention to broaden 'au slope naturalization laws to cover those of ourr naturalization scope E111 broaden 'the whom 'In people to become citizens of the fit people are lit we consider are now had in mind immigrants from It Mow CoIntnonwealth'.1" CoInrnonwealth'.'° la

Lebanon and Syria who, under the original Act, were not per~ mitt ed to become naturalized, although the government was mitted careful to point out that no change was contemplated in immigration immigration policy. What the new Act did was to eliminate the statutory discrimination on racial criteria. However, it gave the Governor-General absolute discretion discretion to give or withhold a certificate of naturalization with or without assigning authority gave final statutory authority reason. This gave assigning any reason. aliens that non-European aliens policy on the naturalization of non-European to any policy Ibid., Ibid., p. 4867, Higgins. C.P.D., 1920, vol. 94, p. 5962, Poynton.

9 10

1o6 106

Administration Administration of the White Australia Policy

the government thought thought fit to apply. apply. A number of observers at the time believed the new Act had paved the way for a modification modification of the strict 'no naturalization naturalization for non-Europeans' non-Europeans' policy which up till then then had been made imperative policy imperative by statute," statute;" but in effect, no change change was made, made, and, except for a handful handful of cases, this policy remained in force until October 1956. Until 1948, when the status of 'Australian citizen' en' became a clear definition, British subjects of non-European origin had, for practical purposes, a citizenship status equal to any British subject. subject. Certainly Certainly there were State laws which imposed imposed a number of restrictions on 'Asiatics' 'Asiatics' but their Commonwealth Commonwealth status seemed straightforward. However, However, the Nationality and status seemed straightforward. Citizenship altered the position. British Citizenship Act of 1948 .altered British subjects subjects who wished Australian citizens were were required to wisheiii to become iustralian apply apply for egistrason' as Australian citizens citizens in much much the same same way as aliens aliens had to apply for naturalization. naturalization. In the same way, llvlinister may grant grant a certificate certificate of registration, registration., and too, the Minister section section. 140 rho of the Act gave the Minister Minister a discretionary discretionary power to grant or refuse an application application without without giving giving any reason. reason, As in the case of aliens, the government's governments policy until Octo~ Octo-» be 1956, certificates of registration to British Ber 1956} was not not to grant certificates subjects subjects of non-European non-European origin, even to long-domiciled long-domiciled non-

Q

Europeans whose whose Australian-born children were were Australian citizens or to non~European citizens non~European wives and husbands of Australian citizens.

There are other other sections of the 1948 Act, which, in conjunction with the Immigration Act, enabled the Minister to refuse citizenship to persons who might normally be he Australian

citizens. Section 25 provides that a person born outside Australia and New Guinea British subject, father Guinea and who is a British subject, or whose whose father was a British subject, is eligible for citizenship. citizenship. But, to ensure that colored British subjects do not slip through the net, some special conditions are added. Someone who comes in before the of" the Act, whatever ever his nationality, nationality. and who is either a start of prohibited immigrant immigrant or who holds holds a certificate of exemption, prohibited cannot become an Australian citizen unless he is given perlnis~ permissign sion to stay in Australia Australia permanently. permanently. If he comes comes in after11 See Myra Willard, History 1923), Pp. 133-

of

the White Australia Policy Policy (Melbourne,

Complementary Legislation Io7 107 Complementary Legislation rohibiter immigrant, or under exempwards and is either a pprohibited tion, he cannot cannot acquire Australian citizenship. A case I; Lau and his children. Lau ease in point is that of Mr ]. was born Australia and is an Australian Australian citizen. His children born in Australia were born in China and in Hong Kong during the currency of the Nationality They were therefore British British Nationality Act 1920-1946. They subjects. Two daughters came to Australia Australia as students under certificates of exemption. After some residence, the some years' residence, certificates Department of Immigration in 1957 required them to leave the country. Although they were British subjects, they could could not claim Australian citizenship because they held certificates certificates of because they exemption. It It can he seen that they were in a sense intrinsically

Australian 'enterin Australia Australia was a rebecause 'entering' Australian citizens but because quirement of citizen citizenship, ship, and because anyone entering Australia required to apply for a certificate of exemption, and could be required because finally anyone who applied for a certificate of exempt son became ineligible for citizenship, citizenship, Sthe§§\/Iinister Minister retained retained became ineligible complete control. If Lau's daughters had by some some chance entered Australia without having having applied applied for an exemption exemption certifica little doubt aim to citizen~ citizen» claim doubt that their d seems little there seems certificate, in there ship, if tested, would have been bg_en_.IT1"'heId_ the court. upheld by court. If the 'ere to be taken literally it 25 .were sectionIt H wording of sectio the wording would appear after the start of appear that no person who came in after the Act and had been issued with a certificate of exemption, would be eligible for naturalization or registration at any time, even after the certificate has expired. In practice though, the administration administration has not interpreted the statute in this way. A number of persons who arrived in Australia after the commencement of the Act and who were placed under exemption naturalization, notably the on entry, in fact, were granted naturalization, Japanese brides of Australian servicemen, some war-time with over fifteen years' residence. refugees and others with The situation was clarified by a bill to amend the Act, presented August 1958. Section 25(7) now excluded sented to Parliament in August from citizenship citizenship prohibited immigrants and persons holding permits. This section section came into force at the temporary entry permits. same time as the la/Iigration Migration Act 1958, which substituted substituted temporary entry permits for exemption certificates. It is clear that that any person holding a temporary temporary entry permit was ineligible

Br

108 1 of

Administration of White Australia Policy of the White

for citizenship. The Minister at any time could, however, withresidence, permanent residence, draw a temporary permit and grant permanent whereupon the immigrant would become eligible.

111 III measures subsub~ proceedings and the hurried measures ()'Keefe case proceedings The 0'Keefe

sequently put to Parliament by Mr Calv ell to overcome the defects in the immigration immigration laws, made it clear that a thorough overhaul essential. The judiciary judiciary was as overhaul of the statutes was essential. convinced of this as was the Department of Immigration. Dixon drafted [Immigration] Act was not well drafted 'the [Immigration] thought 'the J. thought Dixon ]. and has grown up in hits and pieces. It has become extremely extremely difficult to reconcile reconcile some of the prow-'isions'. provisions Nine years were to pass before this overhaul was completed; it held held the continuous continuous attention attention of a number number of different bodies, primarily, primarily, of course, the Department of Immigration and the Immigration Advisory Council. When the new bill was ready, the Minister for Immigration, Mr Downer, claimed that that in immigration Charter many respects it gives Australia the finest immigration that the world has yet seen'. seen'. It was introduced to Parliament on I May 1958. Downer said,

.

These proposals are the fruit of long deliberatioh deliberation . . Every aspect of the immigration law has been the light of carefully examined in the been carefully over half a century of experienceexperience- We have delved into the statutes

existing of other countries . . . In the result this bill repeals nineteen existing enactments. have which have present act which sections of the present omits 24 sections enactments. It omits become become unnecessary or outmoded; it retains those parts of the existing law which we feel should be preserved; preserved; and it advances much that is new."

The existing enactments enactments were made made up by the The nineteen existing (amendments to the original Act) Acts (amendments sixteen Immigration Acts between 1901-49, the two Pacific Islands Lahourers Labourers Acts of 1901 19o1 and 1906, The War19o6, and the Aliens Deportation Act of 1948. The time Refugees Removal Act remained on the statute book. time The entry mechanism under the new Act was greatly simplified; summed u p by section 6(1) and (2) : simplified; it is sunned permit holder of an entry permit being the holder (1) An immigrant who, not being (I) in force, enters Australia thereupon becomes a prohibited is in that is unmtgrant. immigrant. 12

C.P.D., k g , p. 1296, Downer. 1395, Downer. vol- rg, 1958, vol. C.P-D., H. of R., !958,

Complementary Legislation nzplemen tory Legislation Co

109

(2) An officer may, in accordance this section and at the accordance with this request or with the consent of an immigrant, grant to the lrnrnlgrant immigrant an entry permit,

The entry permit may he be granted to an immigrant either before or after he enters Australia. It is clear, x e t for a number of carefully clear, therefore, that, eexcept defined categories of entrants, entrant_s, all immigrants must be in poswhich is granted withheld at granted or withheld permit which session of an entry permit the complete discretion of the Minister Minister. Section 6 also establishes the distinction between 'entry per' ' and ''temporary mlts temporary entry permits Thea first are issued to permits'.' . Th mits' immigrants who, under the policy, are entitled to become per» permanent residents; residents, the second second to entrants who under under the policy policy are not permitted to make Australia their home home or persons or to persons who are in principle permitted to enter for permanent residence but who, the Department may decide, should undergo undergo a pro-

an

bationary period on a temporary temporary permit. permit. Section 7 reads, bationary enter alia: alter: inter

(1) The Minister may, in his absolute discretion, cancel a temporary entry permit writing under his hand. permit at any time by writing canceller (3) Upon the expiration or cancellation of §a temporary entry temporary entry permit, the person who was the holder of the permit becomes a "

prohibited immigrant unless a further entry permit applicable to

him comes into force upon that expiration or cancellation.

However, if he can survive for five immi~ Hve years as a prohibited immiwithout being deported, and if at the end of that time grant without not the subject of a deportation order, order, he ceases to be a he is not

immigrant. prohibited immigrant. prohibited In other test-exemption dictation test-exemption other words the dictation

certificate mechanism, which for so- long characterized the control of now is e non-European immigration, IIOH-EUIOECHH immigration, h w transformed transformed into the 'temporary practical are, for Qractical effects are, procedure. Its effects permit' procedure. entry permit' porary entry purposes, identical; permits new permits and the new certificate and both the old certificate identical, both are issued at the Minister discretion, both may be cancelled Minister'ss discretion; at the Minister's cancellation in discretion; and the effect of cancellation Ministe1"s discretion; both immigrant. prohibited immigrant. becomes a prohibited the holder becomes cases is that die both eases However, However, the new formulation of the old power is more explicit. Under Under die expiration of the old Act the Minister, on the expiration explicit.

.

certificate of exemption, had immediately to declare the a ccrtidcate

O I IIO

Administration of the White Australia Policy

holder aliowed- to certificate was allowed holder aa. prohibited immigrant. If the certificate expire unnoticed, it was possible in some cases for the holder to become a permanent permanent resident departmental policy. resident in spite of departmental

perThe Migration Act transforms the holder of a temporary per~ mitit into a prohibited automatically on the expiraimmigrant automatically prohibited immigrant tion of his permit. It was thought that section 1I o0 of the new Act" may be interpreted by the High Court to be so sweeping and so indefi~ ind{i~ be invalid in certain cases. It has already been seen nite as to he `

that the courts recognize the fact that, that, at some undefined point of time after an immigrant's irnrnigrant's arrival, arrival, he ceases to be an immiimmigrant and becomes a member of the Australian community, this which implies section I Oo which contradicted by section rather contradicted concept is rather this concept that a person remains a prohibited immigrant as long as eiiorts efforts to find the man and deport him are not abandoned. This implies that, from the time the person becomes a3. prohibited immigrant, immigrant, the Department Department may wait up to five live years hibited before signing a deportation order against him. It is desirable that as long a period as possible should be allowed in which to find the person and then, having heard his story, story, whether he is to be deported. It is just possible that in spite decide whether of having kept himself hidden from the Department, there may be .. considerations against ma have married de ort if g him, et. a gaims: deporting consideratlons e. . he may • an Australian, have Australi an-born children, have given special service to due et. die community, etc.

It will be remembered that the Department Department enjoyed enjoyed much 4 4 and andiizp. the same power under the old Act _section 5l2)), but section 4(4) its statutory foundations, after IE number of High Court deexample, insecure. It has been shown, for example, cisions, had become insecure.

that an immigrant, who had been in the country for five years ears and who did not hold a valid exemption certificate by could, *as certificate, could default, become a permanent resident. default, Those immigrants who held certificates of exemption exemption at the time the new Act came came into force automatically found found themselves holding temporal deportation orders permits, and deportation temporary entry permits, remained valid. Finally, section 4(5) m a y s it clear that certificates of exemp415) makes immigrants before quite valid, valid, no before 1958 were quite issued to imnligrants tion m issued

or

1 3

13

See See Appendix III.

Corrzplerrientory Legislation

I I1

natter when, or how often, the immigrant had previously entered Australia. Its objective was to overcome the dangers to the Department policy which remained latent in the Kokkos decision described above. The decision by the New South Wales Supreme Court in that case was that, under section 5(2) of the old Act, 'entry' into Australia meant 'first

entry'. Five years after a person's first entry therefore, the did ration test could not be applied and he could not become a

prohibited in1rni8'rant. The Department believed that this decision not only made it difficult to deport certain undesirable immigrants after live years' residence, but that it also cast some doubt on the validity of certificates of exemption issued to persons arriving in Australia more than five years after their first entry, if their certificates were, in fact, invalid it would become possible for them to acquire permanent residence contrary to the governments

policy. It would have been possible, for example, for Australian trained students who have returned to Australia under exemption, to become permanent residents if five years had elapsed since their list arrival. Similarly a seat ran who was permitted to stay in Australia under exemption to undergo hospital treatment, may have been able to claim permanent residence if he had visited Australia more than five years previously. But section (4)5 of the new Act ensures that all exemption certiii~ cates previously issued remain valid.

It is therefore obvious that the statutes have not been a straightforward backing for the administration. The continuing process of adverse interpretations, statutory amendment,

reinterpretation and more amendments resulted, by the beginning of 1959, in a most complicated overlay of legal form to which the administration of the policy had to conform. The greater part of these complications may be ascribed to the dictation test method of preventing entry, combined with the exemption certificate method of control, and to the extent to

which they conflicted with the requirements of policy over fifty-eight years. The new Migration Act has very consider ably simplified the relationship between the statutes and the

policy.

Part III

I/Vhite Australia Whither White

CHAPTER

TEN

PRESSURES O N POLICY

I So much for the great network of restrictive regulations which foreignerswere developed to keep out or control unwanted foreigners, These have not enough in a free society, have naturally enough restrictions, naturally These restrictions, gone unchallenged. Who have been the challengers" challengers?l The rly . the group most community has clearly The Chinese community concerned. As early as 1887 a Chinese inese Invest Investigation Cornation Commission was sent to the Australian Australian col colonies to report on the mission conditions of Chinese Chinese resident resident there there and on trade 'Possibilities possibilities. conditions

uh

Although some colonists immediately jumped to the conclusion that the Commission had come come to investigate the feasibility

of Chinese colonization, a more likely reason reason. was.that was that China 'was at a t last beginning to realize realize that both her duty to her 'was subjects should subjects and her dignity as a nation demanded that she should at least emigrants in foreign countries from least try to protect her emigrants insult and harsh treatment'.1 treatment'.1 investigating Commissioners found that Although the investigating Chinese in treated more fairly than Chinese Australia were treated Chinese in Australia other countries of the Pacific they took issue with the poll tax

system which was exclusively applied to Chinese. As a result London protested to Minister in London of their report the Chinese Minister at an enquiry the British government, requesting th be made. enquiry he that It was, and it concluded • There does not therefore, ttoo .be suflicicnt reason for § any sufHcicnt not appear, therefore, their being deprived accorded to them by the immunities accorded deprived of the immunities treaties being treated differnations, or of their being treaties and the law of nations, ently to the subjects of other other Powers residing the same parts of residing in die ently

Her Britannic Dominions.2 Britannic Majesty's Dominions." 1 Myra Willard, History of Where Australia Policy (Melbourne, 1923), of the White '74p. 74, Parfiamenlary Paper, Cd. 5448, no. I , quoted in Willard, op. cit., 2 British Parliamentary

p. 76. 113

114

Administration of the White Australia Policy Administration

The British government sent a circular colonies circular to each of the colonies British government asking for information on any exceptional legislation, but the matter was swallowed up by the rapidly growing demand by the colonies colonies for much more severe legislation to prevent Asian entry. Asian entry. Since then then the official Chinese representatives have constantly constantly representatives have Since pressed for changes in various aspects of the policy, but the attitude of the Chinese must different lines along different must be considered along to, for example, the Indian or Japanese attitudes. first Inn the {inst attitudes. 1 place, the Chinese have not been so concerned with the policy been too much touch have been They have arrogance. Trey racial arrogance. expression of racial as an expression aware of the United sirnilar policies directed against them in the of similar

States, South-east Zealand and the countries of South-east Canada, New Zealand States, Canada, Asia and South America-policies America policies which which have affected, and continue to affect, millions of Chinese-to Chinese--to single out Australia for particular criticism. However, of all the Asian people affected by the Australian policy, the Chinese have been the most Chinese 30,000 Chinese application. There were 30,000 by its application. bothered _by roost bothered

in Australia when the Immigration Restriction Act carne into force. Today majority of the Asians Today they still constitute the majority living permanently or temporarily The impact temporarily in the country. The of the day-to-day administration Chinese administration of the policy on Chinese individuals and families been the determinant in Chinese families has been attitudes show much less attitudes over the years, and these attitudes show which charace`enlents which evidence of the emotional and racial e'elnents

terize the attitudes those of attitudes of other Asian nations, especially these India.

A study of Chinese diploma diplomatic i representations since 1947 will serve to illustrate the practical practical and ad hoc approach to the question rather than any appeal to principles or motives. Some Chinese comment on the entry of families has been discussed ition, an aide-mémoire aide-mémoire was prepared by In addition, chapter 5. FI.u in chapter the Embassy in December remember 1949, in which the charge was made that: 'Since the new policy governing governing the entry and stay of Chinese into Australia was introduced in April 1947, Chinese instances that in many instances reported that under it have reported who are affected under they have been facilities accorded them in the been denied the facilities they policy.' This, it said, was due mainly to the 'restrictive interinterpretation' of the policy, which had been 'introduced with the

Pressures on Policy

115

purpose of moderating the conditions under which Chinese may be admitted into Australia'. Besides a series of proposals to modify the position of the war~time refugees, the Embassy

made the point that the term 'local trader' apparently included Chinese general storekeepers, grocers, restaurateurs, fruiterers, fislirnongers and food manufacturers, but excluded herbalists and laundry proprietors. These latter were not eligible to introduce assistants or substitutes because they were not classified as local traders. The Embassy suggested that they be so included in the future, but the Department made no concession, and laundrymen as well as herbalists are still not considered as local traders. When the Department lJCC,3.1116 more insistent that persons under exemption should remain in their prescribed employment and began enforcing the departure of a number of assis-

tants who had not, the Chinese Minister, in June 1954, asked Mr Holt to extend some leniency in these cases : I expressed my anxiety concerning an increasing number of Chinese in Australia being served notice to leave Australia. I was most gratified to be assured that there was no change of policy regarding the entry of Chinese, that the Australian Government had no intention to put 'the heat on' regarding Chinese in Australia and that the Department of Immigration was not in itself alerted as a result of certain allegations in some newspapers. However, recently the Embassy has continued to receive a number of appeals from Chinese in Australia who have been asked to leave and to return to the Chinese mainland. They are most: pathetic cases in as much as these persons are most anti-Comniumst 111 their sentiments.

.

_

. they have been given notice to leave mainly because they

have changed their place of work or their occupation without seeking prior approval of the Department of Immigration- I understand that this is partly due to their ignorance of the conditions

governing their entry into Australia and their apprehension that any application to the Department of Immigration may not be met with sympathetic understanding. . the Chinese Embassy will be most willing to co-operate with

..

the Department of Immigration in assessing the merits of individual cases where applications for change of occupation or place of work are made. It was also suggested that if a certain period of time were imposed on Chinese working as assistants, after which they could change their occupation or their place of work, it would mitigate to a great extent the present complication.

116 116

Administration

o]' the of

Australia Policy White Australia

change of employment, employment, disSoon after this, the new policy on change cussed in chapter 7, was adopted. Similar requests for a review of those employment conditions came continually from individual Chinese, seeking concessions for their own particular problems or those of their compatriots. For example, letter was prepared by the then example, in April 1952 a letter Consul-General in Sydney, L. M. Wang, on behalf of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in New South Wales and supported South New South Association of New Australian-Chinese Association ported by the Australian-Chinese pointed out that an increasing number of Chinese, Wales. It pointed who were storekeepers, importers and exporters, market gardeners and produce merchants, merchants, were Australian-horn, and and as were Australian-born, and prodtice such did not not qualify under the policy to introduce assistants from China. Because of the nature nature of these concerns, assistants conversant conversant with the Chinese language, business methods, and gardening techniques were most necessary, and he requested that Australian-born Chinese be eligible to introduce assistants. The letter was acknowledged, but the Department made no further move. It will he be remembered, however, that Australian Australianborn Chinese who owned restaurants were able to introduce had. foreign-born Chinese, it they had assistants in the same way as foreigN-born been established before before 1947. been established Then Australian-born Chinese, for Then again, 'William Liu, an Australian-born many years has taken it upon himself to make strenuous representations on a number number of general general subjects affecting the Chinese himself in a large Chinese community, as well as interesting himself number of individual individual cases. He was, for example, a member l*»/Ielbourne in 1918 to discuss of the delegation which went to la/Ielbourne the entry dependants, and he has been part of many Chinese dependants, entry of Chinese die delegations since. A more recent objective was to impress upon delegations the organizers of the annual Australian Citizenship Citizenship Convention Convention that the Chinese community place with the community should take their place other national groups represented. represented. In a letter to the 1958 Convention he made a plea for this, and also suggested that that the naturalization to Chinese granting of naturalization Convention discuss the granting after five years' residence rather than fifteen, he believed the

entry of treeor families of war-time arrivals and of those granted freedom employment should also be discussed. His letter was not dorn of employment sent a similar one to the 1959 Convention. acknowledged, and he sent

Pressures on Policy

117

The The objective of the Australian Australian Citizenship Citizenship Convention Convention is to create a universal Australian Australian citizenship citizenship irrespective irrespective of national or racial origin. origin, The Chinese community believes that that Chinese residents should be given a chance to prove themselves as worthy as settler of fully taking part in Australian any new .settler Australian life. He again asked that consideration be given to the five years' wait for naturalization, to the entry of dependants and to the entry entry of the foreign-born foreign-born adult children of Australian citizens

of Chinese descent. The letter was acknowledged by the Chairman of the Immigration Immigration Advisory Council who undertook undertook to bring the matter bring matter before the Council. However, none of the Citizenship Conventions since 1959 has made any special provision for Australians Australians of Chinese race race to take part in the proceedings. At some time .or_ar1_o_ther, or another, I*[]anY*1'H€1nb€].'g many members of both I-iouses Houses of Parliament Parliament. have been approached by Chinese under exemption, tion, either either directly or through an immigration agent, agent, to intercede with the Department on their behalf. More often approached are those who have shown some interest in indivi~ approached dual there was certainly some pressure dual cases in the past, and there on the Department from this this source. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say 'demands for information' rather than 'pressure'. On the whole, members of Parliament Parliament have not followed up individual Departing-:nt's policy individual cases once once the full facts of the Department's are explained explained to them. It is clear from the questions questions asked in Parliament that few members have a comprehensive grasp of the policy's administration., administration, and they have no cause to take u p cudgels against the De_Eartn1ent's Departlnent's reasoned explanations.

Prior to the war most of the applications for entry to Australia and most of the problems of the the Chinese immigrants were were dealt with by the Consul-General. Consul-General. There was, in fact, a move to by-

pass this diplomatic nexus in 1938, but the responsible responsible Minister were. satisat the time insisted that the existing arrangements were factory Chinese and to his Department. factory to the majority majority of the Chinese his apartment.

Soon after the war the revolution in China resulted in

J

division of allegiance amongst the Chinese in Australia g. although the Chinese diplomatic representatives representatives are still regarded by the Australian government as representing all Evil

Chinese nationals, a growing number of these nationals now

1 1188

Admifzisttation Administtotion

of

the White Australia Policy

prefer to approach immigration agents to negotiate with the Department on O11 their behalf. This has reduced that the Chinese consular and reduced the role that true, how~ diplomatic mission has been able to play. It remains true, ever, that some important features of official Chinese requests

made between 1949 and 1955 were eventually eventual ado red. Since adopted. then the concern of the Embassy has largely been with the Chinese Enibassylias illegal immigrants threatened with deportation to Communist to- Communist illegal immigrants . . who Willi Wong China. The case of Willie w was deported to Communist China in 1962 is an example. His case, and the public criticism Departhave his DepartDowner to have persuaded Mr Downer criticism it evoked, persuaded ment 'discuss with Dr Ch'en [the Chinese Ministerl, Minister], whether

irgaan

LII

I

1

future Chinese deportees, at their option, might be sent to Taiwan, and if so, on what conditions'- Dr Ch'en reportedly Taiwan, thought thought it was possible?

Other than Chinese requests for change, represendiplomatic represenchange, diplomatic tations concerning specific aspects of the .policy's application policy's -application have been restricted to those from ]apart Iapan and India between the wars, and from the Philippines when, 194.9 when, Philippines and New Zealand in 1949 as we have seen, Mr Calwell's handling h a n d l ilin g _vw. ` II. : n b o a resulted in diplomatic incidents. and a Maori immigrant resulted The continuing sensitivity of the Philippines Philippines to the the policy The policy was again again angrily demonstrated demonstrated sixteen years later. Aurelio Locsin, Filipino bank oilicer, officer, applied to migrate to Australia. He claimed. his application racial grounds. grounds. He application was refused on racial then instituted a publicity campaign which 1342, over as.. in 134i which; as_ ,

»

Q ,A

1

break on reran oil? relay Sergeant Gar boa, resulted in public demand to hrealt

sonnss with Australia and boycott Australian trade. Mr Oppe1'~ man he did not think Locsin could be satisfacman explained that be settled in Australia? torily settled torily Australia Official foreign reaction to the 'H°beral'ization of entry policy liberalization if announced limited to Kuala Lumpur and. la/Iarch 1966 was limited announced in Marcli Manila a v o r a b l e , if not enthusiastic not enthusiastic." la/Ianiia and was ffavorable,

II Yet if foreign diplomatic diplomatic: displeasure with the policy has been negligible, conhome-grown Australian convociferous home-grown negligible, a vociferous 3 S.M.H., 17 April 1962. 19624 Austmlian, 1966. March 1966. As:straI£an, 1l o0 Match *1

5

S.M.H., 11 i t March 1966. $.M.H.,

Pressures on Policy

119

troversy has more than made up for it. If White Australia was a 'settled' national policy for the first half of this century, would now appear mg to be decidedly unsettled. Appearances are deceptive, however. Could it be that, at heart, the present controversy is more froth and bubble than a real divergence of opinion objectives? about national objectives? opinion about m are the protagonists, and what do they argue argue about? Since the end of World War conflicting themes have War II, the conliicting been, been. quite simply, whether to maintain the existing policy, by which is understood the complete exclusion of nonEuropeans as permanent settlers, settlers, or whether to relax relax this unwritten law to a greater or lesser extent. It should be pointed pointed out immediately that, except for an insignificant minority, the advocates suggested recently, have not suggested advocates of a change, until very recently, anything more than a nominal relaxation of the restrictions, or more nominal relaxation accurately, nothing more than a nominal more accurately, has been implied in the arguments. At the same time, few indeed were those who opposed the principle of complete

exclusion but who-, who), at the same time, were prepared to put for-

ward a carefully qualitative considered quantitative and qualitative carefully considered alternative. The groups groups which have consistently consistently voiced voiced their their support for The

returned the existing policy of exclusion are broadly the returned servicemen's associations, the 'patriotic' societies and the trade unions. unions. Since 1945 there has seemed to be no doubt about the Servicelnen's League. The League. The Returned Servicelnen's sentiments of the Returned majority sentiments

League is a well organized and prosperous organization with a membership ommembership of about a quarter of a million. It has a ccom-

pact and forthright leadership and its views have considerable influence on the government. In 1949 [949 its federal executive executive rigid administration administration of the entry policy was believed that a rigid necessary," and that no 'appeasement' should be contemplated' In 1954 the Victorian president of the League suggested that a Victorian president quota system for Asians may may be feasible, but he was publicly rebuked president who who said said this this was not the federal president by the federal rebuked _by opinion of the R.S.L.S R,.S.L." In October 1958 the federal convention in Victoria again reaHirlned reailirrned the R.S.L.'s full support for the 6 8 S

I949. 7 S.M.H., 28 August 1949. January 1949. S.M.H., S.M.H., 31 ]anuar§r Sydney Daily Mirror, 13 December December 1954. Sydney Daily

I 20

Administration of 03° the White Australia Policy

established policy; policy; and again again at the Australian Citizenship Australian Citizenship established Convention in 1959.g 1959 In 1961 one of its leaders referred to critics of the policy as an 'unholy alliance alliance of do-gooders, some influenced religious others by religious organizations and others Communist organizations enced by Communist `bodies'. bodies'. In 1965 the national secretary of the League reaffirmed these V1€W$_10 views." Of the 'patriotic' societies, the most vocal is the Australian Natives' Association, more uncompromising position is even more Association. Its position than that that of the R.S.L. 'The White Australia Policy must cease to exist if

exceptions to- its

provisions were

allowed to

operate',11 and again, 'The 'The permanent entry of even a small quota of these people into Australia would would be a step step towards towards quota national the suicide'.*" It saw in the 1962 attempt to bring in national suicide'.1" in the ]apanese Japanese children of Australian servicemen 'a trick to destroy by any means possible control" migration control'." possible Australia's policy of migration Like the Sydney weekly, Bulletin, which at one time had as its motto 'Australia for the White Man', the Australian Natives' Association had its origins in the turbulent anti~Chinese anti~Chinese days of the gold rushes. In much the same way as those American organizations, such as the Daughters of the Revoluthe American Revolution and the National Blue Star Mothers, Mo who opposed the repeal of the Chinese i I 943,14 14 the Australian Chinese Exclusion Acts in the country's racial purity Association maintains that the Natives' Association Natives' must be safeguarded nonThe great majority of nonsafeguarded at all costs. The Communist l a b o r groups policy." supported the _polic_y.*='*~» groups also fully supported The most vocal of the unions has been the largest, the Australian Workers' Union, partly due perhaps to the personal Workers' Union,

interest in the subject shown by its secretary. But the historical origins of the trade union movement movement as well as those of the Australian Labor Party are set in the late nineteenth century and are closely bound up with the agitation against the importawith the and tion of cheap l a b o r and against the lowering of living standards, standards; and with the measures restricting the entry of Chinese- There has been little change change in these sentiments. It is inbred, and l a b o r leaders have been accused of paying scant attention to S.M-H., 10 Australia-n, Australian, 28 ]'u11e June 1965. 1965~ S.M.H., 223 January 1959. 10 S.M.H., 18 February 13 july 1954. M'in'FJt, 6 july Daily Mirror, 12 Sydney Daily February 1950. 1.8 1961. October 1962. 0 October Herald, 1xo Melbourne Herald, 1a Melbourne $0-90. pp. 80-90. Pressures on Congress (New York, 1950), pp. Riggs, Pressures F- W. Riggs, 14 F. 15 For june 1965. the views of union leaders see Australian, 28 Lune For the 15

9

11

Pressures on Policy on Pol-my Pfressufres

1 I 2'21

Atlstralia's international international position or to the multhe realities of Australia's titude nineteenth-century thinking titude of factors which have made nineteenth-century redundant, if not dangerous. On the other hand, they now express little government's programme of little criticism of the governments maximum European immigration, the other side of the coin

to Asian restriction also bears a nineteenth-century inscription-'Populate or Perish'. Perish'. Between them, them, these three groupings Australian society groupings in Australian have both perpetuate what they represented and tended to perpetuate both represented claim to be a majority opposition to any change in the policy. Their strength lies in the nineteenth-century Australian ninet eenthfentury facts of Australian history and in the extent to which those facts can he adapted adapted to fit Ht the new environment. Their weakness is the speed with which the changes in the environment are making that adaptaadaptation impossible, impossible, and it is precisely the rapidity of these these changes which has impressed and alarmed the opponents of complete exclusion. Except for the Churches, the groups which insist on the need for some relaxation of the policy are significant are not particularly significant in membership or influence but there are more of them and they seem to represent a wider cross-section of interests. OI' unchristian about Australia's Is there anything immoral or policy of restricted immigration? immigration? To begin morality begin with, the morality of political decisions, international, is a decisions, both internal and international, subject of endless debate among political theorists. Does a single, recognized moral code for political activity single, recognized activity exist within one comrliunity-let alone between one hundred communities P community--let alone preponderantly a Australia is preponderantly maintained that Australia could be maintained It could recognizable morality Christian community, and that, that, as such, a recognizable should be reflected in its political ethics. If we accept dthis limited i s limited thesis, is it possible in these terms to pass judgment judgment on the White Australia policy? Spokesmen Spokesinen for the Churches suggest differing interpretations.

The Australian Australian Council of the World Council of Churches has consistently advocated arrange~ advocated a quota system or bilateral arrangements merits because it would 'affirm our conviction of racial equality and remove Sus lclon that prec o l o r pregoverned by colour we are governed that we rem ve suspicion judice'.1" Ausjudice'.1 The Society of Friends has said that the White Aus-

.

»

16 15

S.M.H.., S.M.H., 9 February 1948.

I 22

Administration

of

the White Australia Policy

talia policy is 'bast cally wrong' since it is a 'denial of Christian

love, of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of M a n " The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church has resolved that 'the strict exclusion of non~European peoples from permanent residence in Australia is detrimental to good relation-

ships with non~white races and incompatible with Christian principles of human brotherhood'. The Australian Catholic Bishops have condemned the 'false assumption of racial superiority which too often underlies the White Australia Policy' and have declared the 'absolute exclusion can hardly be justified'.18 On the other hand, Dr L. Rumble, long regarded as an o c t a l spokesman of the Catholic Church, or at least of the Sydney Archdiocese, has said that the policy is more a national and political than a moral problem and that in his opinion the existing policy should be maintained." One conclusion drawn by Catholic laymen from a discussion, entitled 'Christian Morality and Australia's policy of Restricted lrnnligration', was that a quota system would be little I n - r e than 'international window dressing'. The restrictions were sound because 'charity alone cannot oblige this country to incur heavy sacrilices and grave dangers in the interests of other peoples'.2°

The views of Christian theologians occupied with the problems of the moral duties of one nation towards another show considerable divergence, especially when applied to specific national

policies. There does not seem to be

21

clear answer to the ques-

tion of the morality of the policy even from the theologians,

although they seem to agree that there is nothing very objectionable in its ultimate aim. Their chief criticism is aimed at some aspects of its application- Where the criterion in admit-

ting is based on justifiable economic, health, character or assimilability grounds, we are, it seems, morally on good ground. Where it is based on racial distinctions we are violating Christian principles, Where it results in personal hardship and the 1?

Quoted in Immigration Reform Group, Immigration: Control or Colour

Bar? (Melbourne, 1962), p.

121.

18 In the Social _lustiee Statement entitled 'The future of Austt-alia', issued

by the Catholic Bishops of Australia, Easter 1951. i s S.M.H., 27 August 1958. 20

Lyndhurst Academy, Sydney, Hz July 1958.

Pressurres on Policy Policy Pressures

123

break-up of families, it offends against Christian charity. charity. The difficulty troublesome, in applying particularly troublesome, difiicultv here is that it is particularly the policy, to separate these criteria. It just happens that the people least likely to meet the morally morally justifiable criteria are SO that racial distinctions can readily be made for non-white, so non~racial reasons. It is also possible, though open to question, question, that objectives administrators are to achieve the general objectives that if the administrators of the policy, some racial discrimination is inevitable inevitable and justifiable. justifiable. It is sometimes difficult to see the logic of the attitudes attitudes of the Churches in proposing quotas or some other very limited degree of permanent degree of racial discriminapermanent entry. If any degree unchristian, then any entry policy which discriminates discriminates tion is unchristian, between European European and non~European non-European is equally unchristian. And all the current current suggestions for change-a quota system, 'assimilation formula', bilateral arrangements, bilateral arrangements, an 'assimilation forlnula', and the Minister's discretion-will continue in one way or another to II/Iinister's make this discrimination. By of the Australian Communist Party c o n t i , the attitude of By contrast,

has been more unequivocal. unequivocal. It was comprehensively comprehensively stated by" R. Dixon, Dixon, .then assistant Party, in 1945. secretary of the Party, assistant secretary . He suggested suggested that that immigration immigration as a whole should should be controlled controlled by a national national quota quota system, suited to economic conditions and that the racial element element in immigration policy be eliminated. not new. The White White Australia policy was His arguments were not 'an outrageous insult' to our war-time friends and allies with who.___ we have- to live and who in the future whom _______ will become major .,__ -.

,

,_.._...

__ _ _ _ .

- _ _ _ _

_ . _ _ _

_,__

____

. . _ _ -

_ . _ _ _ - _ - - - _

__

powers. The vast markets of Asia are vital trital to the Australian economy. racial and not economic. economy. The policy was clearly racial Nothing could could be more dangerous ruling classes classes than that than flat dangerous for the ruling Nothing Chinese and Australian workers should make common cause, as they each other, join fighting each to-day and instead of fighting they are doing to-day forces and light reactionary reactionary employers . . . Working class internationalism must replace the narrow isolationist nationalism that Australian trade union thinking in the past. has so influenced Australian

In February 1948, on a visit to Calcutta, L. L. Sharked described the White imperialistic and 'reactionar VI/'hits Australia policy as 'reactionary 21 and the White Australia Policy (Sydney, 1945). 2 1 R. Dixon, Immigration and

124

Administration

of

the White Australia Policy

an attempt to prevent working class u n i t y " Ernest Thornton

has similarly commented: 'no working class organisation could tolerate discrimination based on colour or 1'eligion'.281 In May 1958 James Healy claimed that Asians worked happily with

European wharf laborers, that economic differences rather than racial differences made for trouble and that the absorption of a regular Asian quota would be wholly beneficial to Australia and would not cause resentment among trade

utlionis

ts.24Sharked has since confirmed this attitude. The Party Mr advocates the 'complete abolition' of the White Australia policy because it is based on the principle of white 'superiority'. In

the hey-day of British imperialism it served to create an outpost of that imperialism in the Pacific. The policy is maintained because Mr Menzies wished to retain Australia as an imperialist base for the South-east Asia Treaty Organization. The po-licy 'is utilised to create chauvinistic feelings between our people and the people of Asia and is therefore an instru~ rent of war'. The answer is a quota system based on the economic capacity to absorb migrants, irrespective of colour or nationality."

It will he appreciated that the groups which have supported exclusion are traditionalists in this matter in spite of their pseudo-radicalism in other fields. They feel that their forebears created White Australia in the nineteenth century and that their creation has justified itself. Their roots lie deep in the Australian ethos and way of life.

But for the Churches, the Communist Party and such varied groups as Apex, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, the Humanist Society, the New Education Fellowship, etc.,2B which f a v o r e d a change, interest in the policy could almost be described as

extra-curri cular, in that it is just one more aspect of Australian 22

S.M.H., 2 March 1948.

23

Quoted in 'White Australia-To-day's Dilemma', Current Affairs Bulletin,

vol. to, no. 12 (1957), p. 191. 2 4 S.M.f-I., 31 May 1958. 2 5 Author's correspondence with Mr L. L. Shatkey. 26 More detailed summaries of the groups in favour of change can be con~ . suited in C. Dodd, 'Changing Attitudes to the White Australia Policy 1945I 956' (History h o n o r s thesis, Univ. of Queensland, 1956), and in Immigration Reform Group, op. cit., pp. 1 1 6 - 2 3 .

Pressures on Policy

125 125

life which which they have thought necessary to pronounce upon in the interests of the community. whole, community. The Churches, on the whole, view take the view in so far as the policy policy is based on purely criteria, ii offends against am,_ principles racial racial criteria,;__ brotherly principles of brotherly quota system system will do something love and human equality, and a quota to make amends. Members of the other groups are interested in foreign policy, they have met met Asian students, they have travelled they have sensed sensed the direction Asia and they South-east Asia travelled in Southeast of Australia's future in Asia, Asia; they believe it necessitates necessitates some modification of the exclusion policy. For the Communist Party it is an ideological matter. Until 1959 it seemed no group was ,m

4

prepared corinas catalyst through which the colnprepared to act as an agent or bined and organized efforts of these groups could come to bear

vocal, change, though vocal, pressure for change, government. The pressure on the government. remained incoherent, not only in the formal presentation of the case but also in the lack of spccilic specific and well-considered practical proposals. proposals. Indeed the only carefully carefully considered considered proposition until then question was made by Prothen on the quota question fessor A. P. al quota of Elkin iin P- Elgin i l 1945l n - He suggested an annual forty Indians, forty Chinese and forty immigrants from other Asian countries. He calculated that the sum of this intake plus a maximum expected reproduction, would be unlikely to amount to more than 1 o,5oo additional thirty years. Asians in thirty additional Asians than 10,500 He also proposed a number which would n;ould criteria. .which qualitative criteria number of qualitative

GW! IW

I

ensure their greatest possible assimilation into the eomrrumity-" eon1rnunity-2T However, [959 saw the formation of a group group which, to some lacking. This was claim to be the 'catalyst' so far lacking. could claim extent could

the Immigration Melbourne to study Immigration Reform Group, formed in Melbourne the restricted immigration policy and suggest possible changes, these it put forward in a pamphlet Subsequently Impamphlet in 1960. Subsequently migration Reform Associations were formed in five States to advocate the policy described in the pamphlet (which was expanded into a book Immigration." Immigration: Control 07' Bo:r?, in of Colour Bar?, 1962). The associations claim that there is now strong evidence of widespread public support in Australia for changes in the policy. These changes are necessary in Australia's interest for economic, economic, 21 'Re-Thinking the White Australia Policy', Australian Quarterly, "of. "OL 17, the 'White no. 3 (1945). 6~2,4(I945), PP- 664-

126 126

Adminisrraziion Australia Policy I-fl/hire Australia Administration of the White

cultural, moral reasons, which which their political reasons, international political moral and international cultural, book considers iM) me mc detail. The authors then present wellreasoned proposals for Australia to drop formally formally- and finally in' of the past, and to adopt a limited exclusionist policy entry policy tiesignet-l permanent non-European settlers, so designed policy for .permanent as to be o? value for the social encl health and cultural "health of optimum value Australia's Australian community, the Austrian of the comrnunitv, on one hand, and for Australia's "al "al • 1111aie As1a2- $on1 thee other. To achieve these objectives the achieve these in Asia, image in associations have embarked embarked on a campaign campaign to educate educate public public associations opinion and to attract the most widespread support support possible to press for change. n4..aiuulll:\ll.

.____

I

I

allsll

The only measure measure of pu as_ such h is the Gallup public opinion as Polls, Polls, and, in so far as they are representative, they do indicate over the years a trend in favour of some limited entry for questioned in 1944 permanent non-European settlers. Of those questioned continue while 35 53 per cent wanted the exclusion policy to continue, per cent were in _favour entry. In 1954 'token' entry. favour of a limited or 'tok the figures ii&ures were 61 cent respectively, but Et per cent and 31 per cent, in 1964 1_Q64 only m 22. per cent cent wanted exclusion and 78 per Icent wanted a Chan e. There was no Provision provision in 1964 s2>r using. for cchoosing chance.

*siS

Hg'

'no opinion'. opinion'.§@ however, that there is no strong feeling in .It would seem, however, favour of radical change. change. The questions asked in the Gallup

Polls have concerned a possible quota system, or else the name that Funclamentally the policy given to the policy. Fundamentally that should be _given is not a vital public issue. For the great majority of Australians it .remains a settled thing-an agreed agreed national national objective which, which, if lt small only in small modified only he so modified can be be modified at all, can it is to be measure. In spite of this, this, there is often significant reaction to significant public reaction special cases of apparent apparent individual hardship brought about by the application of the policy. This has been a constant constant feature of public opinion and does not not change much in intensity, as numerous cases since 1901 Igor indicate. Public reaction to the refusal of the Department of External Affairs in 1913 to grant entry entry for permanent residence residence to the wife of Poor Poon Gooey was very similar to public reaction in 1948 and 1949 to Mr Calwell's attempts O'Keefe Sergeant Gar boa, Mrs O'Keefe attempts to deport Sergeant Calwell's 2s

S.A4'.Ir-I., S.A4.I'I., 6 September 1965.

Pressures Policy Pressures on Policy

127 127

and the war~time refugees. refugees. Similar also was the public public reaction reaction in 1961 and 1962 when M Mrr Downer attempted to deport the two Malayan pearl divers from Darwin Darwin and to prevent the

as

Japanese children d e n of Australian servicemen; and entry of the Japanese the public furore created by the deportation seven-year-old deportation of seven-year~old Nancy Nancy Prasad to Fiji in 1965.29 bund more, have gained the These people, and many hundreds sympathy of Australian their plight is in although their Australian opinion, although sympathy some measure due to a policy which, wiNch, fundamentally, that fundamentally, that opinion wishes to maintain. -The announced in 1966 unequivocally killed the policy announced The new policy exclusion policy by announcing clearly the possibility of permanent settlement for qualified immigrants. But public reaction was minimal. The R.S.L., trade untons unions and other groups so

vocal in demanding no change, have seen no reason to comment on the new new policy; and yet it meets in principle the short

term demands made by the immigration Reform Associationsdemands which as late late as 1963 and 1964 were strongly opposed Labor Party, as we have seen, by many groups. The Australian Labor expelled a member because he belonged Association. belonged to a Reform Association. It seems clear, therefore, therefore, that the traditionalists traditionalists see the seems clear, changes as a sort of administrative regulatory action designed changes to remove anomalies, and which do not represent represent any remove some anomalies, danger to the historic interests of the community. Paradoxically the reformers also welcome the changes, changes. but still say, in a leaflet published Association for Immigration Wales Association South Wales published by the New South 'the "White Australia" issue is by no means closed'. that 'the Reform, that 29

Canberra Times, 18 June 1965.

C HAPTER CHAPTER

ELEVEN

REACTION, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFICATION,

REFORM

What effect have these pressures had on the policy-makers? policy-makers? In the United States, in 1943, a 'catalyst' group, after a comparatively short persuaded the federal government federal government short campaign, persuaded paratively to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Exclusion Acts which had been in force for fifty-five years.' years In Australia, the process seems very much slower. The growing controversy about the administration of the growing controversy policy has not yet convinced the three major political parties that a change is needed or that to propose change is worth votes. The only occasion in recent years in which it came close to becoming an election issue was in 1949, when the LiberalLiberalinister the policy Country policy with more more promised to g mminister Country parties promised 'humanity' than Mr Calv ell, Qho was then trying hard hard to deport the remaining of refugees. In the election of? war-time refugees. re1nainin8 war-time November November 1963 White Australia was scarcely mentioned by the candidates. In 1949, for example, Calv ell explained his opposition to

the idea of a quota for non-European immigrants in these terms: the pressure of population such that Asians population in Asia was such would never be content with a token quota. There was evidence

that the Indians, Chinese, Japanese japanese and Indonesians Tndonesians were all looking for outlets for their population. Australia could not not looking follow the American quota system because she could not restrict

the entry of European immigrants, and, in any case, if a base European immigrants, year was taken and the same proportions proportions decided upon as in the United nationals from United States, the quota would be about five nationals certain Eastern countries-far countries far less than were now coming in as merchants. merchants. No matter how many we take, it would not solve any Asian population problem. There is no evidence evidence that that differpopulation problertt. ent cultures can live together together in peace and prosperity, there is 1

of. Pressures on Congress (New York, 1950). I950). VV. Riggs, Pressures Cf. F. W.

128

129

Reaction, justification, Reform

no racial discrimination in Australia and it would be wise to preserve this happy situation 'I believe the quota system is the policy of appeasement which will not get us anywhere." In a statement to the Immigration Reform Group in 1962, some thirteen years later, well, now Leader of the Opposition,

la

revealed little change in his views | The Liberal-Country Party government has maintained this view, with increasing emphasis. 1958, for example, saw a spate of official pronouncements justifying the policy. Mr Menzies emphasized that he was opposed to a quota system, we would 'do badly to violate our present policy', and quotas 'had a tendency to grow'.5

Mr Holt said

that the interest

of

Australia

would be better served by the entry of Asian students than by a quota of Asian migrants," that Asian students were our best ambassadors and regretted that certain 'eminent and highlyrespected people' had challenged Australia's immigration policy by suggesting a quota system? In Idly l\dr Downer elaborated further. The policy, he said, did in fact grant permanent residence to certain Asians. His chief objection to the quota system was the difficulty in administering it it would almost certainly lead to accusations of dis-

crirninating quotas. He showed that the government, in attempting to narrow the gap between our 'friendship with Asia foreign policy and our domestic White Australia policy, was relying very largely on the Colombo Plan, and the influx of Asian students. 'An Asian quota would prove illusory, and instead of alleviating existing problems would only create new

ones and in doing so would harm the very people we are seeking to befriend."

In August the governlnent's attitude was supported in Canberra by Mr Gordon Freeth, M.P., then chairman of the Im-

migration Advisory Council" and later by Mr F. M. Osborne, Minister for Air, who said on a television programme that 'quotas 2

3

C.P.D., 1949, vol. 202, pp. 307-8. Speaking a t the Summer School of the Institute .of Political Science,

Canberra, 1953. '*Au5t:r'al£a'"1, 28 June 1965. 5 In 'Meet the People' broadcast, Melbourne, 27 April 1958, Australia and Foreign Agairs (Dept of External Affairs, Canberra), series 17/58, p. 16. 6 Ibid., series zo/58, p. to. 7 Ibid., series 21/58, p. 15. 8 Ibid., series 28/58, p. 10. 9 Canberra Tomes, 28 August 1958.

13o 130

Administration

of

the White Australia Policy

not solve the problem, but approach that would not are a clumsy approach would create more problems'.1° problems" In 1961 the Prime Minister said that 'the criticism of our immigration policy is chieiiy confined to a few itinerant Australians and a few gentlemen in Austral.1a'.11 In the Liberal, Labor Labor and Country parties, the view has been that tampering with this this 'settled' policy iiss more likely

to lose than to gain and individual critics within votes, and gain them votes;

the parties are quickly brought to heel. Resolutions from Liberal Party branches recommending changes in the policy have never been accepted. Only the Democratic Democratic Labor Party has declared, in §._..__._§. it was prepared to accept some 1962, that it

Asian migrants," Inigrants,1§ but patty has no members in the House . - .this h i s party of Representatives and only two in the Senate. However, 1964 and 1965 saw some significant changes in party attitudes; important was the setting setting attitudes, perhaps the most important party up of the Labor Labor Party's immigration policy committee in 1964 IQ64. advise the Federal recommenda]ilne 1965 its recommendaExecutive. In ]'one Federal Executive. to advise tions were accepted; it was decided decided that 'White Australia Australia policy' should not appear in the Party's platform and that policy' immigration economic primarily on economic determined primarily should be determined immigration should grounds. Against this rather rather formidable governmental formidable expression of governmental Against unanimity, an almost total absence of dissent from the parliamentary one support, one Opposition support, backbenchers, and the tacit Opposition mentary backbenchers, that the groups in favour of a change in may have concluded that policy had no reason for being their particularly sanguine about their being particularly government. One may note how influencing* the government. chances of influencingmembers of Parliament completely fail to redect reHect the 78 per expressed itself in favour cent of the 1964 poll sample which expressed of a change in the exclusion policy. The governments gove-nment's statement of March 1966, which in principle principle ended the exclusion policy, came as something of a surprise because it went a long way their demands. way towards meeting then' government has When faced with critical Asian opinion, the government emphasized contribution to the ColAustralian contribution positive Australian emphasized the positive other international activity in Asia, Australia's ombo Plan and other 10 S.M.H., November 1958. S.M.H., 6 November H June 2 1 June noz Melbourne Advocate, 21

11 11

1962. 1952.

Melbourne Age, Melbourne Age,

I

April 196 1961. r. April

Reaction, justification, Reform

131

reception of thousands of Asian students, and the non-existence of any c o l o r bar within Australia, in fact, in almost so many

words has denied the existence of the White Australia policy : To describe our immigration policy in such a sweeping generalization as 'White Australia' is misleading. It imparts an innuendo of racial superiority, which in truth is absent from our natural attitude to foreigners

...

In our immigration policy we have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to apologise for. It has many more champions than critics abroad, it is supported by body sides of politics at home; it is in the best interests of the future of our country."

To prevent criticism by the Parliamentary Oppositioncriticism which may damage both the governments domestic position as well as the nation's foreign policy, the Liberal~ Country Party government has been careful to ensure that it cannot be accused either of laxity in the administering of the

policy, or of any undue harshness. And in fifteen years there has, in fact, been little Opposition criticism. On the whole, the government has quite satisfactorily prevented the policy from becoming a political football, and its chief tactic in achieving

this has been administrative secrecy, which has permitted wide flexibility in the determination of policy changes and in the discretion used in individual cases. Yet the policy-makers, by definition, are concerned with the national interest, and to them the main issue is not to

try and justify the immigration policy on moralistic, legalistic or humanitarian levels, but to ask themselves

whether the

policy impairs the Australian image in international councils.

If so~-to what extent, and does it seriously damage our inter-

national position? If it is the appearance of the policy which is of major concern to- such Australians, it is because Australia is now in such close relationship with the

non~E uropean countries to the

north and with others in the Commonwealth. It is an uncer~ rain, sensitive relationship in which the 'isms' of contemporary politics racial, religious and xenophobic play an important part, and with which Australians generally are ill-equipped to deal. 13

Mr Downer, speech at the Commonwealth Club luncheon,

4 December 1959.

Adelaide,

1I

32

Administration of the White Australia Policy

Clearly the immigration policy has international international complications, every immigration policy has. The Australian entry distinctions and this is known and criticized racial distinctions policy makes racial by newspapers and individuals, otlicial most official and unoihcial, in most Br of the countries of Asia. Asia. To some extent, the aims of Australian foreign policy in Asia must suffer accordingly. When it comes to evaluating these impressions terms of impressions in terms a profit and loss aaccount c c o r t-with immigration policy on one with the immigration side and national popularity on the other-we are faced with a great many many imponderables. Supporters of the present policy can produce quotations from Asian leaders and journalists indicating The indicating that they well understand the reasons for it. The critics can produce "law more quotations to the contrary. produce lrather establish. significance is difficult to establish. Their significance The official Australian view until until 1966 has been that opening the doors to a limited number settlers achieves number of Asian settlers ,..m..... absolutely nothing in helping the immigrant's homeland itnrnigrant's tiorneland way, and could well lead to economically or in any other w problems in Australia thereMuch better, there~ immigrant. Much Australia for the immigrant. fore, to help him at home with financial financial aid, technical advice, enlightened trade policy. This him This will do more for hits and an enlightened and his country than a quota system ever could. Furthermore, all sensible Asians realize realize this, nm embarrassment created and any embarrassment policy is tar offset by the Colombo Plan, by the immigration lupoC¥I'§,,£ 12,000 Asian tually beneficial beneficial trade Australia, mutually Asian students in Australia, agreements, and and- the limited ion term entry for non~Eutopeans non~Europeans long-term that possible. was possible. that was The opposing argument was, first, this view is dangerthat this list, that ously naive. The peoples of Asia are divided into many distinct racial, religious groups. Each is a complex religious and national groups. society whose principal have been different been m o l d eedd by different features have principal features society whose historical experiences experiences and by kinds of relationships relationships different kinds by different with European peoples and governments. This has resulted in each having distinct and different national objectives, foreign interpret policies and international outlook. Each will therefore therefore interpret Australia's immigration @.alicy policy in a different dillterent way, and the Australia's comment or ministerial statement from occasional newspaper comment Singapore, Singapore, New Delhi or Manila can hardly demonstrate in

al

I

mu

accurately accurately what those interpretations are.

_

Reaction, jus tiyicmion, Reform Reaction, justification,

133 One factor is common. Most Asian peoples, articulate or not, They have nearly not, are concerned with the problem of race. They all experienced economic discrimination discrimination by the political and economic experienced political recent past. Here is as at least one common white man in the recent

feature of all the complex societies. For them racial issues are writ large, and the White racial matter. Australia policy is a racial White Australia

that distinguishes Australia's immigraIt is this, they believe, that tion policy from their own restrictive-entry policies. Secondly, Australians would do well to remember that their their immigration policy and objectives do not constitute a great, son-building. Other communities on experiment in la unique experiment nation-building. the Pacific seaboard with very similar problems problems have met and die largely solved them, notably notably Canada, Canada, the United States States and largely New Zealand. Canada, quota reciprocal quota example, has reciprocal Canada, for example,

arrangements with some Asian countries, plus a discretionary

policy of restricted restricted entry for others, others, mainly United Chinese. The United mainly Chinese. policy States entry policy discretionary entry quota system plus a discretionary States has had a quota nonquota immigrants, which has now given way to a dis~ for non~quota cretionary entry system based on quantitative quantitative criteria, with 20,ooo immigrants from any one country, country, limit of :20,ooo upper limit an upper not including close dependants. dependants. New Zealand has a discretionary policy of limited entry, entry, both permanent and temporary. temporary. None of these immigration policies suffers the criticism from non-European countries that Australia's does, although their objectives are very similar. The Asian element in the Canadian objectives

population is about o°75 per cent, and in New Zealand about cent. I per cent. Finally, it has been policy pointed out that since Australia's policy been pointed

is stamped with a degree of racialism (whatever its true motives) certain of Australia's Australia's foreign policies generally have become tainted and suspect. The rest of the world, in scrutinizing scrutinizing Australia's attitudes to South Africa and the Portuguese Portuguese colonies, or its policies in New Guinea and its motives in South-east Asia, does not conveniently conveniently pigeon-hole away Australia's immigration policy as an untouchable unto fable domestic domestic issue. On the concomplete the picture. trary, it is used to complete It seems clear that these foreign policy considerations have been very much under scrutiny scrutiny by the government, even though it has felt in the past that the internal debate was doing more

I34

Administration of the White Australia Policy

harm in this respect than foreign criticism. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Mr P. R. Heydon, was formerly the Australian High Commissioner in New Delhi, and he is keenly aware of the difficulties that arise when an Indian I applies to migrate to Australia. Australia. which What What was needed was a change in the entry conditions which would kill the old the `White White Australia ectionable image of policy adverse s t restricting to tthe minimumIn adverse policy abroad, ' i l 11st home. criticism from from the conservatives conservatives at home. criticism The government's decisions were explained to Parliament on obj ectionablc image it was decided 9 March 1966. To destroy this objectionable to announce clearly that, for the first time time in the history of the Commonwealth, some non-Europeans would be admitted as natural permanent settlers, and that they would be eligible for naturalization after a f t e r five years in the same way as European settlers. To forestall objections objections from those opposed to change, it was made clear clear that those admitted would be qualified people that they would remain needed by the Australian community, community, that needed Br on temporary entry permits for at least five years," that students residence, and visitors would not be eligible tor permanent residence, eligible for and that 'the basic aim of preserving a homogeneous population maintained'. will be maintained Whether or not the new policy will succeed in these two objectives depends very much on the way it is administered. First reactions from the foreign Press were noticeably sparse, though favorable. There There have been prophecies prophecies of politely favourable. though politely large numbers of potential applicants from Hong Kong and

if

1.

I II II

II II

II

Singapore. Singapore.

At home the staunch upholders of the traditional policy had unanimously practically almost unanimously Press was almost nothing to say, the Press practically nothing favourablei Associations were justi~ favorable, the lrnmigration 'Reform Associations iiably pleased i`o their basic demands met in principle, to see their although their suggested initial intake of 1,5oo although it is doubtful if their permanent settlers is at all likely. There has been no- official or

unofficial reaction from the Chinese community, whose members are the most directly affected. It therefore remains to observe the new policy in action over the next few years. How many will apply to come come in, and how 14. 14

Cf. Appendix II, section section 4, for details of these qualifications.

Reaction, ]ustilQcatifm, ]usti]€r:arion, Reform

I35 135 will the Department Department of Immigration interpret the qualifying conditions? conditions? This book dealt at length with the administrative book has dealt mechanism developed by Australia to restrict the immigration

of non-Europeans-a mechanism popularly, conveniently and fairly accurately, known as the White Australia policy. One might argue delve into value to delve doubtful value been of doubtful argue that it has been jam intricacies 11111E adrninistratio-n, that a and minutiae of the administration, the intricacies broad description of the policy and the statutes is really all that

is needed.

-

My answer would he be that that on two counts it would not have been Firstly, it is only by resorting to minutiae that been adequate. Firstly, an accurate description of the policy is Dos possible-a a simple stateossible be-l-a ment of government government policy policy would would clearly clearly have been misleading, as I believe the book demonstrates, much demonstrates. Secondly, and much more importantly, is the central fact that the subjects and objects of this study are not rules, regulations, ministerial decisions and somepeople who are somepeople, people and cabinet minutes, but people; times innocent, sometimes cunning, people people who are often sometimes cunning, bewildered, angry or despairing. The White Australia policy personal lives of many aiiected the personal directly and seriously affected has directly ttensor e n s o r thousands sixty~odd years, thousands of individuals in the last sixty-odd . - . . - -

J'

and some attempt has been made to show how. Of course, all government government policies affect tens of thousands of people. But

these people are different. Until Until a limited degree naturalizadegree of naturalization became possible in 1956 they had none of the rights of Australian citizens except recourse to law in certain circumstances and even then they they can rely only on a lucky and techstances-and nically interpretation of the statute. They have nicallv favorable interpretation

policy-making branch of governlittle or no influence on the policy-making ment. As immigrants, immigrants, aliens and foreigners foreigners they nature they are by nature much 'at the 'second class citizens', whose future lies very much Minister's discretion'.

immigrants anywhere. much also applies to aliens and immigrants This much distinguished here is the rub, Australia's policy has distinguished But, and here in a most most marked fashion between aliens and immigrants of European race, and non-European and aliens and immigrants of of non-European European immigrants are are second~class citizens, then race. If European

136

Administration Admfivtistration

of

the White Australia Policy Policy

March 1966, nonthat at least until March this study makes it clear that immigrants were third- and fourth-class citizens. European immigrants ma Australia has This situation has come about because White Australia been a fundamental objective of the Australian people for a long time. time, and the administrators administrators have had to implement popular demand as best they could, although often this this has been done seemingly in a haphazard and and illogical way. What entry which non~European entry tb.e basic principles of non-European What are a re the have been gradupast, which have been tb.e past, controversy in the created .controversy have created must be considered ally codified by the government and which must future the future? for the non-Europeans who come in as settlers or as longFirstly, Firstly, all non-Europeans term temporary temporary entrants should be treated as European European immigimmigterm rants are treated. treated. The conditions of naturalization for nonEuropean aliens and of regis registration tration for British subjects should be the same as for Europeans. The temporary now temporary immigrants now admitted for two or four years have special skills not available in Australia and these should qualify them for eventual perpossible therefore, except for manent residence. As far as possible visitors, students and tourists, all other immigrants itninigrants should have the same permanent residence as European same chance of permanent immigrants in the same categories. Students, secondly, are a different problem. The fundamental, and quite quite valid, objective in allowing allowing 12,000 1:».,ooo Asian students to and return and assist in the development development work here is that they will return of their own countries, as well as improving the image of Aus-

-

tralia in Asia. If they do not go back this cannot be achieved.

However, a good case could be made out for letting a small proportion of them stay if they wish. There seems to he no who Australia should not arrive at a formal good reason why agreement with each Asian country sending students, setting out clearly the conditions of student conditions entry and the conditions student entry under which students students could remain remain in Australia after completunder ing their studies. ing their This principle has been recognized as we have seen. In 1956 it was decided to allow the entry of former students for 'extended stay' home after it they had spent at least five years at home stay' if completing conand in 1966 it was constudies in Australia; and completing their studies firmed that former residents generally could apply for per-

fustificoetion, Reform Reaction, justification, Reform

137 I37

anent entry. entry. Mr Opperman Opperman also said that 'Where 'Where the Governments of other countries may be concerned over loss of qualified qualified other countries

people, there will be appropriate consultation The third principle principle concerns concerns families. families. The refusal for so many marry years to allow the entry entry of wives and minor minor children of war-time refugees, assistants, persons granted 'freedom of employment' ,owE Psam,,,,E others, mothers, was perhaps the cruelest cruellest aspect of the policy last seems to have policy-- This have been remedied. remedied. There There . . remains the question of the foreign-born foreign-horn adult children of Australian Australian citizens. They They are still not eligible to enter as such, and some concessions made here would not be numerically

as

significant.

,

Fourthly, there of" political asylum for nonthere is the principle of nonEuropean European applicants. applicants. Formally Formally they are not included included in the entry categories, although although some who have have claimed claimed asylum have entry been allowed to stay. stay. It should should not be forgotten forgotten that the Australian government government assisted the migration to Australia of over 20,ooo Hungarian refugees from the 1956 uprising. The American, Canadian and New Zealand governments have non-European polimade special arrangements arrangements for the entry entry of non-European tical refugees, notably Chinese. The fifth principle, and the most significant for tor the future of the policy, is the entry for permanent settlement of 'wellqualified' non-Europeans, non-Europeans, first mooted moored in 1956, then clarified and elaborated in 1966. During this ten-year period over four hundred immigrants, including families, entered under this heading, but the number will be 'somewhat greater in the future' according to Mr Opperman. How much greater will he be future' according Nlr Opperman. the touchstone of the policy's future fortunes and could well touchstone the fortunes be the deciding factor in finally sealing the coffin of the 'White Australia policy'. policy'.

NDDIIXX 1I EN PE AP P

NON-EUROPEANS NON-EUROPEANS I N AUSTRALIASTATISTICAL PRESENTATION

Notes I.

The Australian figures are taken from the Colonial and

Commonwealth Commonwealth Year Commonwealth Census Reports, from the Commonwealth Books, and from statistics issued by the Department Department of ImmiImmigration. The first Commonwealth census took place in 191 1911I and thereafter in 1 9 2 1 , 1933, 1933, 1947, 1954, 1961 and 1966. For overall figures take an__aggregate an aggregate of colonial 1 9 1r 1 , one must take 'figures prior to .....1.9 figures, using Year Books and State Parliamentary Parliamentary Papers. Unless otherwise stated, figures theCommonFigures are taken from theCo1nmonwealth Census Reports. The 1966 1figures cures were not available at of Jgoing the time Of 0_ing to press. Ni

. . .

.. . .

2. The Census Bureau classifies Syrians, Lebanese and other persons of Middle Eastern origin, as non-Europeans, persons non~Europeans, but since, on the whole, they are not considered as such for imrnigration immigration purposes, they have been CX[II3C[C& Hom timesef ures. In 1947 these figures. extracted from purposes, on-European Torres Strait Islanders were included in the non-European figures for the first time, and these also have been extracted. ,..m

_

.

W

Summary Summary The non-Eu non»European population r o p e r population The most noticeable noticeable feature of Tables Tables I to V is, of course, the The quite rapid decline in total numbers between 19o1 Igor and 1947, a moderate increase to 1954, and then in the next seven years an increase of about 12,ooo, bringing the total almost to the 191 191 I level. But taken in conjunction conjunction with the growing European population, there has been a significant reduction in the nonEuropean percentage of the total population. In 1954 this figure was o-07 in 1947, but st1I1 still well X) than in (Table x) 0-07 per cent higher (Table

139

Appendix Aspen i . I

140 140

below the comparable figures for Canada and New Zealand. By 1961 the percentage had increased by o~o3 0-03 per cent. It should be remembered, however, that the percentages shown for Australia temporinclude foreign-born non-Europeans, non-Europeans, most of whom are telnpor~ include only any ary entrants. If the figures were restricted to include Australian-born and other permanent residents, the percentage population as a would be about halved, halved, and the Australian population whole could therefore be shown to be about 99-85 per cent of European race, excluding aborigines and persons of mixed

blood. Chinese Chinese

The Chinese have always armed the largest of the nonalways formed European groups. They declined from 19,907 19,907 in 1901 to 9,144 in number greatest num-bcr The _greatest but increased again to 20,382 in 1951. Tie 1961. 20,382 but 1947, I947, in the country country in any one year is is estimated or£irnated at approximately 38,500 in 1881. 1381. Table IX shows the age pyramids of the Chinese community in selected census years. It is not possible to obtain diagrams These .diagrams age pyramids for Australian-born Chinese. These policy on the show clearly the effects & of Ithe immigration _Holley Chinese community. The men who were between 20 and 40 Chine 30 to 50 the _Bo in 19o1 continue to form the majority in 191 I in t}1e 19o§ continue The increased group. By 1947 these had almost disappeared. in Australian-born proportion growth of the Australian-born proportion of females and the growth element had led to a broader base and to a more proportionate pyramid. The excess of males over females in the age groups entry of tem20 4. in subsequent Figures reflects the entry subsequent census figures 20 to 45

In:

had become very porary immigrants under exemption. This had

Br

noticeable noticeable by 1961. Others Natives of India and what is now Pakistan have never been sharp more than a very small, scattered group. Except for q sharl remained drop 'between Igor and 1 9 1 1 , their numbers have rerrmalned between 1901 fairly constant. The Australian-born Australian-born fraction is quite insignificant and one may assume from the very small number foreign-born females that little advanta advantage is taken of the concession which the permanent entry of wives and permits concession children of Indian residents. It should also he be noted that the

Appendix I

141

number of foreign-born males shown in Table IV is misleading dassilied as since a large proportion of these at each census are classified ~ migratory. 1 g54 these numbered I,I4o, or about two~ about two numbered I,14o, migratory. Indeed in 1954 thirds port at the seamen in port largely be seamen thirds of the total. They would largely time time of the census. It is clear from Table V that the ]apanese Japanese community in Australia almost disappeared during the war. Practically all the foreign-born and a number of Australian-born, probably children, were sent back to Japan during or after the war. There

was a marked increase of Japanese between 1954 and 1961. The only other non-European non-European group of note was the Polynesian Islander). In 1 9 0 1 they furthered over 110,000 o,ooo nurnbcrecl over or 'Pacific Islander-'. neslan or but within a decade the majority, nearly all of whom were sugarcane returned to their been returned Queensland, had been workers in Queensland, sugarcane workers islands under the Pacific Islands Labourers Act. In 196/ they numbered bloods. numbered only 2,186 full bloods. Foreign-born non-Europeans non-Europeans and Permanent residents Foreign-born

At 30 June foreign-bom non-Europeans ]one 1947 the number of foreign-born in Australia, excluding those classified as migratory, migratory, was the lowest for practically practically a century-only 6,41o. Seven years years later, in spite of the increased entry under others under students and others entry of students exemption, the figure was 9,650-still 9,65o~--still below that of 1933. But by 1961 this had doubled to an estimated 19,335. 195535. Is it possible to discover how many foreign-born non-Euro means arlother become permanent resior aIlother pears have in some way 01' census as a dents? Within certain limits it is. Using the 1961 census base the number base and taking into account the increase to 1966, the

of foreign-born non-Europeans in Australia, excluding those

of 'Eddie

astern and excluding those classified in the astern origin, and t o r y , would be about 25,oo0. 25,o00. These These could probmir aratory, census as- m ab be classified as follows : 12,600 12-,600 students 4,200 merchants, assistants, etc., holding temporary entry permits 5,400 Australian registered citizens, naturalized and registered Australian citizens, 2,800 2,800

other permanent residents. residents.

entrants temporary entrants If we were to assume that all the 4,200 temporary become permanent, as well as say I O per cent of the students become

142. 142

Appendix I Appendix

(through marriage marriage and in other ways), or 1,300, 1,3oo, it will be seen that the total number of foreign-born non-Europeans who have achieved actual or potential permanent residence in 1966 would be about about I3,7oo. I 3,700. .. This is the number number of people w other This whoof ave ,_ somehow or other overcome the exclusion policy. Or in another sense this is the extent to which which the policy has not been exclusionist. Anyway, exclusionist. Anyway, it is about as close as we can come to a gross numerical measure measure of the policy's eiieetiveness electiveness over sixty-live sixty-five years of operation. AustraliaN The Australian-born resident full~blood . and permanently full-blood non-Europeans taken together represent re resent in [966 about o-2 per "F al population. To maintain this fraction over cent of the 'M total the next ten years, years, the annual increase of permanent residents would need to be about 3oo. An increase of z,ooo r,ooo a year would bring the percentage in 1976 /976 to about o-25 per cent. To reach I per cent in 1976, the annual increase of permanent residents would have to be about about rI 1,ooo.

EE61:

1921

her

of"

Australia: Total Non-Europeans at Census Dates

'VEST

url

TI6I

I06T

(excluding Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders, and

origin)

I96`{

TABLE I

\¢, .Q

s: E C 5 'w

Q; Q.

*Q

G 0

a-. *:8

I-ii

w

m

-1-1

m

E

E

.a

'é

4;

-=:

8

1;

3

pg

é

m GO

:0»-1

E

Q

oz

,U m

E g

Ec

'U

.2> c : 3 L~

.-u

CVD

we

*

Ito o

ndur

.&Dr--4

:E 56 43

E;

'Um' Q]

3=* 4:_

EE u

'TJ

Eas

CL

E

>< GJ

4;

u-

O

m

.3 1:6 o CE --I

5

39 _ Q0

E

W e

LE

M H

an

m 0 L.

FS

-4-1

'E +3

D-

a

E.,

S-I

:TS

GJ

Q

1

e o

=:|

GJ

P

.E an :E Q QEgo

Pa -AD Is

a

Q

C.:

o

3

ii

4

w F-I

q

r=4

H G)

4.1:

.

O¢

n O

¢l-4

m »-6

g6 I S'

a

8:S2 no

oo

HL

*

i"

'U

2 5

We

Cell

l-l

.

H

~3

I

O

N

r.)

l@ to ajggly or resident status

and citizenship after five years stay. Where the Governments of other countries may be concerned over loss of qualified people, there will be appropriate consultation, as Australia must not contradict the aims of the

166

Appendix U

Colombo Plan and other efforts to help such countries' develop-

ment. With the same objective, the programme of allowing young people to come from other countries as students will continue. Greater effort is to be made to ensure that courses undertaken will be of recognized value to the students' hoinelands when they return there. in view of the need to ensure most elective use of scarce places at our Universities and other institutions,

the intending students' ability to undertake his course successfully will be examined carefully at time of application for entry, and his progress will he assessed annually. Honourable Members on both sides of the House have frequently and generously stressed that humanity and discretion have marked the handling of individual cases in the immigration field generally. ' , I can assure the House, will be continued-always with Australia's interests in view, always in the hope of showing sym ath and consideration to men and women in di/liculty, always avoiding unnecessary disclosure of private confidences

misfortunes. Representations from any

respon sible source will be carefully considered.

__,-"

A P P E N D I X 111

R E L E V A N T C L A U S E S F R O M T H E STATUTES I.

hnwzigvfation Act 190/-/949

3.-(L) The immigration into the Commonwealth of the: persons described m any of the following paragraphs of this section (hereinafter called 'prohibited immigrants') is prohibited, namely : (co) any person who jails to pass tile dictation test: that is to

say, who, when an ofibcer or person duly authorized in writ~ ing 'by an officer dictates to him not less than fifty words in any prescribed language, fails to write them out in that language in the presence of the officer or authorized person. or languages EE5H NQ regulation prescribing any langue have any force until it has been laid before both Houses of the Parliament for thirty days and, before or after the expiration of such thirty days, both Houses of the Parliament, by a resolution, of which notice has been given, have agreed to such regulation, But the following are excepted: [inter alia]

(11) Any person possessed of a certificate of exemption as prescribed in force for the time being;

4--(1-) The Minis

an auqytorizeti officer may issue a prescribed form authorizing the person named in the certificate (being a prohibited immigrant certificate of exemption

in the

or an immigrant who may be requited to pa33 the dictation test) to enter or remain in the Commonwealth, and the person named in the certificate shall not, while the certificate is in force, be subject to any of the provisions of this Act restricting entry into or stay in the Commonwealth.

167

Appendix III

168

(2.) The certificate shall be expressed to be in force for a specified period only, but the period may be extended from time to time by the Minister or by an authorized officer. (3.) Any such certificate may at any time he cancelled by the Minister by writing under his hand. (4.) Upon the expiration or cancellation of any such cate, the Minister may declare the person named in the cate to be a prohibited immigrant and that person may upon be deported from the Commonwealth in pursuance

certificertifithereof an

order of the Ministel'.

-(2.) Any immigrant may at any time within five years after hr: has entered the Commonwealth be required to pass the dictation test, shall if he fails to do so be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against this Act. 7. Every prohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this Act and every person who, by virtue of this Act, is deemed to be a prolaihited immigrant offending against this Act shall be guilty of an .offence against this Act, and shall he liable upon summary conviction to in `sonment for not more than six months, and in addition to institution for such imprisonment shall be liable pursuant to any order of the Minister to be deported from the Commonwealth. 2.

Migration Act /958

4.--(.4.) Not withstanding the repeals effected by this section-

(ca) a certificate of exemption in force under the Immigration Act 1901-1949 immediately before the date of commence rent of this Part shall, for all purposes of this Act, be

deemed to be a temporary entry permit -granted under this Act to the person specified in the certificate and authorizing that person to remain in Australia for a period ending on the date on which the certificate would have expired if this Act had not been passed;

6.-(1.) A11 immigrant who, not being the holder of an entry permit that is in force, enters Australia thereupon becomes a prohibited immigrant.

Appendix IH

169

( z ) An ofiiccr may, in accordance with this section and at the request or with the consent of an immigrant, grant to the immigrant an entry permit. (3.) An entry permit shall be in a form approved by the Minister and shall he expressed to permit the person to whom it is granted to enter Australia or to remain in Australia or both. Is.) An entry permit that is intended to operate as a temporary entry permit shall be expressed to authorize the person to whom it relates to remain in Australia for a specified period only, and such a permit may be granted subject to conditions.

7.-(L) The

l\/l11f\iSte1' may,

in

his

absolute cliscrction, cancel

a temporary entry permit at any time by writing under his hand. (2-} At any time while a temporary entry permit is in force or after the expiration or cancellation of a temporary entry permit, a further entry permit may, at the request of the holder, be granted to the holder and, where such a further entry permit is granted while a temporary entry permit is in force, the further entry permit shall come into force only upon the expiration or

cancellation of the existing entry permit. (3.) Upon the expiration or cancellation of a temporary entry permit, the person who was the holder of the permit becomes a prohibited immigrant unless a further entry permit applicable to him comes into force upon that expiration or cancellation. (4.) Notwithstanding section ten of this Act, a person I has become a prohibited immigrant by virtue of the last preced-

ing sub-seaction ceases to he a prohibited immigrant at the expiration of a period of five years from the time at which he became a prohibited immigrant unless, at the expiration of that period, a deportation order in relation to him is in force. immigrant 10. A person who has become a prohibited ceases to be a prohibited immigrant if and when an entry permit or further entry permit is granted to him, and not otherwise. 18. The Minister may order the deportation of a person who is a prohibited immigrant under any provision of this Act.

Appendix III

170

3. Wartime Refugees Removal /let /949 ... 4. (1.1 This Act shall S .PP1Y to every persona who entered Australia dnrin g the Period of hostllltles and is an alien, (IJ) who, during the Reriod of hostilities entered Australia occupation, or i by reason as a place of ref

t h e lits Ad o c c p a t j, -it any placdby .in enemy, and has or not e t ustra in since e SO enter (Cr) who, during the period of hostilities, entered Australia by reason of any other circumstances attributable to the 5

existence of hostilities and has not left Australia since he so entered. (2.) The is/Iinister may, by writing under his hand, certify that a person named in the certificate is a person specified in paragraph (Rx), Isl or (Cr) of the last preceding sub-section and any such certificate shall, for the Rurposcs of this Act (including any proceedings atlglng under this Act or IH which a question arises as to the application of this Act to any person), be prima

facie evidence of the fact so certified.

5. The Minister may, at any time within twelve months after the commencement of this Act, make an order for the deportation of a person to whom this Act applies and that person shall be deported in accordance with this Act. 9- An officer may, without warrant, arrest a person reasonably supposed to be a deportee and a person shall not resist or prevent any such arrest. Penalty: One hundred pounds or imprisonment for six months.

APPENDIX

IV

POLICY DECLARATIONS

1. Address bit the Minister for Immigration, Mr Downer, to the Millions Club, Sydney, on 9 _Idly 1958. In recent months, voices have been raised in the universities, in various pulpits, and in one or two newspapers, urging the admission of an annual quota of Asians. Every enlightened person, and certainly the Government, realizes the importance of our Asian neighbours, with some of whom we have many ties, and a vast community of interests. I do not think Australia has been backward since the war in acknowledging this in practical form. One of the principal tenets of the Government's foreign policy has been to break down barriers between Australia and Asia, and no one man has contributed so much to this by his own exertions as my colleague, Mr Casey. Let me remind you of just a few of the things we have already done. The idea of the Colombo Plan originated in Australia. We have established diplomatic missions in all of the countries of East and South-East Asia except Communist China and her satellites. We have encouraged students from a variety of Asian countries

to errol in our universities. We have invited Press delegations to come and see us in our own homes, in our everyday lives. We are naturally anxious to trade with the East, our former enemy,

]apart, is the second largest buyer of our wool, and last year we agreed to take more of her products in return. Over and above any of these things, Australia has shown a genuine desire to help our Asian friends in their tremendous problems of development, or raising their standards of living, or rellabilita~ ting their economies. And considering that we ourselves are an under-developed country, with an insatiable demand for over-

seas capital, for ever bedeviled by uncertain rainfall and re171

172

Appendix IV

muteness from world markets, I think we can fairly claim that our record in Australia since the war has been a good one : friendly, co-operative, as generous as our limited circumstances have allowed. We are thus continually demonstrating our goodwill towards our Asian allies and neighbours. How far would an immigration quota apportioned amongst these nations assist in their own problems? Their population is increasing at the rate of many millions a year. Would a quota of IOO Indians, the

same number of Pakistanis, an equal number of Indonesians, a sprinkling of Ceylonese, a handful of Malays, a proportion of Thais, reduce in any appreciable way their internal population pressures? The question has only to be asked to answer itself. Again, how would a quota be apportioned? Would you allot the same number to India as to Pakistan? India has live times as many inhabitants as Pakistan, yet Pakistan besides being a Commonwealth country, is also a fellow-member of SEATO, and rather closer to us in international questions. Yet do you think these nations would be satisfied with an equal allocation

of numbers? The same difficulties might arise between our friends in Burma, Ceylon, Malaya and Thailand-the latter being another partner in SEATO. Another problem you would have to decide is who to include within the quota. Obviously, you would start with the Commonwealth powers. Thereafter, no doubt, you would follow the atlas through Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines. But further north? \Vould those advocating an Asian quota say we should take settlers from Red China? and how would they feel about an intake of ]'apallese each year? Yet logically, if we admit the principle of a quota, it would occasion marked offence to discriminate against 6oo million Chinese and zoo million Japanese. After

all, it is this very discrimination that is disturbing the critics of our present policy. And a limited discrimination ought to be just as objectionable to these critics as a general discrimination :

for I am sure that public opinion in Australia would never countenance for a moment a regular stream of migrants from Communist China and her subordinate States such as North Vietnam and North Korea. I want to suggest another aspect, which is nearly always overlooked., of this delicate problem. Every nation, surely, should

Appendix IV

173

have the right to determine its own racial composition. This

is one of the most fundamental rights of civilized living. Reduced to personal terms, it is the right each of us insists on to say who he will allow to live in his own house, And this is an internationally accepted prerogative. The Asian countries themselves are in the forefront of those who prescribe most meticulous immigration restrictions. Consider the exclusion of Chinese from the Philippines, ask the Ceylonese Government about their prohibition of Indians into Celyon; remember the barriers between India and Pakistan, what freedom of movement, still less residence, does Peking allow? If any of us, as British subjects, desired to settle in any of these countries, we could do so only for a strictly limited period, and only after obtaining permission on the most explicit and restricted terms. In actual fact, there is very little difference between their practice and ours. Moreover, people tend to forget that Australia admits Asians for a variety of purposes, often for long periods, sometimes for life. There are now well over 5,ooo Asian students at our universities. We welcome them warmly, and as our teaching and accommodation facilities expand I hope their numbers will grow- We permit ungrudgingly the entry of Asian wives and husbands of Australians. We allowed over 800 Asian war refugees to remain here for ever. We have permitted approximately 85o Asians, mainly Chinese, who cannot safely return to China on account of their being opposed to Communism, to make Australia their home. Oriental merchants and traders are granted long years or residence here. We have also another rule whereby Asians who are lawfully admitted

in the first place, and who remain in Australia over 15 years, and who participate in the community life, may stay on indefinitely and become naturalized. Finally, we have no objection to Asians of distinguished character and achievement corning to

live amongst us. Indeed, we welcome them, and several have already signified their intention of accepting our hospitality. In terms of figures, all this adds up to about or,ooo Asians in Atls~ tralia today. Half of these are students, half are to all intents and purposes permanent residents. If we substituted this discretionary policy for a strictly calculated quota, the Asian countries would find that the balance of advantage would turn

Appendix I V I74 against them, and that the present policy operates more to their benefit than the alternative proposed. For myself, I have only the friendliest feelings towards our Asian neighbours. I have from time to time travelled in many

of these countries, and during the war spent over four years in Malaya. Australians I believe, do not suffer from feelings of racial superiority or colour consciousness.

During the war,

nothing could have been easier in my own experience, than the

relations between our soldiers and the la/Ialays and Southern Chinese. These sentiments have truly been continued through these years of prickly peace. What Australia must do is to help the nations QE Asia towarcls higher lxvlng stanclarcls, aaaiat them in their own colossal social and economic tasks, develop a

much wider understanding of their religions and cultures, buttress them in their resistance to Communism. As an under-

developed p

ourselves, our capacity is not equal with

Ol1I`

desire, but whatever assistance we proffer must be real, genuine and substantial. For these reasons I believe an Asian quota would prove illusory, and instead of alleviating easting problems would only create new ones, and in doing so would harm the very people we are seeking to befriend-

2.

Extract from an Explanation of Australian Immigration

Policy Prepared by the Department of Immigration, t Bray 1965. Homogeneous population Australia's immigration policy is based on the need to rnain~

rain a predominantly homogeneous population. lt is hoped in this way to avoid diilicult social and economic problems. Integration It is fundamental to the policy that those people coming to Australia for residence should be capable, both economically and socially, of ready integration into the community. Consequently, preference is given to persons of European origin. Australia is not alone in seeking, as a matter of prudence, general homogeneity as a basis of economic, social and cultural integration. lt is the right and duty of every nation to determine its own demographic composition.

Appendix II/

I75

Discretionary The Australian practice is not one of the total exclusion of persons of other than European origin. The immigration laws governing residence in Australia permit the Minister to exercise discretion. The policy SO administered takes into account the qualifications of persons wishing to settle here and the merits of each case, including considerations of a humanitarian nature

and broad national interest.

Extract from a Statement to Parliament by Mr Opper-

man, Minister for Immigration, 9 March 1966. Every country has not only a right to its own immigration

policy but a heavy duty and a vital responsibility to administer it in the interests of its own people. Our neighbours and friends all have immigration policies that are based on their own interests and are intended to benefit their own people and future. All include elements of control of entry and residence, some with strict numerical and national limitations. No Government is to be reproached for 'Laspects of its immigration system developed for its needs and derived from its social history, political traditions and constitutional arrangements. No responsible Government condones illegality or deceit, which are poor gateways indeed for the entry of new settlers. Our programmes and policies have likewise emerged from our history, our respect for law and order and our response to

.

our special needs. Our primary aim in immigration is a gener-

ally integrated* and predominantly homogeneous population. A

lu.,-he

_

positive element in the latest changes is that which will admit selected non-Europeans capable of becoming Australians and joining in our national development. Both the policy and the rules and procedures by which it is effected cannot remain static and must be constantly reviewed. Though redefined from t be administered in accordance with the on primc1' 'i es decided by the Government, with justice to Individuals the future welfare of the Australian people as a whole l These will continue to be the main elements in Australia's

_

immig ation nolic:y.,

SELECTED S O U R C E MATERIAL I.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

Commonwealth Acts, 1901-63 (published annually). Sydney. Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 1901-65. Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers, 1901-57 for the immigra-

tion returns, and vols

2

(19o5) and 3 (1912) for the details of

the Gentlemen's Agreements.

Department of External Affairs, Current Notes on International Affairs, vols 2o-36. Canberra, 1949-65. Department of Immigration, Entry and Residence Conditions for Non-Europeans, 1947, 1951, 1956 (issued in typescript). 'Records. Historical outline of entry conditions 1901-1940' (roneoed). Immigration Regulations, Statutory Rules 1932-1945. Canberra, 1946. Migration Bill 1958: Explanatory Memorandum. Canberra, 1958. 2.

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS

Andrews, C. F., India and the Pacific. London, 1937. Auerbach, F. L., Immigration Laws of the United States. Indianapolis, 1955. Australian Encyclopaedia, 'Chinese in Australia', vol. 2 , pp.

350-3. Sydney, 1958. Australian Institute of Political Science, A Write Australia?

Ilii5tralia's Population Prollle1»n. Symposium. Sydney, 1947. Borrie, \V. D., lnirnigretion: Australia's Pro blems and Prospects. Sydney, 1949. Burchett, G. H., China and the White Australia Policy. Melbourne, 1944. Campbell, P. C., Chinese Coolie Emigration to Countries 'zftitliiri the British Empire. London, 1923. Casey, R. G., Friends and Neigh hours. Melbourne, 1954. Chidell, F., Australia, White or Yellow? London, 1926.

176

Selected Source A-Internal

I77

Corbett, D. C-, Carzacids Irnmzgmtion Policy: A Critique. Toronto, 1957. Dixon, R., I-rrzrnzgratMn and the Waite Austroluz Policy.

Sydney, 1945. Forsyth, W . D,. The .Myth of Open Spaces: Australian, British and World Trends of Populotzon and Migration. Melbourne, 1942. Fraser, C. F., Control of Aliens in the British Commonwealth of Nations. London, 1940. Gangulee, N., Indians -in the Empire Overseas. London, 1947.

Hall, T. D. H., New Zealand Ajairs., 'Asiatic Immigration', oh. 5. Christchurch, 1929. Hancock, (Sir) VV. K., Survey of British. Cofrn-:°nonaveolth. A a i r s , vol. 1, ch. 4, 'India and Race Equality'. London, 1937. Immigration Reform Group (ed. K.

Rivett), Irnmigrolion.'

Control or Colour Bar? Melbourne,

Keith, A. B., Responsible Government in the Dominions, oh. 4, 'The Immigration and Treatment of Coloured Races'. 2nd

ed., Oxford, 1928. Konvitz, M. R., The Alien and the Asians in Arnerrcan Low.

Ithaca, 1946. Long, j. S., Non-Briti.slier5 in Austmlio.: In]'-luence on Population and Progress. Melbourne, 1927.

McKenzie, N. A. M. (ed.), The Legal Status of' Aliens in Pacific Countries. London, 1937.

McKenzie, R. D., Oriental Exclusion. Institute of Pacific Relay sons, Chicago, 1928. N.S.W. Association for

Immigration Reform (ed. Charles

Stokes), White A-ustfelim Time for

.ii

Cftenge. Sydney, 1963.

Opperman, H. H., Anstralids Immigration Policy, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra, 1965. Pao Chun-Iien, A Century

of Sii1o-Australian Relations. Sydney,

1938. Parry, C., Nationality and Citizensli-ip Lows of the Covnnion~ wealth and of the Republic of Ireland. London, 1957Riggs, F. W., Pressures on Congress. New York, 1950. Ross, I. Claries (ed.), Australia and the For East. Sydney, 1935. Slecrnan, I, H., White Chino: An Aitstml-Asian Sensation. Sydney, 1933.

178

Selected Source Mate1'£aZ

Temperley, H. W. V. (ed.), A History of oNe Peace Conference

of

Paris, oh. 6, 'The Question of Asiatic Immigration London, 19-24. Van Vleck, W. C., The Administrative Control of Aliens: A Study in Adininis!ratwe La-an and Procedure. New York, 1932. Vllalker, Rev. A. E., White Australia. Sydney, 1945. Vlfilkinson, H. L., Worlcl's Population Problems and (Z White Australia. London, 1930. \Villard, Myra, History of the White Australia Policy. Mel.. bourne, .g Canada (intl lie Orisnl- Toronto, 194.1 . 0.w01"t \Vyncs, W §gislatwe, Executive and judicial Powers in . ,Ansiralia. Sydney, 1936. Yarwood, A. T., Asian Migration to Australia: The Background to Exclusion, 1896-/923. Melbourne, 1964.

3. A R T I C L E S Angus, H. F., 'Asiatics in Canada', Pacific Ajairs, vol. 19 (1946),

PP- 402-8. Bernadelli, H., 'New Zealand and Asiatic Migration, Population Siudws, vol. 6, no. I (1952). Calv ell, A. A., 'Population Australia's Biggest DcHcit', Twenrierh Century, vol. 3, no. I (1948), pp. 1o~17. Corbett, D. C., 'Immigration and Foreign Policy in Australia

and Callada', International journal, vol. 13 (1958), pp.

110-23.

Crux, 'Immigration Refor111', July 1964. Current Again Rulletzn, '"Irate Austral1a-Or1g1ns', vol.

to,

(1957), pp. 166-79'White Australia-To-day's Dilemma', vol. 20, no. (1957) PP- 182-96. 'White Australia-RcformP', vol. 34, no. 4 (1964)» PP>-1

Ra

HO. I I

51-64. Dallas, K. M., 'The Origins of "White Australia" ', Australian Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1 (1955), pp. 43-52. Eggleston, (Sir) F. W., 'Australia's Immigration Policy', Pacific -1§6zzrs, vol. 2 1 , 110. 4 (1948), pp. 372-83. Elk if, A. P., 'Re-Thinking the White Australia Policy', Australian Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3 (1945), pp. 6-34.

Selected' Source A-ffaterzal

179 Hall, James, 'New Thought on White Australia', Australian, 22 June 1965.

- ']ust How

Tolerant Are Australians?', Australian, 24 ]one

1965. 'Are the Barriers Weakening?', Australian, 28 June 1965. Jackson, D. G. M., '\1Vhite Australia and Southeast Asia', Tfzeert teeth Cerzturn, vol. 3, no. 1 (1948), PP- 26-36. Kellaway, C., ' "White Australia"-How Political Reality Became National Myth', Australian Quarterly, vol. 25, no. Q, (1953) PP- 7-1 r McGregor, Craig, 'Is There a Vi/hite Australia PolicyP', Sydney

llilorrwag Herald, 4. September 1965.

'Australian Policy Whiter and Yet Whiter', Sydney 1`l/forming Herald, 6 September 1965. Mansfield, B. C., 'The Origins of White Australia', Aastraltarz Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4 (1954), pp. 61-8. Naira, N. B., 'A Survey of the History of the White Australia Policy in the I 9th Century', Aastralrar1 Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 3 (1956), pp. 16-31. Palrreernan, A. C., 'Some Implications of Asian Irnrnigrationl Aus.ralzan Quarterly, vol. 29, no. I (1957), pp. 26-38. 'The End of the Dictation Test', Australian Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1 (1958), pp. 43-50. Phillips, O. E., 'The Administration of Asian Immigration into Australia-A Comparative Study', Australian Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 4 (1956), pp. 29-45. Rand, C., 'Aspects of a Meeting Place', New Yotkefr, 16 Novem-

ber 1957.

of International Affairs, vol- 4 (1955), pp. 42-54Rivett, Kenneth, 'A Case for Refol'm', Bulletin, I 3 October 1962. Round Table, 'Australian Relations with Asia', vol. 38 (1948), Ran, P. K., 'Indians Abroad', Indian Yearbook

PP-

810-12.

'Dr Evatt'5 `Reply', vol. 39 (1949), pp. 286-7. 'Australia Faces Asia: The Background of S.E.A.T.O.', vol. 45 (I954)» PP- 57-63'Sydney', 'The White Australia Policy', Foreign Ajafas, vol. 4 (1925)» PP- 97-1 I I .

180

Selected Sozwoc ,Material

Yarwood, A. T., 'The Dictation Test-Historical Survey', Ausitalian Quarterly., vol. 30, no. 2 (1958), pp. 19-29. 'The "White Australia" Policy: Some Administrative Problems, I 9 o I - I 9 2 0 ' , Aumtvfalian fournal of Politics and

History, vol. 7, no. 4.

2

(1961), pp. 245-6o.

UNPUBLISHED WORKS

Dodd, C., 'Changing Attitudes to the White Australia Policy 1945-19562 History honors thesis, University of Queensland,

1956. Ellis, C. ]., 'Why Does the A.L.P. Support the White Australia Policy? 1855-I94o', l\»I.A. thesis, University of Melbourne,

1950.

INDEX Aliens Deportation Act 1948, 71, 79, 96 And, Tony, 52 Anglo-Indians, 48, 49 Assistants- change of employment, 526, entry procedure, 32, 33, executive, 19, new categories, 36, numbers, 35, turnover requirements,

1965, 36, turnover requirements, 34, 35, 74

Chen, Daniel, 62

Ch'erl, Dr,

33-5; see also Chinese; Japanese

55; colonial restrictions, 1 ; consuls, is, 117, 118; discriminatory legisla-

s.s. Asturias, 49 Australian 1 1 6I

Citizenship

Convention,

tion, 63; executive assistants, 29, herbalists, 10; labourers excluded, 7 , laundrymen, 10, local traders, 9, 27, 33, 54, 55, market gardeners, 10, 27, 28, 35, 36, merchants, 7»9, 27-88, numbers, 5, 25, 39, 56, I I 4 ; refugees, 37-9, requests for policy changes, 5, 6, 27, 38, 55, 73, 113-18, students, 7, 8, 27, 40-2, substitutes, 10, 27, tourists, 27, 42, 43; see also Chefs and cooks; Domiciled non~ Europeans, Students

11?

Australian

Communist Party,

123,

125' Australian Labor Party, 25, 26, 124,

127, 130 Australian Natives' Association,

118

Cl1iHel8;, ], B., 2 2 China: Mainland, kg, 37, 64, 1 1 8 , Taiwan, 38, 65, 118 Chinese' assistants, 8, 9, 27, 28, 32-6,

[20,

120

Barnes, C. E., 66 105 V Barton, Sir Edmund, Barwick, Sir Garfield, 66 38 Bruce (Rt. Hon.)

Chinese Exclusion Acts (U.S.], 120, 1 2 8 C a f é s and Restaurants, 34, 35, 74

Cairns, Dr J, F., 33 n.3 Calv ell, A. A.: 01:1 exemption certificates, 88, on deportation, 68, 69, on families, 51, 52, 53, on ]apanese, to, 21, 43, 44; on Maoris, 46, 47, on persons of mixed race, 47, 48; and the regulations of 1947, 27; and the war-time refugees, ao-2, 23, 37, Ion, 1 1 8 , 1 2 8

Canada, 114, 133, 137 Certificates of exemption, 85-90, cancellation. of, 86, 87; and the Migration Act 1958, 110, I I I , and naturalization, ro7, statutory amendments, 89, 90, validity of, 89, 90, 110, I I I ; see also Calv ell; High Court decisions; Kokkos case; Merchants Change of employment: Chinese, 38, 39, 73-6,

1 1 5 , 116,

concessions 1956,

73-5; eligible employers, '74, numbers, 75, 76; policy 1966, 77; statement 1958, 75, see also Deportation, Students Chefs and cooks: numbers, 35; policy

Colombo Plan, Cook, ]., 17 Daughters

17.9,

of the

130, 132

American Revolu-

.,1,,

Deakin, Alfred, 6, Democratic Labor Party, 130 .-

Department of External AEairs, 49,

Department of Immigration: and deportation, 63, 69, 73, 75, 89, 97, 98, members of Parliament, 115, and I I ;

and the Migration Act, 108;

origins of, 4 11.3, 36; post-war entry

policy, 27 Deportation, 67-77; and change of employment, 64, 65; to China, 64, Chu Shan-hung case, q8, 99, Commonwealth powers, 95, 96; Crimes Act, 98, habeas corpus, 99-mo, of illegal entrants, 65, 96, 9?, imprisonment, 68, 69, 96-8; Migration Act,

68, 71, 1 O S - I I , numbers, 67, 69, procedures, 67, 97-1oo, see also High \Vivie 181

Court

decisions;

Wong,

Itzde.or

182

Dictation test, 81-5; Japanese objections, 82, language used, 82, 83, numbers, 84; statutory amendments,

84; see also High Court decisions; Illegal entrants, Kokkos case Dixon, Sir Owen, 93, 94, I S

Domicile, 90-5, Ah Yin case, 91, 93; see also High Court decisions; Keen Wing Lau case; Migration Act; Mina fan case; O'Keefc, Mrs,

Wong Say, Lucy Domiciled non-Europearis, 5, 6, Io, 17, 18, 34, 45, 46, 54. 59, 60

Downer, A. R.: on change of employment, 71, on families, 55; on

49, policy statements, 23, 24, 6o, 62; on quotas, 1 2 9 , 011 refugees, 37 n.8. 38 Hong Kong, 38, 48, 64, 75, QUO

Illegal entrants: citizenship, 38; see also Depot-tation; Dictation test Immigration Act 1901-1949, 8 1 - l 0 1 ; certificates of domicile, 60; enact-

ment, 2 no; imprisonment, 96; and racial exclusion, 105, Io6, statutory rules, 74, and war-time refugees, 102

Immigration Advisory Council, 29, 38, 74, 108, l I e f , 129

Japanese children, 50, 127; on the

Immigration agents, 30,

Migration Act, 108; policy state~

Immigration Reform Associations, 26,

also Wong,

125 , 1 2 7 , 129, 134 Indians: families, 16, 17, 18; numbers, 10, passport system, I I , re., 17, 18; Reciprocity Resolution 1918, 13, 16, 17 Indonesia, 37, 65, 66 Isaacs, Sir Isaac Alfred, 91, 92, 96

m e n , no, 1 3 1 , see \Vi1Iic Dutch burghers, 48

Eggleston, Sir Frederick, 59 Elk if, A. P., 125 Eurasians, 48-50

Families, 51-8; adult children, 57, 58, 137, aged parents, 54; of assistants and substitutes, 55; of Australian citizens, §7, 58, of Australian residents, 6o, and change of employment, 55, '76, of domiciled Chinese, 54, early policy, 6, I3-18; future policy, 137, of local traders, 54:

Jang

118

..

I-» 23 .

marriages of convenience, 58, of mixed blood, 48; numbers, 56; see

]apanese° assistants, 45, domlclIed, 45, 468 entry policy, 43, 44; merchants, 44, 45, naturalization, 105; newspapermen, 4.5, numbers, 45, 46; passport system, i i , 1 2 , to, Peace Treaty, 44; pearlcrs, 45, requests for policy changes, I 5 , war brides, 2 1 , 107, (families) 44, 57, (naturalization) 57-9; see also Mixed race

also Indians; Japanese: war brides, 1\-Ierchants; Naturalization, Re-

Jones, S-, 47

immigrants

Eugees; Students Fong Kee-Chiu, 55 n.1:>.

Kokkos case,

Fraser, P., 47

Keen Wing Lau case, Kuhtz, Valerie, R "

Freeth, Gordon,

129

Gallup poll, 126 Gar boa, Sergeant, 23, 51, 52,

118

108

Landing permits, 49, mo, 701 Latham, Sir John, 8, 9, 88, 96 Lee Yum-bo, 58 n.17

Haylen, L. C., 62 Hendon, P. R., 134 Higgins, H. B., 92

'Liberal Attitude Status', 75, 76 Liberal and Country Parties, 22, 23,

High Court, decisions and interpretations' appeals board, 70, 71; cer-

Liu, William, 1 1 6 , I I ? Lncsin, Aurelio, HS

tificates of exemption, 87-9; depor-

tation, 95-7; dictation test, 8:»,, 84, 85; domicile, 90-3, immigration defined, 94, 95; immigration power, 103, War-time Refugees Removal Act .. 103 Holt, Harold: and Chinese requests, ?3, I 15, on Middle East immigrants,

12,8, 129, 130, 131

Lyons,

I. A.,

15

Nia Yui-bin, 58 n.:7 D/Iacaballti, Toto, 52 McTiernan, E. A., 94 Maher, E. B., 2.3 Dvfak Chee, 64 n . I I

Malayan pearlers, 127

183

Index Malayan seamen, 52

Maoris, 46, 47,

118

1\flarker gardeners, 8, Io, 21, 28, 35, 36 Menzies, (Sir) Robert Gordon, 2 2 , 37, 124

129

Merchants: and certificates of exemption, 30- entry procedure 30, families, 353, 54, numbers, 32 permanent residence, 32, servants, 43; turnover requirements, 28, 30, 31, 33, 75; see also Chinese; Japanese Middle East immigrants, 48, 49, 105 Migration Act 1958, 79, 108-11; appeals, 71, and the Commonwealth power, 95, domicile, I Io, enactment, 81, see also Deportation, Temporary entry permits Mina fan, ]'ares, gr, 92, 93 Mixed race immigrants; children from Japan, 49, 5o, 120, 127, entry policy, 4.7-5o; families, 48, from Indonesia, 6; National Blue Star Mothers, 120 Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, 79, 104-8, amendments, 1o5, 1 0 7 , enactment, 1o4., racial origin, 104, row, registration of British subjects, 106,

loaf

Naturalization, 59-63, ban on, 59, 60; conditions of, 61, case of J, Lau, 107, ministerial discretion, 104, 105, 106, numbers, 62, 63; policy 1956, 59, 6os 135; policy 1966, 62, 63, 76; racial origin, 104, 1o5, 106, registration of British subjects, 59, 62, 106, 107;

tion;

see also Certificates of exempFamilies, Japanese: war

brides; Refugees; Students New Guinea, 63, 66, 133 New Zealand, 46, 47, 114,

133,

118,

137

O'Keefe, Mrs, 2 1 , 23, 51, 87, 88, 93, 94, 96, go, 102, 103 Opperman, H. F: Minister for Immigration, 24; on naturalization, 63, on qualified immigrants, 137, on refugees, 39, on students, $ x , 42, see also Locsin, Aurelio

Osborne, F. M., 129 Pacific Islands Labourcrs Acts

mgpu, 79 Parliament,

l

Passport system, 7, 9:

45-

Permanent

residence,

10, 1 2 ,

59-68,

1901-

I3,

4°*

Cate-

glories of`, 60; le facto, 76, end of exclusion policy, 127, 130, 134, 137; families, 58, marriages of convenience, 58; of qualiHed it migrants, 61, 134, official statement, 1 2 9 , see also Nlerehants Philippines, 1 1 8 Policy statements, $7 I -5 Political Asylum, 63-6

Polynesians, 2 Poor Cooed, 14, 1 2 6 Prasad, Nancy, 1 2 7 Presbyterian Church, no SHE. Protean, 49 Quota system,

119, 120, 121, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132

Racial discrimination, 49, 66, 1 2 2 , 123, 129, 131, 133; see also Chinese: discriminatory legislation; Immigration Act: and racial exclusion Refugees, 36-9; arrivals, I I ; families, 25, 56; Indonesians, 36, 37, naturalization, 38, 39, 63, numbers, 39, policy on, 20, 23, 25, 37, 38, 69, Ion, t'e-entry permits, 38, see also \Var-time Refugees Removal Act Returned Servicelnen's League, 57, 119, 1'2f']'.

Rich, Sir George, 103 Roman Catholic Church,

Sharked, L. L., 123,

122

124

Shaw Brothers, 31 Sin ha, Sir Satyendra, 17

Society of Friends, I : I Spender, Sir Percy, 23, 53 s.s. Sttathcden, 49 Students, 4o-2, change of employment, 41, 76, families, 42, naturalization, 42, 63; numbers, 40; passport system, 6, 7, 8, 12; policy, 27, 40, 41, 42, 129, 132, 134, 136; see also Chinese Temporary entry permits: Migration

Act,

108, 109, 110,

and naturaliza-

tion, Roy, and permanent residence, 39; procedure, 30, 32, 33; and right of appeal, 71; and students, 4o, see also Certificates of exemption Townley, A., 24, 33= 45, 84 n.I5

Trade Unions,

110,

127

Ung Chan Bunn, 24, 73

l1.ll'O

United States, 114, 128,

133, 137

Van dcr Putt, F., 48

Index

184

, Martin, ER

Ag, `s 1 ,

n d

g=.:.

§=@~ Joseph, us

War~time

Refugees

Removal .

Act

gqgpggduIIIlulll Qolicy, or, Hz, Press comment, in, see ..--- High Coup! decisions; Koon Wing Lau White Australia policyzl land appeals system, *heap labour, critics

I

dangers to, 62; definition, 3, 4, and foreign policy, 131, 133, 134; morality of, 1 2 1 , 122, 123, and political parties, 128, 129, 130; statutory authority for, '79, supporters of, rig, leo, i z r ; sec also Gallup poll

6

l *Lu

Willard, Myra, 59 Wong, Keith, 62 XVong, Willie, 118 I

Wong Sau, Lucy, 92, 93 \Vorld Council of Churches,

121