[Editor: This chapter is part of The White Australia Policy: The Rise and Fall of Australia’s Racial Ideology (2025).]
Economics and race as important factors
Judging by a widespread reading of various newspaper articles published at the start of the early 20th century, and statements made by politicians both prior to and during the first session of the Commonwealth parliament, there were two primary motivations for the White Australia Policy, which were racial preservation and the maintenance of living standards (the latter mainly regarding wages and working conditions); although various other contributory reasons played a part, in addition to the Policy’s racial and economic basis.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, some people maintained that the reasoning behind the White Australia Policy was purely economic. This line of argument appears to have been mainly used from the 1940s onwards, possibly being adopted as a way to lessen any offence taken by non-white countries to the existence of a White Australia Policy.
An editorial published in The Australian Worker on 15 September 1943, written by “J.S.H.”, declared:
“Based upon the establishment of the white man’s standard of existence, in this country the White Australia Policy is economic and not racial, both in its incidence and its application, and there is absolutely nothing associated with it that should give offence to the colored people of other lands.”[1]
However, in an editorial written by the same author, published eleven weeks later, it was said that the White Australia Policy had “racial advantages” (for whites). Whilst the later editorial did not technically contradict the earlier one, it appeared to come close to doing so. The editorial of 1 December 1943 said:
“No principle of the Australian Labor Movement since it was first inscribed on the Labor Party’s platform has been more jealously guarded and so sedulously observed as that of a White Australia.
… generally speaking, the principle has been accepted by people who have been able to appreciate its economic significance and background as well as its racial advantages.”[2]
In a later editorial, “J.S.H.” stuck to the economic interpretation of a White Australia:
“The Labor movement and the workers of this country have no quarrel with the workers of other lands, but, irrespective of color or any other specious consideration, they are determined to fight for the preservation of the white man’s standard of existence”.[3]
On 29 May 1949, in a radio speech, Prime Minister Ben Chifley said that the reasons for having a White Australia Policy were economic, not racial (although he also referred to social reasons for the Policy):
“One of the earliest national ideals of Australia was the establishment of a nation of high living standards with equal opportunity for all.
Early Commonwealth legislators saw that the greatest possible threat to such an ideal was a pool of cheap labor.
It was then, and still is, a fact that the most likely sources of cheap labor for those who wished to exploit it were the Asian countries so near to Australia.
That was how and why Australia established the restricted immigration policy which had been followed by all Governments.
The reasons for it were economic, not racial.
The Australian nation did not and does not feel superior to nations of non-European people. This country was and is aware that, sooner or later trouble and misery result when people of different races, living standards, cultures and historical backgrounds live side by side in the same community.”[4]
In line with the economic explanation of the Policy, The Sun (Sydney) said in 1952:
“In some Asiatic countries, unhappily, the impression has been caused that the “White Australia” policy is based on color, whereas, of course, the truth is that it was begun as an economic measure and is still an economic measure.”[5]
Putting diplomatic and politically-motivated protestations aside, it is quite clear, from reading the historical evidence, that the reasons for the creation of the White Australia Policy were primarily racial and economic in nature.
Harry Hoyle, who was a trade unionist, and an elected politician with the Protectionist Party in the late 19th century and with the Labor Party in the early 20th century (and who served as a Labor government minister), said in October 1916 that there were both racial and economic reasons for the establishment of the White Australia Policy:
“Amongst the first things we did was to pass a law known as “White Australia.” We did it for three reasons; first, because we considered aliens were inferior in intelligence; were unknown to us in characteristics, and unworthy to associate with; secondly because they would underwork and undersell us in the labor market; and thirdly, because we considered him inferior, and would not allow him to intermarry with our own race.”[6]
Confirming the two primary motivations, The Bulletin (Sydney) stated in 1916:
“The case for a White Australia is partly racial and partly economic”.[7]
Likewise, Truth (Sydney) said in 1952:
“from the beginning the policy was economic AND racial, finally becoming racial, mainly due to the wisdom of Colonial Premiers at the end of the last century, and the Federal Government in its first historic session.”[8]
However, whilst acknowledging that the genesis of the White Australia Policy was based upon racial and economic motives, it would be true to say that, for some people, their support for a White Australia was based primarily on economic grounds.
On the opposite side of the coin, there were many who viewed the White Australia Policy primarily as a racial matter. In November 1902, the views of Sir Edmund Barton, Australia’s first Prime Minister, were reported as follows:
“There was not a syllable uttered nor a step taken in connection with the measures comprising the white Australia policy of the Government that he would retract, and not one that he was not proud of.
The question was not a labour one but racial.
He believed that the destiny of the country would be worthily worked out in proportion as it remained white, and particularly as it remained the country of our own race.”[9]
The Daily Mirror (Sydney), in 1954, described the Policy as “a racial policy”, although it also noted that there were “racial and economic reasons” involved in its creation:
“everybody calls the policy “White Australia Policy” because that goes to the heart of the matter
… The policy is, in its broadest sense, a racial policy.
… The White Australia Policy is not nowadays an economic policy. If thousands of Asiatics were allowed into the country and became citizens they would receive award wages and work under award conditions.
… out of a desire to exclude Indians and Chinese for racial and economic reasons and Kanakas for humanitarian reasons, the White Australia Policy was born.
… It has been Australia’s cardinal policy since Federation”.[10]
No doubt, for some people, the primary impetus for the White Australia Policy was racial, whilst, for others, the primary impetus was economic. The Policy arose as a consequence of both racial and economic factors.
References:
[1] J.S.H., “Editorial: The sheet anchor of our democracy”, The Australian Worker (Sydney, NSW), 15 September 1943, p. 1
[2] J.S.H., “Editorial: Not for the Melting Pot”, The Australian Worker (Sydney, NSW), 1 December 1943, p. 1
[3] “Editorial: The hall-mark of economic freedom”, The Australian Worker (Sydney, NSW), 19 January 1944, p. 1
[4] “White Australia Policy defined: Economic, not racial, says Chifley”, The Australian Worker (Sydney, NSW), 1 June 1949, p. 5
[5] “Editorial: Snobs, snubs and “White Australia””, The Sun (Sydney, NSW), 9 May 1952, p. 3 (Late Final Extra)
[6] “Conscription: The district campaign: Meeting at South Grafton: Stirring speeches by Messrs. Hoyle and Briner”, The Grafton Argus (Grafton, NSW), 23 October 1916, p. 4
“Death of Mr. H. C. Hoyle: Prominent Labour man”, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW), 21 July 1926, p. 16
“Henry Clement (Harry) Hoyle (1852–1926)”, People Australia
“Henry Hoyle”, Wikipedia
[7] “Is White Australia worth doing anything for except talk?”, The Bulletin (Sydney, NSW), 2 November 1916, p. 6 [see column 2]
[8] “The White Australia Policy”, Truth (Sydney, NSW), 15 June 1952, p. 3
[9] “Sir Edmund Barton. Address to his constituents: Review of the session: A reply to critics: Programme for next year”, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 25 November 1902, p. 5
[10] “White Australia must stay”, Daily Mirror (Sydney, NSW), 11 March 1954, p. 22 (Late Final Extra)
Leave a Reply