[Editor: This article, regarding the Immigration Restriction Bill, was published in The Crookwell Gazette, and Settlers’ Advocate (Crookwell, NSW), 20 December 1901. When it became law, the Immigration Restriction Act formed the foundation of the White Australia Policy.]
Friday, December 20, 1901.
As a result of the labours of the Federal Parliament, during the eight months of its existence, two important measures (among others) have been passed by both Houses of the Legislature, viz., the Immigration Restriction Bill and the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Bill. These two measures, while there is considerable similarity in the object for which they have been enacted, yet in the practical working of the two there will be found to be a wide difference.
In the Pacific Islands Labourers’ Bill the object aimed at is the ultimate exclusion of the kanaka, the aboriginal of the Pacific Islands, from Australia, this form of legislation having been principally aimed at the extinction of the system of kanaka employment in the sugar plantations of Queensland. The intention of the bill is most distinctly and unmistakably expressed therein — the kanaka must go entirely within a given period — and everyone knows exactly the real meaning of the measure.
Not so, however, with the Immigration Restriction Bill. The object of this measure is to ensure that no “undesirable” persons from other parts of the globe shall be admitted into Australia, and in order to effect this the Federal Parliament has agreed, as the principal clause, upon an educational test. Herein then lies the difference between the two measures dealing with alien immigration. The one says plainly what is intended to be done; the other does not, but is a downright piece of hypocrisy. The bill says one thing, while under this clause the officer in charge of the working of the measure may place an entirely different construction upon it. In the original the test clause read:—
“Any person who when asked to do so by an officer fails to write out and sign in the presence of the officer a passage of 50 words in length in the ENGLISH language dictated by the officer.”
The leader of the Labour Party in the House of Representatives endeavoured to carry an amendment in the following words:—
“Any person who is an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or of the islands thereof;”
but the effort failed, as also did a similar one in the Senate by Senator McGregor.
In both cases, however, the Government nobbled the Labour Party and bamboozled the House with an unscrupulousness that would do credit to the Kelly Gang in the bushranging days.
However it became absolutely clear to the House of Representatives that the English language as a test was, if not impossible, grossly absurd and impracticable, and so Mr. Barton consented to substitute “an European” language.
This amended clause was in the first place rejected, by the Senate, where the Labour Party, because it evidently thought that it was likely to miss some of the credit for the passing of the measure into law, deserted the Opposition, abandoned the straight-out restriction clause and finally assisted in re-inserting the clause in the form in which was the previous day dissented from, viz.,
“Any person who when asked by an officer fails to writs out at dictation and sign in the presence of the officer a passage of 50 words in length in an EUROPEAN language directed by the officer.”
A more monstrous piece of hypocrisy as exhibited in this abortive educational test it would be difficult to conceive.
Of course we are told that the bill is not meant to exclude Europeans generally, and that the Government must be trusted to carry out the spirit of the Act. We have already had quite sufficient experience in leaving everything to Mr. Barton and his Victorian-bossed colleagues over the federal tariff to satisfy us to their fitness to be given a free hand.
If the intent and purpose of the measure is to shut out the African and the Asiatic why is it not plainly stated so? If Europeans are not to come under the operations of the Act, why not say straightforwardly that it is the European only that we want, and that aboriginals of Asia and Africa are to be excluded? But this seemed too straight a course for the wriggling, lop-sided Barton Government, who would like to be given the power to rule which is possessed by the Czars of the Russias, so that they might crush the “common herd” under foot, if a cry by them in protest is made.
The bills passed by any Parliament should, clearly, honestly and freely state what its intentions are, and this the Immigration Bill fails to do. Under it a white Australia may be as piebald as ever, or more so, while really good and desirable citizens may be, and they certainly can be, shut out. The whole matter is apparently to lie in the discretion of some officer, who is to be given the right to choose the European language which is to be used as a test, so that a Russian may be asked to write 50 words in French, or a Spaniard 50 words in German.
Of course, Mr. Barton disclaims that the provision will be used unfairly. The words “may be” allow of that possibility, and if it is not intended to apply the test to an European immigrant in any but his own tongue, why does not the Bill clearly state so?
Such legislation will of a certainty be closely and keenly scrutinised and canvassed in all civilized countries, but there will be no Bartons or Deakins or O’Connors at hand to explain to a German, or Swiss or a Frenchman or an Italian that the educational test which the immigrant will be subjected to will be a passage in his or her own language.
If such a possibility as asking a Turk to write out a passage in Spanish or a Frenchman one in Danish is not contemplated, why is not the clause made perfectly clear on the point in on unequivocal form? As it stands, however, it is beyond doubt the most equivocal and hypocritical clause ever inserted in any piece of legislation, at least of modern times, and is a dissimulation almost without parallel.
The Immigration Restriction Bill, as it stands to-day is the summit of hypocrisy and deception, Mr Barton’s protestations notwithstanding.
Source:
The Crookwell Gazette, and Settlers’ Advocate (Crookwell, NSW), 20 December 1901, p. 2
Editor’s notes:
Act = an Act of parliament, a law (in its written form, a law is called a “statute”)
See: 1) “Act of parliament”, Wikipedia
2) “Statute”, Wikipedia
bamboozle = to con, defraud, dupe, fool, hoodwink, mislead, or trick someone; to cheat someone by the use of deception, flattery, or trickery; to confuse, mystify, perplex, or puzzle someone (especially to deceive, get the better of, or trick someone)
Barton = Edmund Barton (1849-1920); judge, politician, and first Prime Minister of Australia (1901-1903); he was born in Glebe (Sydney, NSW) in 1849, and died in Medlow Bath (Blue Mountains, NSW) in 1920
See: 1) Martha Rutledge, “Sir Edmund (Toby) Barton (1849–1920)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
2) “Edmund Barton”, Wikipedia
bill = a proposed law, or an amendment to an existing law
See: “Bill (law)”, Wikipedia
Czar = (also spelt: Csar, Tzar, Tsar) an emperor of Russia, up until the murder of Nicholas II (the last ruling monarch of the Russian Empire) and the Russian royal family by Communists in 1917 (the title of Czar was also applied to the rulers of the Bulgarian and Serbian empires)
See: “Tsar”, Wikipedia
Deakin = Alfred Deakin (1856-1919) Victorian parliamentarian 1879-1900, federal parliamentarian 1901-1913, and second Prime Minister of Australia (he served for three separate terms as Prime Minister: 1903-1904, 1905-1908, and 1909-1910); he was born in Collingwood (Melbourne, Vic.) in 1856, and died in South Yarra (Melbourne, Vic.) in 1919
See: 1) R. Norris, “Alfred Deakin (1856–1919)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
2) “Death of Mr. Deakin: Brilliant career ends: Thrice Prime Minister”, The Herald (Melbourne, Vic.), 7 October 1919, p. 1
3) “Alfred Deakin”, Wikipedia
disclaim = deny, disavow, disown, reject, refuse, repudiate; to relinquish a claim; to renounce or repudiate a claim; to deny having a claim; to disavow or reject someone else’s claim
dissimulation = the act of concealing or hiding the truth; hiding one’s true feelings or intentions; to feign or put on a show, so as to conceal one’s true feelings or intentions; deception, hypocrisy, sham, pretence
effect = accomplish, bring about, carry out, cause (something to be done), make happen
Houses = (in the context of politics) houses of parliament (a legislature which has two legislative chambers, or two houses of parliament, is known as a bicameral system); in Australia, at the federal level, the houses of parliament are the House of Representatives (also known as “the lower house”) and the Senate (also known as “the upper house”); at the state level in Australia, the houses of parliament are the Legislative Assembly (also known as “the lower house”) and the Legislative Council (also known as “the upper house”), although the state of Queensland only has a Legislative Assembly, as the Legislative Council voted to abolish itself in 1921
See: 1) “Legislature”, Wikipedia
2) “Bicameralism”, Wikipedia
3) “Legislative Council of Queensland”, Wikipedia
kanaka = a Pacific Islander employed as an indentured labourer in various countries, such as Australia (especially in Queensland), British Columbia (Canada), Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu; in Australia the kanakas were mostly used on the sugar plantations and cotton plantations in Queensland (the word “kanaka” derives from the Hawaiian word for “person” or “man”)
See: 1) “Australian South Sea Islanders”, State Library of Queensland
2) “Kanaka”, Encyclopaedia Britannica
3) “AGY-2566 | Royal Commission of Enquiry into certain cases of Alleged Kidnapping of Natives of the Loyalty Islands, in the years 1865 – 1868; and the state and probable results of Polynesian Immigration”, Research Data Australia
4) Keith Windschuttle, “Why Australia had no slavery: The islanders”, Quadrant, 19 June 2020
5) “Digitised @ SLQ – Islanders speak out about deportation in 1906”, State Library of Queensland, 15 August 2013
6) “Kanaka (Pacific Island worker)”, Wikipedia
O’Connor = Richard Edward O’Connor (1851-1912), known as “Dick”; a Protectionist politician and a judge; he was born in Glebe (Sydney, NSW) in 1851, served as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (1901-1903) and as a High Court judge, and died in Sydney (NSW) in 1912
See: 1) Martha Rutledge, “Richard Edward (Dick) O’Connor (1851–1912)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
2) “Richard Edward O’Connor”, Wikipedia
Opposition = (in the context of parliamentary politics) political opposition; an opposition party; the officially recognised main political party which is in opposition to the ruling political party (used in the phrase “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”, or “His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”, depending on the gender of the ruling monarch)
piebald = an animal (especially a horse) which has irregular patches of two colours, typically coloured with large patches of black and white; (in the context of demographics) a country or society with a mixture of races
Russias = the countries, states, or regions of Eastern Europe which were settled by the Rus (a people of northern Europe); “the Russias” includes Russia (also known as Great Russia), Belarus (also known as White Russia), and the Ukraine (also known as Little Russia, or Kievan Russia); the Emperor of Russia was known as “the Czar of All the Russias”
See: 1) “Russia”, Online Etymology Dictionary
2) “Ukraine”, Online Etymology Dictionary
3) “Russian Empire”, Wikipedia
4) “Belarus”, Wikipedia
5) “Ukraine”, Wikipedia
6) “Name of Ukraine”, Wikipedia
7) “Little Russia”, Wikipedia
viz. = (Latin) an abbreviation of “videlicet” (a contraction of the Latin phrase “videre licet”), meaning “it is permitted to see” (the “z” derives from the z-shaped Latin shorthand symbol for “et”, as used in the Tironian shorthand style); in actual practice, “viz.” is used as a synonym for “in other words”, “namely”, “that is to say”, “to wit”, or “which is” (used when giving further details about something, or giving a list of specific examples or items)
[Editor: Changed “In the orginal” to “In the original”, “aboriginal, native of Asia” to “aboriginal native of Asia” (removed the comma).]
[Editor: The original text has been separated into paragraphs.]
Leave a Reply