[Editor: This article, regarding the Immigration Restriction Bill, was published in The Brisbane Courier (Brisbane, Qld.), 16 September 1901. When it became law, the Immigration Restriction Act formed the foundation of the White Australia Policy. In its last paragraph, this article advocates for the use of international treaties, instead of immigration laws, as the best way to exclude the immigration of non-white people into Australia.]
Immigration Restriction Bill.
It is remarkable that, at the very moment the Darling Downs farmers declare for Mr. Barton, the Federal Parliament refuse to follow him in a matter affecting the interests of a large section of the farming constituency.
On all hands, except apparently those immediately concerned, it is agreed that a clause excluding all immigrants who cannot write to dictation fifty words in the English language, is impossible. Our own Premier has formally protected against it on the ground that it would exclude a class of immigrants who already form no unimportant part of our Queensland citizenship, and whom we have welcomed and would still welcome to our shores.
It has been pointed out that a similar law on the continent of Europe would exclude the vast majority of our Australian people; and indeed the only defence that has been made for the law is that it is not intended to be taken literally, and is constructed on the principle of the greater certainly including the less.
From this point of view the bill has been scathingly denounced by Sir William McMillan as a fraud. Speaking ten days ago on the second reading, he declared it to be one of the “most crooked measures ever proposed.” It “aimed at doing, in an indirect and crooked way, what we wanted to do honestly.” Very trenchantly he exposed the absurdities of the bill. “What about French Canadians? We would allow an educated negro from South Carolina to come in, while in a few years there would not be a Japanese labourer who could not write English.” But his great contention was that the bill should honestly set forth what we really want. “Let us go straight to our goal. … We must not allow a bill to be submitted for the Governor-General’s assent which did not carry upon its face its exact meaning.”
Last week Mr. Deakin, while generally supporting the Government, declared that the educational test should be enlarged. And it presently appeared that the Government intended to back down so far as to substitute any European language for the English language in the test to be imposed. This is the Natal precedent, and its adoption at the first would have saved an immensity of trouble.
But we are not yet at the end of the complications. To the Government’s proposal of an educational test Mr. Watson for the Labour party had moved an amendment directly prohibiting all Asiatic and African immigration. It might be thought that this course only satisfied Sir William McMillan’s demand that we should go straight to our goal; and if Australia stood alone as an independent republic it might possibly be taken.
We are, however, part of an Empire which covers Asiatics as our fellow-subjects. This circumstance blocked the anti-Asiatic legislation of New South Wales fourteen years ago, and it would block similar Federal legislation to-day. As a matter of fact the educational test was substituted for the racial because the Imperial Government had then indicated that it would be more acceptable. These things were ably set forth by Mr. Deakin, with the result that the second reading of the bill was carried.
Had no further obstacle intervened the test of a European language would no doubt have gone through. But the unexpected, as always, has happened. A cablegram of Saturday informed us that British Columbia had passed bills imposing an educational test with the view of excluding Chinese and Japanese, and that the Imperial Government had, at the instance of Japan, persuaded the Government of Canada to disallow these bills. We may remark in passing that this action touches ourselves as a State. The bills referred to forbade the employment of Japanese and Chinamen on certain works. They contained clauses similar in object to those which wrecked the Amended Sugar Works Guarantee Act, and to those which we see inserted in the Normanton-Cloncurry Railway Bill. Is it worth while courting defeat by thrusting such provisions into the letter of our legislation?
But the big significance of the Canadian incident is federal. Can we hope to do in Australia what the Japanese Government has succeeded in preventing in Canada? It is worse than idle to exclaim against the action of the Imperial Government. The language used by Sir William McMillan on this head approaches the inane.
We have deliberately cast in our lot with the British Empire, — or say rather, refused to withdraw our lot. We have done so with a keen recognition of the advantages accruing; and we were ingrates if we refused to pay the price. Already in part we have paid the price, and gladly, by the place we have taken in the Transvaal war. But the price is political as well as military.
It seems, indeed, as if a change had passed over the Imperial sentiments, since fourteen years ago an educational test was recommended. The reason is plain. Many things have happened since the time when Her Majesty was pained to see her Asiatic subjects excluded from her Australian dominions. To-day the Imperial Government has to think of possible enemies as well as subjects. Japan has leaped to the place of a first-class power. If the same thing cannot be said of China, it may at least be said that the Government of Great Britain sees in the complications of Eastern affairs reason for avoiding all needless occasions of offence. Possibly a test which would include Chinese only would not at this stage be interfered with. But Japan is in a position to ask equality of international relations. She might on her side claim to set up au educational test such as we are proposing here. It lies on the surface of all legislation of this kind that it is provocative of retaliation. If the people we exclude are powerful enough to think of retaliating, and important enough to make retaliation intolerable, we are brought to a stand. And these things, it has to be remembered, are much more apparent, and assume a more formidable shape, when looked at from the centre of Imperial affairs.
Is there no way out of this dilemma? It seems to us that Mr. Deakin, even when last week he supported the Government proposals in ignorance of the Canadian difficulty, laid his finger on the way out. He eulogised the method adopted by Queensland of dealing with Japanese immigration. After pointing out that we must differentiate between the Japanese and other Asiatics even while we insisted on their exclusion, he said:—
The Government of Queensland had already entered into an amicable treaty with Japan, which was working very well. What we had to provide for was the exclusion of such people in a manner which would be least offensive. The Government of Japan was not desirous of losing its better class of citizens. She wanted these men at home, where they were of more advantage than in Australia; and there was reason to believe that the Government of Japan would meet the Commonwealth even more freely than it had met Queensland.
We submit that exclusion by the method of treaty is the way out. We believe that, even if Australia were an independent republic — perhaps all the more in that event — she would see it to be her interest to come to an understanding with a country like Japan, rather than attempt forceful exclusion. It may be taken as certain that while the century is still young the walling off the nations will become impossible except in so far as mutual consent can do it.
Source:
The Brisbane Courier (Brisbane, Qld.), 16 September 1901, p. 4
Editor’s notes:
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
Commonwealth = the Commonwealth of Australia; the Australian nation, federated on 1 January 1901
Darling Downs = a region in south-eastern Queensland
See: “Darling Downs”, 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
Eastern = of or relating to the Eastern world, the Orient, or Asia
Empire = in the context of early Australia, the British Empire
See: “British Empire”, Wikipedia
Her Majesty = a title of respect used regarding a female monarch (a queen); (in the context of the British Empire) the Queen of the United Kingdom; in early Australia, the title was a reference to Queen Victoria (1819-1901), who was Queen of the United Kingdom (1837-1901)
See: “Queen Victoria”, Wikipedia
Imperial = in the context of the British Empire, of or relating to official elements of the British Empire (e.g. Imperial troops, the Imperial Government); of or relating to the British Empire
Imperial Government = in the context of early Australia, the British government
inane = any chatter, activity, or production which is regarded as pointless, purposeless, meaningless, lacking sense, lacking significance, or intellectually insubstantial; engaging in boring petty talk or insubstantial conversation which is indicative of someone who is silly, stupid, devoid of intelligence, or mentally vacant; chatter which is regarded as stupid, petty, and boring (and/or annoying); having an outward appearance of being mentally vacant or devoid of intelligent thought
ingrate = someone who is not grateful; a person who is ungrateful for what has been done for them
Natal = a British colony in south-east Africa, created in 1843 when the British took over the Natalia Republic (1839-1843, a Boer republic); in 1910 Natal became the Province of Natal, as part of the Union of South Africa
See: 1) “Colony of Natal”, Wikipedia
2) “Natal (province)”, Wikipedia
the Transvaal war = the Boer War (1899-1902)
See: 1) “Transvaal”, Wikipedia
2) “Transvaal Colony”, Wikipedia
3) “Second Boer War”, Wikipedia
Watson = John Christian (Chris) Watson (1867-1941), Labor Party politician and Prime Minister of Australia (27 April 1904 to 18 August 1904); he was born in Valparaiso (Chile) in 1867, he came to Australia in 1886, and died in Double Bay (Sydney, NSW) in 1941
See: 1) Bede Nairn, “John Christian (Chris) Watson (1867–1941)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
2) “Chris Watson”, Wikipedia
William McMillan = Sir William McMillan (1850-1926), businessman and politician; he was born in Londonderry (Ireland) in 1850; came to Australian in 1869, served (as a free-trader) as a Member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly (1887-1898) and as a Member of the House of Representatives (1901-1903), and died in Woollahra (Sydney, NSW) in 1926
See: 1) A. W. Martin, “Sir William McMillan (1850–1926)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
2) “William McMillan (Australian politician)”, Wikipedia
[Editor: The original text has been separated into paragraphs.]
Leave a Reply