[Editor: This chapter is part of The White Australia Policy: The Rise and Fall of Australia’s Racial Ideology (2025).]
Changes in the White Australia Policy
The White Australia Policy in its early days was not an all-encompassing draconian arrangement, as some might believe — which can be seen by the early official reports on the operation of the Immigration Restriction Act. These reveal that thousands of non-white people came into the Commonwealth after the passing of the Act. For example, the report on the operation of the Immigration Restriction Act for 1902 showed that 188 Japanese and 85 Papuans entered the country for the purposes of working in the pearling industry, another 246 Japanese entered in line with an agreement made between Queensland and the Japanese government, 1139 Pacific Islanders entered as per “statutory authority”, and 6 Papuans came as missionaries.
Non-white workers who came to Australia as part of employment contracts were required to leave the country (this especially applied to most Kanakas), but all other non-whites who were resident in Australia were able to remain.
It was also standard practice that non-whites could leave Australia for a short period (such as for a holiday, to visit family members, or for business reasons) and were granted permission to return. This practice shows that the Australian government were not seeking to get rid of non-whites resident in Australia by any means possible — as, if that were the case, then no non-whites leaving Australia would have been allowed to return.[1]
The possibilities of non-whites immigrating to Australia were tightened up in the ensuing years, with very few non-Europeans being allowed into the country. A confidential memo (circa 1910-1911) from the South Australian Collector of Customs reported:
“The original Commonwealth Immigration Restriction Act came into operation about the end of 1901, and since then coloured persons have been subject to the dictation test. The number of such persons who have passed the test has been practically nil”.[2]
Small changes were made to the administration of the Policy which were in favour of non-whites in Australia. These were often made for humanitarian reasons, to make life easier for non-Europeans living in the country, or as part of diplomatic agreements.
In 1904 an agreement was made with Japan to allow into the country Japanese merchants and their families, business assistants, and students. A similar agreement was made with China in 1912.[3]
In 1918 Indian men in Australia were allowed to bring in their wives and young children, to live in Australia.[4]
In 1935, the government of the United Australia Party, led by Joseph Lyons (Prime Minister, 1932-1939), made the decision to allow any non-Europeans who had been illegally living in Australia for more than 15 years to stay in the country permanently.[5]
In 1947, the Labor government, led by Ben Chifley (Prime Minister, 1945-1949), made the decision to allow those non-Europeans who had been living in Australia on a “temporary” basis for more than 15 years to stay in the country permanently.[6]
Even though Arthur Calwell (the Labor Party’s Minister for Immigration, 1945-1949), gained a reputation in the press for his stringent handling of Asian refugees, he pointed out that whilst the Labor Government supported a White Australia policy, it was not all-encompassing, and that some Asians were allowed to enter Australia. In article written by Calwell, published in The Argus (Melbourne) on 24 October 1949 (two months before the Labor Party lost power to the Liberal Party in a federal election), he said:
“at present any Asian may come to Australia and live here under permit as a trader, provided he can show that he has a turnover — a turnover as distinct from a profit — of only £10 a week. … An Asian, once established here as a trader, may bring in his wife, and when the value of his overseas trade is boosted to £20 a week he may bring in an Asian assistant. For every additional £500 a year of overseas trade he can have an additional assistant … Permits of residence are renewed periodically as the years go by, provided the conditions of entry are observed. Asian traders need have no fear that for some unpredictable reason they will find themselves under orders to leave. Any children born in Australia to these traders and their wives become Australian citizens, whether they are Malay, Chinese, Indian, or any other Asian race. There is no migration law under which Asian Australians could be deported.”[7]
During World War Two (1939-1945) refugees were allowed into Australia on the condition that they had to return home once the war was over. However, when the time came, many refugees refused to leave, because they had made a home in Australia. The Immigration Department, led by Arthur Calwell, began the process to deport those who wouldn’t leave, which became a controversial issue in the media. The case of the O’Keefes, a refugee family from Indonesia, was turned into a political football by the mainstream media.
In January 1949, Calwell explained his position on the matter:
“Mrs O’Keefe is one of the hard core of wartime refugees who refused to leave Australia. Along with thousands of other refugees from the East Indies and some islands of the Pacific she was given sanctuary in Australia on the understanding that she would be repatriated at the expense of the Dutch Government. All wartime evacuees who came to Australia at that time accepted these conditions gladly, and most of them went back home willingly when the war ended.”[8]
In the Australian parliament, on 9 February 1949, Arthur Calwell defended his actions regarding the O’Keefe family, pointing out that the wartime refugees knew when they came to Australia that they were obligated to return to their homelands after the war ended:
“the O’Keefe family … has been asked to leave Australia just as have all other persons who came to Australia in similar circumstances.
… A total of 15,000 persons were evacuated to Australia from nearby countries, and were given sanctuary during the war. All of them knew that they were here for the duration of the war, and for that period only. All of them knew that they must go back to their own countries when the war was over. We were glad, in the interests of humanity, to give them refuge in Australia while the war lasted, but there was never any doubt that they were to return to their own countries afterwards.
Of the 15,000 persons who sought sanctuary in Australia, 5,473 were non-Europeans. Of these, practically all have returned voluntarily to their own countries. Since the conclusion of the war, we have repatriated 3,768 Indonesians, including 1,000 women and children. Very few had to be deported; practically all of them went willingly. There were 1587 Chinese, the past majority of whom voluntarily returned to their own country. There were 100 Malays, most of whom returned voluntarily. There still remain in Australia approximately 280 Chinese evacuees and nineteen Indonesians.
… I could have required Mrs. O’Keefe to leave this country at any time subsequent to 1945, but I granted her request for the extension of her permit. It is a long cry from August, 1945, to February, 1949. We have allowed Mrs. O’Keefe and her family to stay all that time, but the longer we allow them to stay the more we are abused for alleged inhumanity.
… I did not repatriate the lady and her family then because she had applied for an extension. I said, “We shall give them a little longer because conditions in Indonesia are still unsettled”.
… Relatives of the man who had spoken to me said that he wished to marry the woman in order to prevent me from repatriating her. Even then I did not interfere with the extension that I had given to her. If I had been as inhuman as has been suggested, I should have packed her off before the marriage, but I did not do so.
… There is not the slightest doubt that Mr. O’Keefe, an elderly bachelor of 67, said that he was marrying the woman so that she could stay in Australia.
… I am as humane as is any other person and I have administered the immigration laws with humanity. I have let these people stay here despite the Cabinet decision of 1945 that all Indonesians and other war-time evacuees had to go by the 30th June, 1947. I have let them stay until February, 1949
… Mrs. O’Keefe and her children are not important; it is the precedent that is important. If we allow these people to stay we shall open the flood gates to any Asiatics who want to come here. Honorable members opposite do not stand for a white Australia; they stand for a black Australia. There are, unfortunately, far too many of their type in Australia to-day who want to break our laws.
… We do not want in Australia a reproduction of conditions in Singapore, Sourabaya, Fiji and the Harlem centre of New York. Those who claim that we are antagonizing Asiatic feeling by saying that people who have come here as wartime evacuees must go back to their own countries, are blind to the fact that in Malaya there is a law which forbids the entry of any more Tamil Indians or Chinese. Such people are not permitted to enter Malaya under a quota system or in the manner in which Asiatics may enter this country legitimately for the purpose of trade, or to study, or for other reasons within certain categories that have been prescribed. The position in Burma is precisely the same. The Burmese do not want any more Indians or Chinese. Is the action of the Government of Burma to be interpreted as anti-Asiatic? It is just as right to say that it is so, as it is to claim that we are anti-Asiatic when we tell people, who cannot mix with us and whose social and living standards are not high enough, that they cannot come here.”[9]
On the same day, in the federal parliament, Fred Daly (Labor Party; Minister for Services and Property, 1972-1975, and Minister for Administrative Services, 1975) defended Arthur Calwell’s handling of the O’Keefe issue, saying that the case had wider implications for Australian’s immigration policy. Daly stated:
“The mover of this motion [Arthur Calwell] and the Leader of the Opposition [Robert Menzies] have made it quite clear that they support the White Australia policy. Whilst honorable members on this side accept their statements to that effect there cannot be any doubt that in some respects they wish to water the policy down very considerably. They are opposing to-day the deportation of the people known as the O’Keefes, who are to be deported in conformity with arrangements made when they entered this country some years ago.
… they were given security here during the war years and were under an obligation to leave at a given time. Having entered into that contract there can be no objection to the Minister taking action to see that they leave the country when the time has expired. The O’Keefes have already been four years in Australia and criticism of the Minister for exercising his discretion in deporting them is very difficult to comprehend.
… I agree that a strong case can be made out on humanitarian grounds for allowing this family to remain, but, as the Minister has pointed out, if we were to allow this family to remain in Australia, such action would be but the first step towards breaking down our White Australia policy, which is supported by all parties, particularly by the Labour party.
… When so respected a citizen, and so competent an authority, as Sir Frederic Eggleston endorses the decision of the Minister for Immigration, it constitutes strong justification of that action. … Those people all recognize that the continued presence of Asiatics in Australia constitutes a challenge to the White Australia policy.
… the Minister for Immigration … is resolved to preserve the White Australia policy irrespective of whom it may inconvenience, and in spite of the political attacks which are directed against the Government. I support the action of the Minister and his colleagues in the Government, for they are merely asking that the obligation entered into by refugees when they came to Australia should be honoured.”[10]
The situation of the O’Keefe family was turned into a significant case by Australian newspapers. Annie Maas O’Keefe (1908-1974), was born Annie Maas Dumais in the Netherlands East Indies (modern-day Indonesia); when she grew up she married another Indonesian, Samuel Jacob. As Annie Jacob, she (along with her husband and children) was part of the approximately 15,000 refugees who came to Australia during the Second World War (1939-1945). Whilst Annie was in Australia, her husband died. Her landlord, John (Jack) O’Keefe, offered to marry her so that she could stay in Australia, but in 1949 (after the end of the war) the Department of Immigration issued a deportation order against her and her children. An appeal was made to the High Court, which ruled in her favour, thereby setting a legal precedent for other refugees. The case was regarded as highly damaging to the White Australia Policy.[11]
Following the High Court decision in the O’Keefe case, hundreds of other non-white refugees sought to be allowed to stay in Australia as well.[12]
Due to the High Court decision regarding Annie O’Keefe, Calwell decided to create a law to give him the power to deport the war-time refugees from Australia. In the debates over the proposed War-time Refugees Removal Act in the Australian parliament, Arthur Calwell said:
“The purpose of this bill is to remove from Australia all war-time refugees, to the number of 800, who have refused to go voluntarily. The power which the Minister needs arises from the fact that the judgment of the High Court in the case which involved Mrs. Annie O’Keefe places in jeopardy to some degree the powers which the Minister can exercise under the Immigration Act.
… There are 800 war-time refugees in Australia. They have refused to leave the country. It is necessary to pass special legislation to effect their repatriation, compulsorily if necessary.
… I refuse to allow to stay here the twenty-odd persons to whom the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) referred, because should the Opposition parties ever again form the government of this country, which the Lord forbid, I would thereby have created very undesirable precedents which would make it very difficult for them to administer the law. I desire to preserve now and in the future the ideals underlying our restrictive immigration law. Out of consideration for them in the dim and distant future, as well as having in mind my own difficulties at present, I say that people who come here under certain conditions should be obliged to fulfil those conditions, and if they will not do so they must be told that they cannot stay here any longer.
… I have said that the war-time refugees generally will be required to go. They have got to go.
… I have got into trouble over these people because I have shown them humanity for four years. If I had administered the law vigorously and pushed those persons off on all sorts of cattle boats or under all sorts of troopship conditions at the end of the war, there would not have been any trouble at all. There would not have been a word of criticism had this matter not been played up by the press and by the honorable member for Warringah [Percy Spender], who always plays to the gallery.”[13]
When Calwell’s power to deport refugees was next challenged in court, the government’s lawyers won the case (Koon Wing Lau vs. Calwell). However, before the court’s judgment was delivered, there was a federal election, and the Labor government (including Calwell) was replaced by a Liberal government.[14]
In December 1949, following the change of government, Harold Holt (the Liberal Party’s Minister for Immigration, 1949-1956) made the decision to allow Annie O’Keefe and the remaining 800 non-white refugees to stay in Australia.[15]
After the end of the Second World War, there was also the issue of the Japanese brides. An Australian army brigade served as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force stationed in Japan, and several hundred soldiers struck up relationships with Japanese women, and subsequently wanted to bring them back to Australia. Calwell refused permission for the Japanese women to enter. However, things changed after the Labor government lost office; in 1952 the new Minister for Immigration, Harold Holt (Liberal Party), gave permission for those Japanese women to come to Australia. Consequently, over 650 Japanese wives and fiancés migrated to Australia to be with their husbands.[16]
References:
[1] “Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (commonly known as the White Australia Policy)”, National Archives of Australia [archived]
“The White Australia Policy”, ABC, 30 January 2023 [see section: “4. A safe return”]
“1. Certificate Exempting From Dictation Test”, Chinese Australian History
“A deserter’s fate: the dictation test at work”, Chinese Australian History [an article regarding a Chinese sailor’s failed dictation test]
The following sources include examples of official documents giving authority for non-whites to return to Australia:
1906: “Certificate of Exemption from the Dictation Test, Ah Moon, 1906”, Collections WA [Collector of Customs, Western Australia 1906]
1907: “Certificate exempting from dictation test : Mar Fan, 1907-1946”, Stories of Townsville (Townsville City Council)
1908: David Campbell, “Fact check: Did former prime minister Harold Holt abolish the White Australia policy?”, ABC, 6 September 2018 (updated 14 December 2018) [includes the front of a “Certificate exempting from dictation test” for Mrs. Go Gee, 1908]
See also: “Identity documents for the Gee family”, National Archives of Australia
1912: “White Australia”, Broome Historical Society & Museum [includes the front and back of a “Certificate exempting from dictation test”, 1912]
“Certificate of Exemption from the Dictation Test, Eki Nishioka, 1912”, Collections WA [Collector of Customs, Western Australia 1912]
1914: “Letter regarding Ellum Deen’s request to re-enter Australia”, National Archives of Australia
1914: “Approval for migrant Ellum Deen to return to Australia”, National Archives of Australia
1916: “Certificate exempting Florrie Lee Hang Gong from the dictation test”, National Archives of Australia
1916: “[Certificate of Exemption from Dictation Test – Florrie Lee Hang Gong]”, National Archives of Australia [see pages 3-4, showing the front and back of a “Certificate exempting from dictation test”, 1916]
1921: “Sym Choon’s exemption from the dictation test, 1921”, National Archives of Australia
1932: “Certificate exempting Ron Shun Wah from the dictation test, 1932”, Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom
NAA: “[Series number K1145]”, National Archives of Australia [4,800 digitised records re “Certificate of Exemption from Dictation Test”]
[2] “Guidance on exemptions from immigration policy – confidential notes”, National Archives of Australia [a scan of a document entitled “Confidential: Notes for the guidance of police and other officers when making inquiries in connection with applications for certificates of exemption under the Commonwealth Immigration Restriction Act”, signed Collector of Customs, S.A., stamped 1911] [see point 10]
[3] “Development of Australian immigration policy – memorandum with timeline”, National Archives of Australia [a memo created by the Department of Territories, Central Office, in 1967] [see p. 1, p. 2]
[4] “Development of Australian immigration policy – memorandum with timeline”, National Archives of Australia [a memo created by the Department of Territories, Central Office, in 1967]
[5] Gwenda Tavan, “Creating Multicultural Australia: Local, Global and Trans-National Contexts for the Creation of a Universal Admissions Scheme, 1945–1983”, Springer Link, 1 January 2013 [see endnote 5]
“Joseph Lyons”, Wikipedia
[6] Gwenda Tavan, “Creating Multicultural Australia: Local, Global and Trans-National Contexts for the Creation of a Universal Admissions Scheme, 1945–1983”, Springer Link, 1 January 2013 [see endnote 5]
“Development of Australian immigration policy – memorandum with timeline”, National Archives of Australia [a memo created by the Department of Territories, Central Office, in 1967]
“Ben Chifley”, Wikipedia
“Chifley government”, Wikipedia
[7] Arthur Calwell, “Can be no half-measures about White Australia”, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 24 October 1949, p. 2 [Trove link]
Graham Freudenberg, “Arthur Augustus Calwell (1896–1973)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Arthur Calwell”, Wikipedia
[8] “Indonesian woman and 8 children must go, says Mr Calwell”, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 29 January 1949, p. 3
See also: “Family must leave or be deported”, Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW), 29 January 1949, p. 4 (Final edition)
[9] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 6, 9 February 1949, pp. 60-63, 65 [PDF pp. 23-26, 28]
[10] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 6, 9 February 1949, pp. 71-73 [PDF pp. 34-36]
“Fred Daly (politician)”, Wikipedia
[11] Kim Tao, “The case of Mrs O’Keefe: A watershed for white Australia”, Australian National Maritime Museum, 22 Jan 2019
Sean Brawley, “Mrs O’Keefe and the battle for White Australia”, Making Multicultural Australia (Board of Studies NSW) [from Memento, no. 33, Winter 2007, pp. 6-8, National Archives of Australia]
Sean Brawley, “Finding home in white Australia: the O’Keefe deportation case of 1949” (abstract), Macquarie University
“Annie Maas O’Keefe”, National Archives of Australia
“O’Keefe v Calwell”, Wikipedia
[12] “Right, Australia!”, The Worker (Brisbane, Qld.), 28 March 1949, p. 4
[13] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 27, 5 July 1949, pp. 1953-1954, 1960 [the notation regarding Percy Spender has been inserted, and is not part of the original record]
“War-time Refugees Removal Act 1949”, Federal Register of Legislation
“War-time Refugees Removal Act 1949”, Wikipedia
“Percy Spender”, Wikipedia [Member for Warringah (1937-1951)]
[14] “Immigration control and deportation”, in: Connected Worlds: History in Transnational Perspective, ANU Press (Australian National University)
[15] “Mrs. O’Keefe can remain in Aust.: Permit for Filipino”, Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW), 17 February 1950, p. 1 (Final edition)
“Mrs. O’Keefe to stay: Gamboa allowed to come here”, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW), 17 February 1950, p. 1 (Late Edition)
“Fact Sheet: 8. Abolition of the ‘White Australia’ Policy” [archived], Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Australian Government)
“Abolition of the ‘White Australia’ Policy”, European Parliament, November 2010
“Dictation test abolished”, Robert Menzies Institute
“Harold Holt”, Wikipedia
[16] Peita-Maree Clarke, “Japanese war brides”, National Archives of Australia, 9 February 2021
“War brides”, Australian War Memorial, Canberra [see section: Japanese war brides]
Sharon Verghis, “Cherry Parker: The war bride who created a shift in the White Australia Policy”, SBS (Special Broadcasting Service), 19 March 2019 (updated 26 March 2019)
Leave a Reply