[Editor: This chapter is part of The White Australia Policy: The Rise and Fall of Australia’s Racial Ideology (2025). See also “Australian leaders and representatives supporting the White Australia Policy (1901-1908)”.]
Australian leaders and representatives supporting the White Australia Policy (1909-1949)
W. G. Spence (Labor Party), in Australia’s Awakening: Thirty Years in the Life of an Australian Agitator (1909), wrote that the Labor Party “stands for racial purity”. He said that “The desire for the unity of the white race is strong”, and declared “True patriotism should be racial”:
“The practical independence of government granted under the Australian Constitution, with the manifest advantages of being part of a big Empire and under its protection if need arose, together with the growth of the national spirit of a “White Australia” and the broad humanitarianism taught by the Labor Party, have developed a feeling of loyalty to race rather than to governments, but have abolished any talk of either republicanism or of independence.
The desire for the unity of the white race is strong. The recent visit of the “Great White Fleet” of the American navy emphasised the feeling of warm friendship previously existent, and the very general desire that unity should be definitely established between all self-governing parts of the British Empire and the American nation.
… The demand for a “White Australia,” set forth in the Labor Party’s platform and also supported by members of other parties, could only be met by legislation from a Federal authority. The abolition of the kanaka contract labor in the sugar industry of Queensland was another kindred matter which was early dealt with. The exclusion of alien and colored races gives a chance for the development on the Australian Island continent of a great nation of the white race, and that ideal has come to stay and dominates Australian sentiment very largely.
… The first part of the Federal objective declares for “The cultivation of an Australian sentiment based upon the maintenance of racial purity and the development in Australia of an enlightened and self-reliant community.” The party stands for racial purity and racial efficiency — industrially, mentally, morally, and intellectually. It asks the people to set up a high ideal of national character, and hence it stands strongly against any admixture with the white race. True patriotism should be racial.”[1909WGS]
T. J. Ryan (Labor Party), who was the Premier of Queensland, stated in 1919 (just after the end of the First World War, 1914-1918) that there should be a white Australia:
“We must have a self-contained Australia; we must have a White Australia. I look with confidence for great assistance from the returned soldiers in carrying out such a policy.”[1919TJR]
Stanley Bruce (Nationalist Party), who was Prime Minister of Australia (1923-1929), in an election speech in 1925, said:
“In considering the question of a great national policy for Australia, it is first necessary that we should determine what are the ideals towards which every Australian would desire to strive. I think these ideals might well be stated as being to secure our national safety and to ensure the maintenance of our White Australia policy, to continue as an integral portion of the British Empire, and to play our full part as a great self-governing Dominion
… The great sugar industry, upon which the maintenance of our White Australia policy so vitally depends, also has been safeguarded.
… You know exactly where we stand. We are for the Empire, for an adequate measure of defence, for the maintenance and protection of a White Australia.”[1925SB]
In his book The Splendid Adventure (1929), Billy Hughes (former Prime Minister of Australia for the Labor Party and the Nationalist Party) wrote:
“The immigration policy of Australia is deliberately intended to restrict the migration to the Commonwealth of large numbers of persons of markedly different race-stocks. The “White Australia” policy — as it is generally called — is an integral part of the national life of the Australian people, and although the subject of much hostile criticism, the geographical, racial, and economic circumstances of the Commonwealth amply justify it.
Australia, a Western nation seated at the gateway to the East, has a population of little more than six millions thinly scattered over a great continent. The people are remarkably homogeneous; the overwhelming majority are of British stock, and have ideals, traditions, and standards of living vastly different from those of the teeming millions of Asia. For a people so situated the only alternative to national and racial extinction is a policy of rigid exclusion.
Australia, by her attitude towards Eastern peoples, does not arrogantly assert her superiority over other races: it is dictated by the instinct of self-preservation. The “White Australia” policy is a gesture of defence, not of defiance.
We do not regard Asiatics as inferiors, but as different from ourselves, believing that the ideals, traditions, and standards of living in the East are so incompatible with our own that we could never live with them as fellow-citizens. We could not assimilate Asiatics without radically changing our racial, social, and economic character. We do not think it good for ourselves, for them, or for the people of the world that we should shatter our ideals or water down the standard of living we have evolved.
We believe that the welfare of mankind and the progress of civilisation will be best served if different race-stocks develop along their own lines. And this, broadly speaking, is Australia’s attitude towards migrants from all countries except Britain. If they are of the right type, capable of dissolving into the community and adopting its ideals and standard of living, we welcome them. But Australia is a British community, and its people are convinced that for its security and economic welfare it should remain so.
… We are a white island in a vast coloured ocean. If we are not to be submerged we must follow the example of that indomitable people the Dutch, and build dykes through which the merest trickle of the sea of colour cannot find its way. For us, as for them, half-measures are useless. Total exclusion is the only practicable policy. Whatever of virtue or of strength we have is fast rooted in our breeding. Race may be, as some highbrows didactically declare, a relic of tribal days, but it still counts for very much in human affairs.
… in the world to-day we find many races, each with its own distinctive ideals, traditions, history, and outlook on life. All are not at the same stage of development, and among the more advanced all do not press forward to the same goal nor move with the same speed. Some, impelled with dynamic energy, are ever in the van of progress, seeking always some new thing. Others let the world pass by. The political, social, and economic ideas of these two strains are poles asunder, and in many other cases further mingling of the races can only result in watering down the best qualities in each stock.
… The ideal of a “White Australia,” and one peopled in the main by men and women of British stock, reflects the traditions and achievements of our race. Racial purity pays in the long run. A certain percentage of the people of some European countries can be absorbed into our community, but we cannot assimilate these coloured peoples; their ways are not ours. The racial and economic barriers between us and them are insuperable. We cannot marry their women nor they ours without producing a race of half-castes at which both races would spit contempt. Nor can we permit them to labour alongside us without destroying that high standard of living which is an integral part of our national life.
… Our critics tell us that if we persist with the “White Australia” policy we may lose the country. Perhaps they are right. We certainly will lose it if we abandon that policy. For us it is the only possible policy.”[1929WMH]
Senator James Guthrie (of the Nationalist Party, then the United Australia Party) criticized the Labor Party for containing elements which were supporters of the Soviet Union and opposed to the White Australia Policy. Guthrie specifically named the communist leader Jock Garden as one of those elements. In the Australian Senate on 1 May 1930, James Guthrie said:
“ a great many supporters of the Labour party are continually telling us what a wonderful place Russia is. They tell us that we should found our institutions and forms of government on the lines of those of Soviet Russia. Russian propaganda is indulged in in Australia to-day.
The Labour party in this country sends its representatives to Russia and to the Pan-Pacific Conference, which has passed resolutions that have been approved by a section of the Labour party in Australia, in favour of breaking down our White Australia policy, which we are determined to uphold at any cost.
We do not want Australia, as a section of the Labour party evidently does, to be a country of blacks, browns and brindles. We desire to maintain the high standard of our British stock. We are proud that our population is 98 per cent. British. There must be no breaking down of our White Australia policy, no flirting with the Soviet, no pandering to the Pan-Pacific Secretariat, of which the “boss” of the present day Labour party in Sydney, Mr. Garden, is the secretary, and of whose journal he is also editor.”[1930JG]
John Curtin (Labor Party), who was Prime Minister of Australia (1941-1945) during the Second World War (1939-1945), spoke in 1941 about Japan entering the Second World War as an enemy of Australia and the United States; he said:
“Never shall an enemy set foot upon the soil of this country without having at once arrayed against it the whole of the manhood of this nation in such strength and quality as to show our determination that this country shall remain for ever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race.
Our laws have proclaimed the principle of a White Australia. We did not intend that to be and it never was an affront to other races. It was devised for economic and sound humane reasons. It was not challenged for 40 years. We intend to maintain that principle, because we know it to be desirable. If we were to depart from it we should do so only as the result of the free consent, not because the principle was sought to be overthrown by armed aggression.”[1941JC]
However, during his Prime Ministership, John Curtin rarely spoke in support of the White Australia Policy as so named; he was mindful of how some people in Asia might view the phrase as offensive or racist, and so he usually referred to the Policy by using other terminology, such as referring to it as Australia’s “traditional migration policy”. Curtin explained that “the use of the phrase “White Australia” could wound gallant Allies such as the Chinese, and bring about unnecessary international friction”. John Curtin’s reticence to use the phrase attracted criticism from some people, like Jack Lang (a prominent Labor leader, who was the Premier of New South Wales, 1925-1927 and 1930-1932).[1943JC]
The Daily Mirror (Sydney) was not satisfied with John Curtin’s avoidance of using the term “White Australia” and not being straight-forward “about his Government’s attitude on what is a very vital question to every Australian — the preservation of the White Australia policy”. When Curtin was questioned by newspaper correspondents in America, in April 1944, about the possibility of Australia easing immigration restrictions against Chinese and Indians, he avoided addressing the issue directly, although he hinted that Australia’s immigration laws would not be altered. The Daily Mirror said:
“Although correspondents interpreted his reply to mean there was no intention at present of abandoning or modifying the White Australia policy, Australians would welcome a clear and unequivocal statement to this effect.”[1944DM]
When he was in London in May 1944 (near the end of the Second World War, 1939-1945), John Curtin was pressed by journalists from India about his views on the White Australia Policy, and he hedged around the issue by telling them that “the words “White Australia” did not appear on any Commonwealth Statute” and added that “The immigration restrictions were solely designed to guard against cheap slave labor.”[1944JC]
John Curtin had previously made clear his support for the White Australia Policy, so it is apparent that he was being diplomatic, thereby avoiding diplomatic or political fall-out from non-white allied countries on the issue, so as not to negatively impact upon Australia’s war-time alliances during the Second World War (1939-1945), and also possibly to avoid any potential impact upon Australian trade.
Dr. Evatt, who was the Attorney-General of Australia (and later the leader of the Labor Party, 1951-1960), in response to concerns over the White Australia Policy being undermined, announced in 1943:
“You can take it that the policy of White Australia will always be maintained.
… White Australia is absolutely fundamental to the preservation of Australian standards.
… The policy of the Australian Labor movement had always stood for White Australia, the validity of which was fully recognised by the United Nations.
… Had Australia adopted any other policy we would have been — in the early days of the tremendous Japanese advances — threatened by the fifth columnists and Quislings of the type who are now accepting Japanese domination in the Philippines and other islands north of Australia.”[1943HVE]
Lucy Steel, who was the Secretary of the Labor Women’s Organising Committee of the Australian Labor Party (Lang Labor), as well as being an electoral candidate and a member of the party’s Central Executive, said in 1944:
“It is our duty to keep Australia white for the sake of those Australian lads who are fighting for us”.[1944LS]
Arthur Calwell, who was Minister for Immigration (1945-1949), and (later on) the leader of the Australian Labor Party (1960-1967), said in federal parliament on 9 February 1949, regarding war-time refugees who were demanding to stay in Australia:
“We can stand by the present policy or we can weaken it or abandon it. There is a certain degree of peril if we stand by our policy. There is a great peril indeed unless we increase our population. There is a great peril if we weaken our laws and allow people to enter Australia, where they may establish colonies and can never be assimilated.
I have weighed the costs and measured the risks. I know where my duty lies. All of us, and myself in particular, as Minister, have a responsibility, not merely to the present generation, but also to posterity. We have to hand down this country to our children and our children’s children in the same manner as we received it from our fathers and as they received it from their fathers. Our grandfathers and great grandfathers laid the foundations of Australia broad and large, and made it possible for this democracy to exist as it is to-day.
We can have a white Australia, we can have a black Australia, but a mongrel Australia is impossible, and I shall not take the first steps to establish the precedents which will allow the flood gates to be opened.
I respect Asiatic people. I do not regard them as inferiors, but they have a different culture and history, different living standards and different religions from our own. They can live, and, I hope, enjoy whatever they can get from the earth’s bounty in their own countries. We can make a success of our democracy here.”[1949AC]
Robert Menzies (Liberal Party), who was the leader of the Opposition (and Prime Minister of Australia, 1939-1941 and 1949-1966), in the same parliamentary debate in 1949, said:
“Let me say this clearly and categorically: the White Australia policy is under no challenge in this Parliament or in this country, except by bad administration. It is the settled policy of this country. It is the settled policy of the party which I have the honour to lead. It is the settled policy of the Australian Country party and the Australian Labour party.
It is a vital element in the national policy of this country. I myself believe in it most profoundly.
… The policy of immigration restriction is completely within Australia’s acknowledged national rights and should be maintained.”[1949RM]
In the same parliamentary debate, on 9 February 1949, John McEwan (leader of the Country Party, 1958-1971; Prime Minister, 1967-1968) stated that he was in favour of a White Australia, but wanted to administer the Policy in a diplomatic manner. He noted that both non-Labour and Labour governments allowed exemptions in administering the Policy:
“there is no greater issue of moment to the Australian people than the maintenance of the White Australia policy.
… Here we stand, a country very sparsely populated, near to the teeming millions of Asia, with what our best friends would describe as a national policy likely to be provocative to one thousand million people. No one could dispute that. How are we to defend and uphold this provocative White Australia policy? By force of arms? Or are we to defend it by warranting a favorable world opinion towards it and by justifying it to the 1,000,000,000 Asiatics whom it concerns?
… It is not a policy likely to be maintained by force of arms. It can be justified and maintained only by us establishing that it is a fair, a proper, a justifiable and a just policy, justly administered.
… The White Australia policy was introduced by a non-Labour government and has been administered by nonLabour governments for much longer than it has been administered by Labour governments. We justify that policy on economic grounds and not on grounds of racial discrimination or hatred. It is not a policy that we are likely to be able to uphold if we leave the impression in the minds of the world that it is inspired by feelings that the Asiatics are inferior to us and that we hate them. We have maintained our justification of it on economic grounds in the court of world opinion.
It has been administered traditionally by both non-Labour and Labour governments with notable flexibility. It is not a policy which says that no person with a coloured skin may come to Australia. On the contrary, there are whole categories of circumstances in which we admit, and permit to remain here, natives from the continents of Asia and Africa. We permit them to come here and there are what are known as “exemptions” for visitors and for those who wish to come here for business or educational purposes and to establish an import or export business and, in relation to the turnover of the business established, there is a long standing formula which enables the admission of Asiatics or Africans to staff such businesses.”[1949JMcE]
Arthur Calwell again spoke out on the war-time refugees issue in March 1949:
“Today’s threat to the White Australia policy must be firmly and fearlessly met. No matter how violent the criticism, no matter how fierce and unrelenting the attacks upon me personally may be, I am determined that the flag of White Australia will not be lowered.
… I now give the assurance that so long as the Labour Party remains in power, there will be no watering down of the White Australia policy. There will be no quota system for the admission of Asiatics, no appeasement, or no other administrative action which would imperil the hard-won living standards which we inherited from our forebears. So long as the Labour Party remains in power, we shall insist on maintaining our sovereign right to determine what people shall make up our population.
“The White Australia policy is not a colour bar. It began as a positive aspiration, and from it has resulted a positive achievement. This achievement is a united race of freedom-loving Australians who can inter-marry and associate without the disadvantages that inevitably result from the fusion of dissimilar races, a united people who share the same loyalties, the same outlook and the same traditions.
“The ideal that this country, which was settled and developed by Europeans, should remain predominantly European was sponsored by our forefathers and has had the unswerving allegiance of all good Australians since then.
“In face of the current threat to this historic, time-honoured ideal, I pledge myself anew to maintain it to the last.”[1949AC2]
Calwell made his stance on a White Australia very clear in an article published in The Argus on 24 October 1949:
“Professor Macmahon Ball … expresses the belief that the introduction of a quota for Asian migrants to Australia would be a wise step.
It is a step, the wisdom of which I would strongly challenge; and I am confident that I would have the overwhelming majority of Australians behind me in that challenge.
Introduction of a quota would simply be a form of appeasement — and appeasement has never solved any problem. There can be no half-measures in a matter such as the maintenance of the White Australia policy, on which Australians hold such emphatic views.
The ideal that this country, which was settled and developed by Europeans, should remain predominantly European was sponsored by our forefathers, and has had the unwavering support of all good Australians ever since. Establishment of a quota system for Asians would be an undermining of that Australian ideal which, I am sure, Australians would not tolerate.
… Underlying the White Australia policy is no suggestion of racial superiority. It began as a positive aspiration, and from it has resulted a positive achievement.
This achievement is a united race of freedom-loving Australians who can inter-marry and associate without the disadvantages that inevitably result from the fusion of dissimilar races; a united people who share the same loyalties, the same outlook, and the same traditions.
… The evils of miscegenation always result in rioting and bloodshed. We have avoided them in this country, thanks to the foresight of our forebears and our own innate common sense.”[1949AC3]
In June 1949, John McEwen (leader of the Country Party) declared that his party had long supported the maintenance of the White Australia Policy, and continued to do so:
“The great political parties of Australia have no differences of opinion on the major issue of the so-called White Australia policy. The Labour party makes it clear that it stands for the maintenance of that policy. This evening, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has made it unequivocally clear that the Liberal party is for the maintenance of the White Australia policy. Speaking for the Australian Country party, I make it equally clear that we stand where we have always stood on this issue, and that is for the maintenance of this traditional policy. The only party which, to my knowledge, is opposed to the maintenance of the White Australia policy is the Communist party.
However, members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party do not need to prove that they support the White Australia policy. Those two political parties governed this country with substantial majorities, for 23 years out of the last 33 and have never shown the slightest disposition to abandon or weaken the White Australia policy. That is the complete answer. No person can say, allege or accuse, for mean party political purposes, that any inference can be drawn from our speeches or votes on this issue. Our attitude is reflected in our record of government.
We maintained the White Australia policy. That is where we stand.
Each of the three great political parties in this country supports the White Australia policy for the same reasons. Our vast, sparsely populated continent occupies a peculiar geographical position almost on the edge of Asia. We desire to avoid the minority problems that have rent other countries internally. We want to avoid economic problems which have assumed crisis dimensions in other countries. Nobody in Australia would derive any advantage from the abandonment of the White Australia policy. Those are the basic reasons why all of us stand for that traditional policy.
Our reasons are not related to creeds of racial superiority or racial inferiority, which have no place in the attitude of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party towards this issue.”[1949JMcE2]
Les Haylen, a Member of Parliament for the Labor Party, stated in June 1949 that he was an unapologetic supporter of the White Australia Policy, and supported it being maintained, citing the attitudes of Australia’s first set of federal parliamentarians in 1901, and quoting General Smuts (Prime Minister of South Africa, 1919-1924, 1939-1948). He criticized those who were reticent to use the term “White Australia”:
“I have no apology to make for any statement that I may utter to-night on the White Australia policy because I feel very keenly on this matter.
… there have been other circumstances, of which we are all fully aware, which make the maintenance of the White Australia policy, not an offence to any nation, but a dedication to our own nation.
… Nobody knows who coined the term White Australia. I see nothing offensive in it. This queasiness that has developed over the years is a sign that we are moving away from the honest facing-up to the situation that distinguished our forefathers 48 years ago.
… Every one who has read his school books remembers the influx of Chinese to the gold-fields in the last century. The people in those days had some Australianism behind them.
… The peoples of Asia should remember the remarks of General Smuts, who said —
“For Asia, this question of white and black may be question of dignity. For us, it is a question of survival.”
That may be said of Australia, also.
… the White Australia policy is a passion in this country. And why, we may ask, is it a passion among the usually unemotional Australians? The answer is that it affects our survival.
… The White Australia policy, let me say, is sacrosanct in this country, it is the political ikon to which all do reverence
… throughout the nation there is a feeling that the White Australia policy is as solid to-day as it was when the Immigration Restriction Act was placed on the statute-book. Those timid Australians who feel that they cannot sustain the dangers associated with adherence to that policy should get out of the country.
… There are others with high academic qualifications and with a profound knowledge of this country who feel as avidly as I do that the White Australia policy must be sustained, because, as Smuts has said, “For us, it is a question of survival”.”[1949LH]
The statements of these political leaders and representatives give a broad idea of general attitudes regarding the White Australia Policy in the early to mid 20th century.
References:
[1909WGS] William Guthrie Spence, Australia’s Awakening: Thirty Years in the Life of an Australian Agitator, Sydney: The Worker Trustees, 1909, pp. 229, 376-377, 587
[1919TJR] “Mr. Ryan abroad: Queensland premier interviewed: The Berne-Amsterdam congress: Australia’s part in the war”, The West Australian (Perth, WA), 10 June 1919, p. 4
See also: “Queensland’s Premier: His visit to Perth”, The W.A. Record (Perth, WA), 14 June 1919, p. 16
[1925SB] “Mr. Bruce accepts the Communistic challenge: White Australia’s democratic institutions in peril: Prime Minister’s vigorous policy speech at Dandenong”, The Cairns Post (Cairns, Qld.), 6 October 1925, p. 5
Heather Radi, “Stanley Melbourne Bruce (1883–1967)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Stanley Bruce”, Wikipedia
See also: “Issues of the elections: War on all extremists: Government policy outlined”, The Age (Melbourne, Vic.), 6 October 1925, pp. 11-12
[1929WMH] W. M. Hughes, The Splendid Adventure: A Review of Empire Relations Within and Without the Commonwealth of Britannic Nations, Toronto (Ontario, Canada): Doubleday, Doran and Gundy, [1929], pp. 357-358, 364-366, 369
“The splendid adventure; a review of empire relations within and without the commonwealth of Britannic nations”, Aurora (Canada) [this catalogue entry gives the Canadian edition a publication date of 1929]
L. F. Fitzhardinge, “William Morris (Billy) Hughes (1862–1952)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Billy Hughes”, Wikipedia
[1930JG] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: Senate: Official Hansard”, 1930 no. 18, 1 May 1930, p. 1305 [PDF p. 30], column 2
“James Guthrie (Australian politician)”, Wikipedia
“Jock Garden”, Wikipedia
[1941JC] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1941 no. 51, 16 December 1941, pp. 1068-1074 [see: p. 1074, columns 1-2]
Geoffrey Serle, “John Curtin (1885–1945)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“John Curtin”, Wikipedia
[1943JC] “Way clear for visit abroad”, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW), 16 December 1943, p. 4 (Late Edition)
See also: “A.L.P. Conference adopts Mr. Curtin’s motion”, Maitland Mercury (West Maitland, NSW), 16 December 1943, p. 2
“Political roundabout”, Sunday Telegraph (Sydney, NSW), 5 December 1943, p. 8 [the Sunday Telegraph was the Sunday edition of The Daily Telegraph] [1) re Jack Lang; 2) the writer says “Curtin never uses the phrase “White Australia.””]
“Limitation of Asiatic migration”, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW), 26 November 1943, p. 4
[1944DM] “Curtin hedged on White Australia”, Daily Mirror (Sydney, NSW), 26 April 1944, p. 3 (War News Edition)
[1944JC] “Prime Ministers in London: Allied plans for post-war settlement discussed: Empire Secretariat: Mr. Curtin faces barrage of questions”, The Daily Advertiser (Wagga Wagga, NSW), 6 May 1944, p. 1 (Second Edition)
See also: “Will welcome suitable migrants”, The Advocate (Devonport, Tas.), 6 May 1944, p. 1
“His first press conference”, The Australian Worker (Sydney, NSW), 10 May 1944, p. 6
[1943HVE] “White Australia always”, Truth (Brisbane, Qld.), 12 December 1943, p. 8
“Evatt on White Australia”, Daily Mirror (Sydney, NSW), 29 December 1943, p. 8 (Country Edition)
G. C. Bolton, “Herbert Vere (Bert) Evatt (1894–1965)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“H. V. Evatt”, Wikipedia
[1944LS] “White Australia: Labor women favor policy”, Truth (Sydney, NSW), 12 March 1944, p. 20
Regarding the positions held by Lucy Steel, see:
““Flocking to my support: Woman candidate for Blacktown seat”, The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta, NSW), 3 May 1944, p. 3
“The Australian Labor Party” (advertisement), The Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW), 12 May 1944, p. 2
““Maternity hospital should be separate”: “Urgent necessity for health scheme””, The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta, NSW), 29 March 1944, p. 1
“Mr. Burgess to give addresses”, The Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), 13 May 1944, p. 3 (Sports Edition)
[1949AC] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 6, 9 February 1949, pp. 65-66 [PDF pp. 28-29]
Graham Freudenberg, “Arthur Augustus Calwell (1896–1973)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Arthur Calwell”, Wikipedia
[1949RM] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 6, 9 February 1949, p. 67
A. W. Martin, “Sir Robert Gordon (Bob) Menzies (1894–1978)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Robert Menzies”, Wikipedia
[1949JMcE] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 6, 9 February 1949, pp. 70-71 [PDF pp. 33-34]
C. J. Lloyd, “Sir John McEwen (1900–1980)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“John McEwen”, Wikipedia
[1949AC2] “No watering of White Australia Policy, declares Minister”, Tomorrow’s Australians: Bulletin of the Department of Immigration (Canberra, ACT), no. 13, 11 April 1949 [published by the Department of Immigration (Australian government)]
See also: “Calwell defends White Aust. Policy”, Daily Mirror (Sydney, NSW), 24 March 1949, p. 9 (Late Final Extra edition)
[1949AC3] “Can be no half-measures about White Australia”, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 24 October 1949, p. 2
[1949JMcE2] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 24, 16 June 1949, p. 1147
[1949LH] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 24, 16 June 1949, p. 1140-1146 [changed “it sacrosanct” to “is sacrosanct”]
R. E. Northey, “Leslie Clement (Les) Haylen (1898–1977)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Les Haylen”, Wikipedia
Leonard Marquard, “Jan Smuts: South African statesman”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, updated 20 May 2024
“Jan Smuts”, Wikipedia
Leave a Reply