[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 (1909-1949)”.]
Australian leaders and representatives supporting the White Australia Policy (1901-1908)
A wide range of leading figures and parliamentary representatives in Australia supported a restrictive immigration policy. For example:
Edmund Barton (Protectionist), who was the first Prime Minister of Australia, gave his opinion (during the parliamentary debates regarding the Immigration Restriction Bill in 1901) that the proposed law was of vital importance to the future of the nation:
“I need make no apology for calling this one of the most important matters with regard to the future of Australia that can engage the attention of this House”.[1901EB1]
In the federal parliament, Barton expressed his belief in racial inequality:
“I have never wobbled or wavered upon this matter from the beginning to the end, and wherever I have had to express an opinion on the influx of undesirable immigrants, I have always expressed myself as strongly against it. I am ready to do as much, if not more than anybody else, to prevent such an influx.
I do not agree with the honorable and learned member for Parkes, who said that the tendencies of this kind of immigration were not dangerous.
I do not think either that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality. There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races — I think no one wants convincing of this fact — unequal and inferior.
The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman. There is a deep-set difference, and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever being effaced. Nothing in this world can put these two races upon an equality.
Nothing we can do by cultivation, by refinement, or by anything else will make some races equal to others. I do not want to lay down with too much preciseness any of these differences, because there is not one amongst these races whom I wish to hurt or wound.”[1901EB2]
At a meeting in Adelaide in 1901, Edmund Barton declared that he and his government supported a white Australia, and intended to stop Asian immigration, as well as deport the Kanakas (black labourers from the Pacific Islands):
“The policy of this Government will be to bring about a white Australia by establishing such Acts with reference to the influx of Asiatic races — as distinguished from South Sea Island races for the moment — as will effectually minimise and speedily put a stop to their introduction.
It seems to be forgotten by some people that I was one of those who moved or seconded — I forget which— the principal resolution in the first great meeting held in Sydney to protest against the influx of Chinese. I have never wavered from that belief, whether with regard to the Chinese or any other Asiatics.
And now to pass to Kanaka labour. … we do propose to advance by gradual steps — not taking up too long a time, though — to such a point as will put an end to the importation of Kanaka labor. There may be some who would say, “Demolish and abolish it at once.” The answer is that those who believe that it is not a good thing for the whole country, to suddenly destroy an industry, will not take that step, but will be satisfied to see Australia made white in a just and temperate manner, and over a period of years.
… If we deal with black labor in the way I have outlined, it is not because we want to deal harshly with the sugar industry, but because it is a question not entirely of labor, but largely racial, and there are certain things which must not take too long to eradicate. In all things that we have put forward, it is the interests of Australia that we have at heart.”[1901EB3]
During the Immigration Restriction Bill debates in 1901, King O’Malley, who was a Member of the House of Representatives (and later Minister for Home Affairs), said:
“I hope that we shall notify that the Commonwealth of Australia is not going to tolerate any scheme which has for its object the destruction of the white man and the elevation of the coloured man.”[1901KO]
During the same debates, Alfred Deakin (Protectionist), who was Attorney-General of Australia (and later the second Prime Minister of Australia), expressed his desire of “securing a white Australia” with a “united race”:
“We here find ourselves touching the profoundest instinct of individual or nation — the instinct of self-preservation — for it is nothing less than the national manhood, the national character, and the national future that are at stake.
… No motive power operated more universally on this continent or in the beautiful island of Tasmania, and certainly no motive operated more powerfully in dissolving the technical and arbitrary political divisions which previously separated us than the desire that we should be one people; and remain one people without the admixture of other races. It is not necessary to reflect upon them even by implication. It is only necessary to say that they do not and cannot blend with us; that we do not, cannot, and ought not to blend with them.
This was the motive power which swayed tens of thousands who take little interest in contemporary politics — this was the note that touched particularly the Australian born, who felt themselves endowed with a heritage not only of political freedom, but of an ample area within which the race might expand, and an obligation consequent upon such an endowment — the obligation to pass on to their children and the generations after them that territory undiminished and uninvaded. A coloured occupation would make a practical diminution of its extent of the most serious kind.
… We inherit a legacy in the shape of the aliens which have been already admitted within our borders. The programme of a “white Australia” means not merely its preservation for the future — it means the consideration of those who cannot be classed within the category of whites, but who have found their way into our midst.
… We find ourselves to-day, it may be said, with, at all events, a half-open door for all Asiatics and African peoples, through which entry is not difficult, and through which … there is still entry from time to time.
It was with a full recognition of those facts that the first plank in the Government platform, as submitted at Maitland, and emphasized at every opportunity since, was the plank which for ease of reference was called the declaration for a “White Australia.” It was for this reason that so much stress was laid on this issue, and it is for this reason that since the Government took office, no question has more frequently or more seriously occupied their attention
… There have been determinations which hereafter may have important consequences arising out of our administration, as well as other measures which will be submitted to Parliament, all having in view the accomplishment of the same end. That end, put in plain and equivocal terms, as the House and the country are entitled to have it put, means the prohibition of all alien coloured immigration, and more, it means at the earliest time, by reasonable and just means, the deportation or reduction of the number of aliens now in our midst. The two things go hand in hand, and are the necessary complement of a single policy — the policy of securing a “white Australia.”
… There are those who mock at the demand of a white Australia, and who point to what they consider our boundless opportunities for absorbing a far greater population than we at present possess, who dwell, if commercially-minded, on the opportunities for business we are neglecting by failing to import the cheapest labour to develop portions of our continent which have not as yet been put to use.
… we should be false to the never-to-be-forgotten teachings from the experience of the United States, of difficulties only partially conquered by the blood of their best and bravest; we should be absolutely blind to and unpardonably neglectful of our obligations, if we fail to lay those lessons to heart.
… This note of nationality is that which gives dignity and importance to this debate. The unity of Australia is nothing, if that does not imply a united race. A united race means not only that its members can intermix, intermarry and associate without degradation on either side, but implies one inspired by the same ideas, and an aspiration towards the same ideals, of a people possessing the same general cast of character, tone of thought — the same constitutional training and traditions — a people qualified to live under this Constitution — the broadest and the most liberal perhaps the world has yet seen reduced to writing — a people qualified to use without abusing it, and to develop themselves under it to the full height and extent of their capacity. Unity of race is an absolute essential to the unity of Australia.
… I am speaking not merely for myself, but for the Government, when I say how entirely and absolutely they realize the fundamental character of the principle which lies below their declaration for a white Australia, and that it may be seen that there is no uncertain note, there is no divided feeling, there is no conflict of opinion within this House, or without it; that the unity of Australia must be secured on this question if not on any other; that we stand shoulder to shoulder with practically an inconsiderable minority against us, so small as to be scarcely discoverable. At the very first instant of our national career we are as one for a white Australia.
… We may have in the future some development which may call for the application of the Monroe doctrine in the Pacific. But far more important than that, and a far more significant declaration at the present time, is this for a white Australia. It is the Monroe doctrine of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is no mere electioneering manifesto, but part of the first principles upon which the Commonwealth is to be administered and guided.”[1901AD]
Two weeks later, Isaac Isaacs (Protectionist), who was a Member of the House of Representatives (and later the Governor-General of Australia), supported the remarks of Alfred Deakin, quoting him regarding “the instinct of self-preservation”:
“we were all resolved that we would not have inferior races in Australia, that we would not run any risk of their obtaining a foothold, that we would not wait until the damage had actually occurred — greater damage than now exists — that we would not wait until the injury had sunk deeper and gained greater root and become proportionately more difficult to eradicate, and that we would not wait until we had heard the complaints and saw the suffering that we felt must ensue if these inferior races became permanently established in Australia.
… we are not to abandon our resolve, and the resolve of the people of Australia who sent us here, that we should by some effectual method exclude the Japanese, Chinese, and Asiatic races. We are not to wait until the damage has become so great that the cry can no longer be disregarded.
… we are going to draw a line between a “white Australia” and a “coloured Australia.”
… we do not want to exclude human beings because of their race and because of their colour, but because their race and colour are indications of their different characteristics. I cannot adequately express in words, and no man has yet been found to express in words, the combination of qualities and characteristics, industrial, social, political, and racial, which we wish to convey. It is not because these people are black, or because they are Japanese, that we exclude them, but because, being black or Japanese, they are by nature and environment so imbued with certain qualities and characteristics that their presence here would be incongruous with our civilization and detrimental to our development.
… We have not entered into this magnificent Commonwealth, received this unexampled Constitution, and gone to all the expense, trouble, and labour of erecting this splendid establishment in order to allow inferior races to come in, and not only share our prosperity against our will, but ultimately perhaps destroy it. We must be prepared to act in our own defence. I can not express our feelings upon this matter better than they were expressed by the Attorney-General, who said that the first instinct of every people, is the instinct of self-preservation.
… I say that we must, so far as the circumstances of the case demand it, and so far as we are forced to do so, exclude these aliens from our shores.
… We know that within our borders there are about 90,000 or 100,000 Asiatics. We have instances both in the history of other countries and in our own, which ought to make us alert to guard effectually against any possible overwhelming of our race by the Japanese. … We are aware that about 10,000,000 of blacks form a constant ulcer in the American republic. … If we defer action for a few years longer, the trouble will have become so great and irksome as to compel us to act, and the difficulty will have assumed much larger dimensions.
… we shall not hesitate to carry out our desire in this way without putting on the face of the Bill an insult to any nation, which it is the prerogative and technical right of the Home Government to veto or to annul. So long as we observe these conditions, we ought not to hesitate to go to the fullest extent that we think our duty to the people of Australia demands, and to do all that is necessary to maintain the purity and welfare of our race.”[1901II]
Chris Watson, leader of the Labor Party (and later to become the Labor Party’s first Prime Minister), gave his opinion regarding a white Australia:
“As far as I am concerned, the objection I have to the mixing of these coloured people with the white people of Australia — although I admit it is to a large extent tinged with considerations of an industrial nature — lies in the main in the possibility and probability of racial contamination.
… The question is whether we would desire that our sisters or our brothers should be married into any of these races to which we object. If these people are not such as we can meet upon an equality, and not such as we can feel that it is no disgrace to intermarry with, and not such as we can expect to give us an infusion of blood that will tend to the raising of our standard of life, and to the improvement of the race, we should be foolish in the extreme if we did not exhaust every means of preventing them from coming to this land, which we have made our own. The racial aspect of the question, in my opinion, is the larger and more important one; but the industrial aspect also has to be considered.”[1901CW1]
Chris Watson also said that he foresaw dangers arising from the immigration of non-whites into Australia:
“the labour party, I claim, had throughout the various States, a great deal to do with the popularizing of this emphatic cry for a white Australia
… We never say that “all men are equal.” No sensible set of men would ever say so. But we say that every man should be equal with every other man in the eyes of the law, and that equal opportunities should be afforded so far as the law can allow to every citizen. And we reserve the right to say who shall be citizens. We ask that they shall be on a moral and physical level with ourselves, and that they shall be such as we can fraternize with and welcome as brother citizens of what we hope will some day be a great nation.
… if 100 years ago the people of America had had legislation of this character, with reference particularly to the immigration of slaves to that country, and any man had lifted up his voice against that immigration, he would to-day have been hailed as a statesman by the people of America. The man who could have foreseen all the dangers, and the troubles, and the dire distress, that have followed in the footsteps of the introduction of black labour into America — the man who could have foreseen and even attempted to prevent that evil in those days — would to-day have been honored as one who should have had the whole nation behind him in the work he tried to do.
True statesmanship, to my mind, consists, not in putting forward a number of plausible platitudes and philosophical meanderings in this Chamber, but in looking ahead, and seeing what is likely to be in any way a menace to the people of our country in the future. We, who support this policy, do so in the interests of those who succeed us, and for whom we have a trust in our hands to see that any action we take is such as will, as far as possible, prevent the likelihood of the occurrence of those dangers which we foresee.”[1901CW2]
Henry Higgins (Protectionist), who was a Member of the House of Representatives (and later the Attorney-General of Australia, and then a Justice of the High Court of Australia), said:
“Speaking for my constituents, however, I can say that there is no subject which takes up so much of their interest as that of alien labour, as a matter, not only of national character, but of the industrial character of the workers of the Commonwealth.
… With regard to aliens, one of the principal motives of our legislation was the industrial effect which it would have. I accept the position frankly that we are anxious to avoid the introduction into Australia of a number of people who will lower wages, and, with wages, lower the standard of life.
… I am certain that there is nothing upon which the people of Australia are so unanimous as that we must secure the whole continent and its outlying parts for the white races.”[1901HH]
W. G. Spence (Labor Party), who was a trade union leader and a Member of the House of Representatives (and later the Postmaster-General of Australia, 1914-1915), said in parliament in 1902 that he wanted “to prevent the contamination of the white races”, and spoke out against having non-white divers in the pearl-fishing industry in Australia:
“If there was one matter more than another upon which the people of Australia were unanimous it was the policy of a white Australia.
… The objection to this class of people is not an industrial objection only, but as the honorable member for Northern Melbourne has said it is a question of the effect upon the national character. The Immigration Restriction Bill was passed more upon moral grounds to prevent the contamination of the white races of Australia, than upon industrial grounds
… People who have been on the pearling grounds have said that the ships engaged in this industry are “floating hells.” That is how they are described from the moral stand-point, and we shall not be carrying out the spirit of the Act if we do not give consideration to the question of the national character which to my mind rises superior to the industrial question.
The effect of the Immigration Restriction Act entirely depends upon its administration. I have always given credit to the Prime Minister and the Government for their earnestness and sincerity in support of the policy of a white Australia.”[1902WGS]
Littleton Groom (Protectionist), who was a Member of the House of Representatives (and, later on, held several ministerial positions, including that of Attorney-General of Australia), added to the same parliamentary conversation:
“The idea in passing the Immigration Restriction Act was distinctly to preserve Australian citizenship for the white races of the world.
… I believe it was the intention of this House, in passing the Act, that all the industries of the Commonwealth should be preserved for the white people of Australia.”[1902LG]
James Styles (Protectionist), who was a Senator in the Australian parliament, said in 1903:
“If the people spoke with one voice on one item more than any other in the Barton programme, it was in the demand for a White Australia, for which he was one of the first to advocate. That had resulted in the Kanaka and Immigration Restriction Acts becoming law, and if that were all that federation had accomplished, at a cost of £750,000 new expenditure during the first three federal years, then a White Australia had been obtained very cheaply. A White Australia would be incomplete till colored labor on the subsidised mail boats had disappeared altogether.”[1903JS]
James Drake (Protectionist), who was a Senator, and Minister for Defence, said in 1903:
“One of the most important matters that had been before the Federal Parliament was that of a White Australia, which was of great concern to Queensland. In the latter place there were no fewer than 28,000 colored adult people, and on going about the northern parts one out of every three adult males was found to be colored, which was a menace to the whole of Australia.”[1903JD]
T. J. Ryan, in 1903, when he was an independent federal candidate (he subsequently joined the Labor Party, and later became Premier of Queensland), stated that he supported a white Australia:
“the question of a white Australia was settled only so long as the electors returned to the federal Parliament men who were prepared to support a white Australia
… They all knew they were bordering closely to Asia which was the home of the coloured races, and it was absolutely essential for them in this remote part of the world to keep Australia free from these undesirable coloured aliens if they wanted to be masters of the Pacific, as he hoped they would be in the future.”[1903TJR]
James McGowen (Labor Party), NSW State Member for Redfern (1891-1917) and Premier of New South Wales (1910-1913), stated in a letter (to be read at a public meeting at Inverell in 1904) his views on Chinese immigrants and a White Australia:
“You can tell the people of Inverell that I am fully with you in this matter, both from the standpoint of an industrial worker and a believer in keeping our race pure and undefiled.
The appalling statement that 10,000 males with only 150 females of the same race and religion are in our midst indicates clearly to my mind that these men never intended staying here and becoming citizens, and that whilst they are here they are a danger to the purity of our race.
Industrially, they are a menace, being willing to work for lower wages and under conditions dangerous to the health and well-being of white men.
From a business man’s point of view it appears to me they are likewise objectionable. Our social legislation is blandly and persistently evaded by them, they recognise none of the honorable business principles which bind our own people even in the keenest of competition, their code of morality generally is so low that any effort to enforce our laws is defeated by the most palpable conspiracies, and their domestic economy is such that I doubt if 50 Chinese would equal the consuming capacity of a healthy vigorous Australian family.
Therefore, from the standpoint of race, of worker, of commerce, of producer, and of nation, I unhesitatingly avow myself a warm advocate of a White Australia, and am prepared to make a stand to compel every alien already here to live up to the same standard and under the same conditions as we ourselves are prepared to do.
— Very truly yours, — Jas. S. McGowan, Redfern.”[1904JMcG]
Niels Nielsen (Labor Party), who was a union official, and a Member of the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales, said in 1904:
“It should be the aim of the people of Australia to keep the race pure, and not to admit as equals those who were different in religion, nationality and color.
… white women were being degraded by these aliens, a fact which was proved by statistics which showed there were only 195 Chinese children in the State, but 1045 half-caste Chinese, or children who had white mothers.
… With the mixture of races going on in Australia the population threatened to become piebald, brown, or brindle, and those who wished to see it kept pure should bestir themselves.”[1904NN]
George Jones (Labor Party), who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales, gave a speech at Inverell in 1904; his remarks were reported in The Inverell Times:
“Mr. Jones proceeded to say that the labor party — State and Federal — was uncompromisingly in favor of White Australia, and was prepared to show its earnestness in the cause. Sir Henry Parkes had said in 1888 that their great object should be to maintain the British race and traditions, but notwithstanding the legislation then passed the Chinese were still here, and working men and business men were being shoved out of their callings and businesses by celestials.
… They were a menace to the industrial worker for they lived under conditions detrimental to health, and tending to the propagation of epidemics. They were prepared to work for less wages.
… the Chinese were a danger, and being a danger they ought not be encouraged. Every man and woman who deals with them encourages those that are here to stay and others to come. The white people should take the same stand as they do, they never buy from others what their own countrymen can supply. For his (Mr. Jones’) part he never dealt with anyone but the people of his own race, and if everybody did that the Chinese question would be settled.
He appealed to the public of Inverell to cease supporting them … On national grounds as well as local ones there was every reason to bring this Chinese competition to an end, and he appealed to the people of Inverell to set an example in the matter, an example he hoped would be followed in all the centres until at length the dream of a White Australia was brought well within the range of Commonwealth politics.”[1904GJ]
The comments of Sir George Reid (leader of the Free Trade Party; Prime Minister 1904-1905) regarding a White Australia, made at a public meeting in Bendigo in 1906, were reported by The Bendigo Advertiser:
“the principle of a White Australia was in existence before the Labor party was born. … Sir Henry Parkes some 25 years or so ago passed a Chinese Immigration Restriction Act — years before the Labor party came into existence. … That policy was the policy of all the parties of Australia.
… He was prepared to restrict undesirable colored aliens, but would never put a barrier against white men, unless it was they were engaged under a fraudulent agreement or were introduced to influence an industrial strike.
… Until they could put round Australia a white line of population of defence, they had not arrived at the great destiny to which they had been called.”[1906GR]
The views of Dr. T. P. McInerney (a Member of the Victorian Parliament, 1900-1902; and an unsuccessful federal candidate for the Protectionist Party), given at a public meeting in Corryong in 1906, were reported in the The Corryong Courier:
“He strongly supported the policy of a White Australia. This was the only land left for the white man, and should be kept for him alone. He drew attention to Australia’s isolation from the other white countries of the world, and her nearness to the hordes of Asia, which he said were “buzzing like bees about to swarm.”
He considered the recent victory of Japan over Russia as a curse to the world, as it had shown the brown man that he was the equal of the white. In less than 50 years Japan had thrown aside her barbarism and assumed civilisation. Men, whose fathers never saw a gun, had the biggest and most up-to-date ships afloat — and we hadn’t a port that a ship could be repaired in! He emphasised the necessity of filling the Northern Territory with population.”[1906TPMcI]
Sir Timothy Coghlan, who was the Agent-General for New South Wales (1905-1926), stationed in England, outlined his reasons for supporting a White Australia in 1908:
“Australia … is close to South-Eastern Asia, being seven days from India, ten days from China, and along its northern coast lie the great Indian archipelagoes, so close, indeed, that with unrestricted immigration it might easily find itself with a large Asiatic population absolutely out of all sympathy with Australian ideals, aliens in manners and religion, in sympathy and aspirations
… The most serious objection to the colored races is, of course, the ethnical; the economic objection might perhaps be waived with the other non-existent. In all Australian cities there are large communities of non-British Europeans who are greatly objected to on economic grounds, but whose presence is tolerated because they belong to the races with whom Australians may inter-marry, and who may thus ultimately become absorbed into the general population. With colored races it is different.
Australians have no wish to see reproduced in their country the conditions prevailing in the Southern States of America, or in those South American countries where mixed races predominate. They hold their territory as trustees for the British people in the first instance and for the white races generally, and in this they conceive they have a more noble idea of their Imperial responsibility than have any of their critics who so urgently demand the admission of the Asiatic.
There are, moreover, economic objections to the colored races which no Australian can ignore. … The Australian has won from the wilderness comparative comfort and contentment, conditions which he is persuaded would be jeopardised for all except the wealthy if the indiscriminate introduction of the Chinese were permitted. … If there is any gradation in the Australian objections to the colored laborer, the strongest objection would be to the coolie, who, by his habit of living, is able to work dirt cheap and so reduce the standard of comfort which even the commonest of Australian workers are able to enjoy.
… The truth is the Asiatic is not a coloniser; he comes to reap where others have sown; he is willing to swarm into Melbourne, Sydney, or Brisbane, to undersell the Europeans already established there
… Australia has the centuries before it; if its people now make the error of permitting the introduction of Asiatics the blunder will be fatal and irreparable”.[1908TC]
References:
[1901EB1] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 32, 7 August 1901, p. 3497, column 2
Martha Rutledge, “Sir Edmund (Toby) Barton (1849–1920)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Edmund Barton”, Wikipedia
[1901EB2] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 39, 26 September 1901, p. 5233, column 1
[1901EB3] “The federal policy: Speech by Mr. Barton: A vigorous utterance: Reception of Mr. Kingston”, The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), 13 February 1901, p. 6
See also: “The Prime Minister at the town hall: Mr. Barton on the government policy: Flag of “moderate protection” hoisted”, The Register (Adelaide, SA), 13 February 1901, p. 6
[1901KO] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 33, 14 August 1901, p. 3740, column 1
Arthur Hoyle, “King O’Malley (1858–1953)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“King O’Malley”, Wikipedia
[1901AD] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 37, 12 September 1901, pp. 4804-4807
R. Norris, “Alfred Deakin (1856–1919)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Alfred Deakin”, Wikipedia
[1901II] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 39, 27 September 1901, pp. 5314-
Zelman Cowen, “Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs (1855–1948)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Isaac Isaacs”, Wikipedia
[1901CW1] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 36, 6 September 1901, p. 4633
Bede Nairn, “John Christian (Chris) Watson (1867–1941)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Chris Watson”, Wikipedia
[1901CW2] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 39, 25 September 1901, pp. 5177-5178
[1901HH] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1902 no. 17, 23 April 1902, pp. 11908, column 1; 11909, column 1
John Rickard, “Henry Bournes Higgins (1851–1929)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“H. B. Higgins”, Wikipedia
[1902WGS] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1902 no. 117, 23 April 1902, p. 11909-11910
Coral Lansbury and Bede Nairn, “William Guthrie Spence (1846–1926)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“William Spence”, Wikipedia
[1902LG] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1902 no. 17, 23 April 1902, p. 11910, column 2
David Carment, “Sir Littleton Ernest Groom (1867–1936)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Littleton Groom”, Wikipedia
[1903JS] “Federal elections: Senator Styles’ address: The Minister for Defence”, The Williamstown Chronicle (Williamstown, Vic.), 5 September 1903, p. 2
Geoff Browne, “James Styles (1841–1913)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“James Styles”, Wikipedia
[1903JD] “Federal elections: Senator Styles’ address: The Minister for Defence”, The Williamstown Chronicle (Williamstown, Vic.), 5 September 1903, p. 2
H. J. Gibbney, “James George Drake (1850–1941)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“James Drake (politician)”, Wikipedia
Note: At the date of this quotation, James Drake was Minister for Defence (10 August 1903 to 24 September 1903; prior to holding that position he was Postmaster-General, and was afterwards Attorney-General).
[1903TJR] “Mr. Ryan’s candidature: Meeting at North Rockhampton: Mount Morgan and Rockhampton”, The Capricornian (Rockhampton, Qld.), 5 December 1903, p. 43
W. Ross Johnston and D. J. Murphy, “Thomas Joseph (Tom) Ryan (1876–1921)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“T. J. Ryan”, Wikipedia
[1904JMcG] “The anti-alien question: Big meeting at the Oxford Hall: Speeches by Messrs. Jones & Neilson”, The Inverell Times (Inverell, NSW), 16 January 1904, p. 4 [letter to George A. Jones, state Member for Inverell]
Bede Nairn, “James Sinclair (Jim) McGowen (1855–1922)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“James McGowen”, Wikipedia
[1904NN] “The anti-alien question: Big meeting at the Oxford Hall: Speeches by Messrs. Jones & Neilson”, The Inverell Times (Inverell, NSW), 16 January 1904, p. 4
“Mr Niels Rasmus Wilson NIELSEN (1869 – 1930)”, Parliament of New South Wales
Bede Nairn, “Niels Rasmus Wilson Nielsen (1869–1930)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Niels Nielsen (politician)”, Wikipedia
[1904GJ] “The anti-alien question: Big meeting at the Oxford Hall: Speeches by Messrs. Jones & Neilson”, The Inverell Times (Inverell, NSW), 16 January 1904, p. 4
“Mr George Alfred JONES (1866 – 1938)”, Parliament of New South Wales
“George Jones (Australian politician)”, Wikipedia
[1906GR] “Mr. Reid in Bendigo”, The Bendigo Advertiser (Bendigo, Vic.), 1 November 1906, p. 5
W. G. McMinn, “Sir George Houstoun Reid (1845–1918)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“George Reid”, Wikipedia
[1906TPMcI] “The Indi election: Dr. McInerney at Corryong”, The Corryong Courier (Corryong, Vic.), 8 November 1906, p. 7
“Thomas Patrick McInerney”, Parliament of Victoria
[1908TC] “A White Australia: The policy defended: And luminously explained”, The Daily Telegraph (Launceston, Tas.), 28 March 1908, p. 10
Neville Hicks, “Sir Timothy Augustine Coghlan (1855–1926)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Timothy Augustine Coghlan”, Wikipedia
“Agent-General for New South Wales”, Wikipedia
Leave a Reply