[Editor: This chapter is part of The White Australia Policy: The Rise and Fall of Australia’s Racial Ideology (2025).]
Religious figures supporting the White Australia Policy
There were many Christian religious leaders who were opposed to the White Australia Policy, as can be seen from a reading of the Trove collection of historical newspapers. However, there were some clergymen who supported a White Australia.
The Rev. J. B. Ronald, a federal candidate for the Labor Party, expressed his opposition to immigration into Australia by non-Europeans, especially by the Chinese (up to that point in time Chinese immigrants made up the major part of non-white immigration into the country). Speaking at an election meeting in St. Kilda West (Melbourne, Vic.) in March 1901, he was reported to have “urged the abolition of all alien races from our shores. Chinese should be either poll-axed [sic] or poll-taxed in such a manner as would make the country too hot for them”. The report in The Argus stated that Ronald “was well received” and that a vote of confidence in him was carried by the meeting.[1]
Undoubtedly Ronald didn’t mean for Chinese people to be actually hit with a poleaxe, as the term “pole-axed” can also mean to be shocked; it appears that the term was chosen by him as a type of electioneering alliteration, to match the term “poll-taxed”.
James Black Ronald wanted the Chinese to be levied with a poll tax (a head tax), to encourage them to leave the country (colonial Victoria had levied a poll tax on Chinese, so as to discourage Chinese immigration and to reduce the numbers of Chinese in the colony, so there was a legislative precedent for such a policy; although, contrary to his suggestion, this policy was never implemented by the federal government).
At the same meeting in March 1901, the Rev. J. B. Ronald also argued against having Kanakas (Pacific Islanders) in Queensland:
“The continuance of black labour employment in Queensland meant the existence of a system of slavery as pronounced as ever it had been in the plantations of Virginia and other parts of America, where a great racial struggle between the black and white population would have to be fought at no distant date.”[2]
Subsequently, the Reverend J. B. Ronald was elected to the federal parliament, where he spoke in favour of “the noble ideal of a white Australia — a snow-white Australia if you will … pure and spotless”. Like many others in the Labor Party, he argued against a dictation test, preferring the “straightforward” method of direct exclusion of non-whites from Australia:
“In the Postal Bill we have inserted a provision prohibiting the employment of coloured labour upon our subsidized mail steamers. There is no absolute certainty that the Imperial Government will assent to that Bill whilst it contains such a provision. There is just as much likelihood that they will withhold the Royal assent from that measure as that they will refuse to sanction direct legislation for the exclusion of undesirable immigrants if it be placed in this Bill.
Let us, therefore, adopt the heroic and straightforward method, and the method which is stripped of all cant. Let us tell the Home authorities that the Australian people are of one mind in regard to this matter. Then I am sure that our object will be accomplished. It will be a very serious thing if we are intimidated by the threat of what may happen, by reason of the action of the Imperial authorities, if we do that which we are sent here to accomplish. We ought not to begin our legislative career by inducing the Home Government to frustrate our ambition. If they do that once, and we make it easy for them to do it, they will do it a second time. If we have to fight this matter, let us fight it now
… We are told that the language test will really keep out undesirable aliens, and that it will serve the same purpose as the amendment which has been circulated with a view to keeping out all the aboriginal natives of Asia, Africa, and Polynesia. If it will accomplish that, then it will be known by the Home Government to have that effect. Why not, therefore, say in so many words what we intend to do? Why this hypocrisy?
… we desire to keep this Australia of ours free and uncontaminated … we shall make it clear that there is no offence meant.
I rather like the language test. … I can see perfectly well, however, the futility of it. It will not keep out the undesirable aliens.
It has been shown over and over again that the very worst class of men we have to fear are the educated aliens. We have to fear them because they are adventurous, enterprising men. They come amongst us, and they are not the least undesirable because they are educated
… We do not object to these aliens because of their colour. We object to them because they are repugnant to us from our moral and social stand-points.
… our intention in regard to these alien races is perfectly honorable, and that we have no racial hatred or antipathy towards them. We wish them well; we desire to do them good, but we do not believe that by allowing them to come among us we shall do anything to elevate them.
… Even if we go back a considerable time before Christ we find that whenever an inferior race tried to blend with a superior race they dragged the latter down to their own level. There is a tendency in human nature to degenerate. The optimist would like to believe that goodness is stronger than evil, but history goes to show that where an inferior people blend with a superior race there is a general tendency to come down. The best course to adopt is to endeavour to induce them to assimilate with us by attraction. Let us set up a standard which is high. Let us remind them that our social and moral standard is to be kept high, and that when they are fit to enter into union with us we shall be glad to receive and welcome them.
… To associate with them is simply to come down to their level. It is not Christian morals any more than it is good socialism to believe that we can blend not to our own deterioration with these people.
… As honesty is the best policy, so it will be found that a straightforward method is the best to adopt here.
… we should proceed directly towards the goal we have in view; that we should say that we desire to exclude all undesirable aliens in the interests of our moral and our social standard
… There is something higher and greater than the making of money to be considered, and that is the character, the morals, and the health of our children. Let these people come in here and our race will become piebald in spite of our efforts to prevent it. Let us keep before us the noble ideal of a white Australia — a snow-white Australia if you will. Let it be pure and spotless. Let us try to raise the character of our own people, so that we may be a model to these aliens. Let us tell these foreign races that when they can live up to our social and moral ideals we shall welcome them; but never let us try to blend a superior with an inferior race.
… Let us go on directly and straightforwardly with it.
… I doubt very much whether the language test would secure the object which we have in view. Even if it would it is not so desirable as the direct, straightforward method
… I should have liked to have referred to our duties and responsibilities to the Polynesian peoples and to have demonstrated that whilst treating them as the rightful heirs and owners of the islands around us, we could still draw a line of demarcation and refuse to associate with them without violating any moral principle or the brotherhood of man. The only way of realizing the true brotherhood of man is by levelling up and not levelling down. The islanders look to us for help and guidance, and we shall never oppress or tyrannize over them, but at the same time we must refuse to blend with them and mix with them as social equals, because otherwise we should be levelling down instead of levelling up.”[3]
In 1910 The Daily News (Perth, WA) reported on a speech given by the Rev. G. E. Wheatley:
“the Rev. G. E. Wheatley delivered the second of the series of addresses on sociological questions … He said there are those who advocate a White Australia policy with all the ardor of patriotism, and all the fervor of religion, because they recognise that between Europe and Asia there is a great gulf fixed; a gulf, which has spelt disaster to every people, in every age, who have either ignored it or tried to bridge it over. Those people desire to cultivate on this continent a new family of European descent, which will grow up under the most favorable conditions known, so that Australia may fulfil its destiny without the handicap of tainted blood and clashing ideals.
… The presence of aliens, in any considerable number, was incompatible with the purity of the race; the sanctity of the home; the health of the community; the continuance of industrial progress; the elevation of social life; and the attainment of national efficiency and security.
… the proper time to enforce a White Australia policy is now, before the race is vitiated by either black, or brown, or yellow.
… It is sometimes asserted that the White Australia policy is only a wages question. Even if we admitted that, there would be nothing to be ashamed of in the fact, but it is a bigger question than that. … every effort to introduce aliens into any country had been a wages question. Or, in other words, an effort to obtain cheap labor.
… Some aliens are already in our midst, we must not allow the evil to increase. We must do all in our power to mitigate the evil. We have allowed aliens to come here without their women folk. Not more than 5 per cent. of them have wives of their own countrywomen. … On the other hand, we cannot allow them to bring their wives here and settle in our midst, that would be sowing a big crop of sorrow for our children. It should be made a criminal offence for a white woman and an alien to cohabit together or marry
… In the name of religion, in the interests of humanity, for the benefit of posterity, let us keep Australia White.”[4]
In June 1924 The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a speech delivered by the Rev. Frederick Augustus Darling, a clergyman of the Presbyterian Church:
“During the course of an address at the Lyceum Theatre, yesterday afternoon, on the White Australia policy, the Rev. F. Darling said that if we attempted to maintain it for economic reasons only great difficulty would be experienced. The argument that the policy was necessary in order to maintain high wages and congenial conditions would not hold.
… Instead of basing our claim on economic grounds, we should approach the subject from a moral standpoint, and say that we were out to maintain the purity of our nation. We should extend a hearty welcome to our kith and kin of the Anglo-Saxon race, and increase tenfold our population.”[5]
The Daily Telegraph reported on the same speech:
“The economic basis had a certain sway and power with most people, but the moral standpoint, Mr. Darling contended, was the only “basis” they could recognise which could be upheld in all the councils of the world.
… In Japan they had 70 millions of people, increasing at the rate of a million a year. Naturally, Japan was looking for outlets for her population, and could not see where to go. There was no room for them in Korea, in the Philippines, or in China.
It would be a very serious thing for Australia when she should be faced with a crisis that might not be very far away … The Japanese were a warlike people, and a dominant people, and it called for great care in dealing with people like that. The White Australia policy would be hard to maintain from the economic standpoint in the struggle with the outside world.
… they must fill the great lands of Australia with white-skinned people, Anglo-Saxons for preference, and until Christian ideals prevailed, they must preserve the purity of their race.”[6]
In September 1924 The Daily Mail (Brisbane) reported on a speech given by the Dr. Baker, the Bishop of Bendigo:
“The Right Rev. Donald Baker, M.A., Bishop of Bendigo, in his address to the diocesan synod, made reference to the “White Australia” question and asked was it a Christian ideal, or simply a dog-in-the-manger one. He said it was strongly felt that any policy other than that of white Australia would, in the long run, result in handing over Australia to the coloured races.
… The Bishop referred to the supreme importance and necessity of keeping the race pure, and to the widespread feeling that indiscriminate mixing of blood is bad. He said: “One cannot visit a semi-black State in America without the thought crossing one’s mind that the Creator never intended such a clash of colour. And such thoughts will be strengthened tenfold if the traveller goes to Central America, where may be found in one and the same person a mixture of perhaps Spanish, Negro, Indian, and Chinese blood. With all charity, the result could not be described as other than degenerate.
“No, the Creator, had some wise purpose when He made us as He did, differing as we do in colour, mentality, and temperament; and the instinct which most of us have against the indiscriminate mixture of race and colour, must surely come from Him. The wish to keep our race pure may well be founded on the two-fold fact that God has made us with different colours and characteristics, and that experience shows that promiscuous miscegenation is a mistake and detrimental to the progress of humanity.”
The Bishop concluded by saying, “I can only say that the more I think of what would probably follow were Australia not to be kept white, the more it seems to me that there is nothing inherently un-Christian in the policy; while on the other hand, experience seems to show that promiscuous miscegenation is contrary to God’s plan.”[7]
The Bishop’s speech was also reported on by the The Argus (Melbourne):
“Any policy other than that of a White Australia would ultimately result in handing over Australia to the coloured races. Australia could not properly realise its nationhood or work out its destiny unless it was reserved for its own people.
… It was surely possible to maintain the purity of the race without any assumption of superiority.”[8]
References:
[1] “Rev. J. B. Ronald at St. Kilda West: “Chinese poll-axed or poll- taxed””, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 20 March 1901, p. 6
“Reverend James Black Ronald (1861-1941): Member for Southern Melbourne (Victoria) 1901-1906”, Parliament of Australia
“James Ronald”, Wikipedia
[2] “Rev. J. B. Ronald at St. Kilda West: “Chinese poll-axed or poll- taxed””, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 20 March 1901, p. 6
[3] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 36, 6 September 1901, p. 4664-4665
[4] “White Australia”, The Daily News (Perth, WA), 23 July 1910, p. 8
[5] “White Australia: Anglo-Saxon Migration”, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW), 23 June 1924, p. 8 (Late Edition)
[6] “Race purity: White Australia: Japanese attitude”, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW), 23 June 1924, p. 5
[7] “White Australia: The Christian aspect”, The Daily Mail (Brisbane, Qld.), 20 September 1924, p. 15
[8] “White Australia: Bishop on colour “clashing””, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 2 September 1924, p. 13
Leave a Reply