[Editor: This chapter is part of The White Australia Policy: The Rise and Fall of Australia’s Racial Ideology (2025).]
“Self-preservation”, not racial hatred
The demand for a white Australian nation was preceded by demands for white Australian colonies. The colonists, and then the nationalists (or federalists), sought to preserve their existing lifestyle, culture, society, and race.
The widely-supported movement against Asian immigration (especially against Chinese and Indian immigration) did not mean that the Europeans in Australia hated Asians; whilst some may have been driven by hate, it appears that most were motivated by a desire for national, cultural, or racial self-preservation. This attitude can be seen in the statements of various prominent Australians.
Alfred Deakin, who was the federal Attorney-General who arranged the legislative basis of the White Australia Policy, and who served as Prime Minister of Australia three times (1903-1904, 1905-1908, 1909-1910), stated that the White Australia Policy was a matter of “self-preservation”, and that it was not created as a demonstration of hostility towards other races.
In September 1901, during a parliamentary debate regarding the Immigration Restriction Bill, Deakin said:
“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.”[1]
In the same month, Isaac Isaacs (a Jewish politician, who was later to become Governor-General of Australia, 1931-1936) supported the remarks of Alfred Deakin regarding “self-preservation”:
“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.
… 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.”[2]
Deakin declared that his position on racial preservation was not prompted by any notion of racial superiority (although some of his colleagues may have held a different view). In the federal parliament, in 1901, Deakin outlined his opinion:
“For my part, I have been careful from the first not to attempt to justify this Bill, and the exclusiveness of feeling which it represents on the score of any moral or other inferiority on the part of those whom we desire to exclude. Whether or not there exists such inferiority is a matter for argument or dispute elsewhere.
I have frankly stated from the first that the exclusiveness on the part of the Australian people is perfectly independent of the mental and moral status of the Japanese, when measured by the only standards that can be properly applied to them, namely, those of their own race and of their own history.
… All that it is necessary for us to urge in justification of this measure is that these people de differ from us in such essentials of race and character as to exclude the possibility of any advantageous admixture or intermarriage if we are to maintain the standards of civilization to which we are accustomed.
… I have very grave doubts as to whether our form of civilization is beneficial to these people. I doubt whether it does not work far more injury than advantage to them. Our civilization belongs to us, and we belong to it; we are bred in it, and it is bred in us. It fits us and is our means of progress and advancement.
These people have their own independent development, their own qualities, and also the civilization, forms of life and government, which naturally attach to them. They are separated from us by a gulf which we cannot bridge to the advantage of either.
The attitude of Australia is not an offensive one when it becomes understood that it is based upon these principles. It is not based upon any claim of superiority.
Where is the standard of comparison just to both? I am endeavouring to satisfy the House that arguments which are used in favour of exclusion do not call for any reflection whatever upon the character or capacity of the people excluded.”[3]
In 1905, Deakin confirmed his position, that whilst the White Australia Policy was intended to exclude people of non-white racial backgrounds, it was not motivated by any idea of racial superiority. In his speech, Deakin referred to the positive qualities of the peoples of Hindustan (India) and Japan:
“the fact cannot be overlooked that — however silent the Act may be upon the point — it is intended to be applied to people of particular races. That provision must not be regarded as having been inserted in any pharisaic spirit, and must not be held to imply any assertion of superiority on our part. Probably every nation, every tribe — and even smaller gatherings — is satisfied that its country, its district, its village is the best in the world, and that its members are better than anybody else, partly because they try themselves by their own standards.
… assertions of superiority are neither conveyed nor implied in this Bill, which simply recognises the incontestable fact that, despite the unity of humanity, its diversity is more operative in fact.
… In formulating that policy and abiding by it, we are not called upon to cast, even by inference, any slur upon any other people, to imply in them any special defects, or suggest anything more than a separateness of character, aim, and tendency to which I have already alluded. It is an imperative necessity at the present time that, in pursuance of our great national ideal, we shall exclude the people of the East, of whom two races in particular possess claims upon our respect and admiration.
Within the Empire, we have an empire — Hindustan — some of whose races are amongst the most intellectual that the world has known. They rank amongst the intellectuals to-day, and enjoy many heritages comparable with those of most advanced peoples. A tribute to their accomplishments in literature and art is unnecessary. Their records are sufficient to merit admiration
… I wish only to safeguard those who support legislation of this character against the assumption that their action is derogatory to any people.
… Then there is the nation who have recently sprung into such prominence, attracting the admiration of the world for their ability and patriotism, by their achievements in arms, science, and industry. They are the allies of the Empire to which we belong. Before they won their recent successes many people, including myself, bore tribute to their standing and promise. Now the whole world realizes that it is confronted by a young and virile people, whose possibilities cannot be gauged, although we know that they are of a very high order.”[4]
When Deakin gave a speech to a meeting of the Australian Natives’ Association in 1904, his remarks were reported regarding the non-hostile intention of the White Australia Policy:
“White Australia … was the very essence of our Australian life that we had had committed to us
… an ideal Empire was one in which the progress of all the races in it would be provided for in their own countries.
… the policy of a White Australia was not founded on a spirit of hostility to those who were not white, as this had been proved in our contribution to the Indian famine fund and on other occasions. We were fortunately free from any mixture of the coloured races, and were determined never to be subjected to the dangers of such an invasion.”[5]
Mary Gilmore (poet, author, and racial-communist) wrote an article for The Worker (16 April 1908), in which she made the point that supporting a White Australia was not an issue of racial superiority or inferiority, but a matter of “the desire for existence” (as a separate race) and a seeking of “race continuance”:
“the question of racial antagonism is not one of superiority on the one hand, and inferiority on the other. The root of it is the desire for existence.
… It is, as was said before, the natural, normal, instinctive root idea that lies behind the wish to Live, to Be, to Exist. That is why a pure race, and an individual of pure race, fights against the idea of miscegenation, and why an impure race does not trouble about the matter. The first has not lost its claim to existence as a pure entity, and the second has, at most, only a half-claim to anywhere. The less the claim, the less the desire to fight for it.
It is folly to deride the alien just because he is alien. It is only the ignorant who heap contumely on him by vulgar epithet and coarse naming, never inquiring what manner of man he be, and what his development, on his own, national lines. Every man is an alien in another man’s country; every man an inferior in regard to another’s national ideal and formulation of that ideal; and the insularity that makes us regard our point of view as the highest, is usually insularity, and nothing else — even though equally common to the people we deride.
… I do not believe a self-respecting man of any nation looks on himself as the inferior of any other nation, and I do not see why he should. The individual man is individual man, whether he be black, white, or yellow. However, that is not the point. The point lies in race continuance, and the need for it.
… Lest any should think that the admission that others may be excellent as well as we, be taken as an argument for mixture of race, let me add that any woman who gives birth to a child whose color is not her own, gives birth to a child not wholly hers. It is a graft, a cuckoo born of a foreigner. Its eyes, its hair, its skin, its ways, and implanted ideals belong to a people in whom she has neither part nor lot, and in so far it is theirs, not hers, mother it how she may. … To mix is to destroy what Nature built, and break down her lines of continuity.”[6]
Similarly, in 1920, Mary Gilmore wrote an article for The Australian Worker, in which she said that supporting a White Australia did not entail hating others of different races:
“it seems, to-day, to be more than ever necessary to drive home the fact that never has the “White Australia” policy been so menaced FROM WITHIN as now.
… our safety lies with nations which, like Australia, are set on the defence of the white man’s flag.
… But while we stand for our own, we need not decry other races. They have their rights as well as we ours. We have no right to encroach in an unfriendly and conquering manner on them, any more than they on us. Nations should walk neighborly side by side, each learning tolerance of the other.
… For Australia, the great need is a public spirit which says:
We are white. Without enmity to any we are white. Without enmity we will stay white.”[7]
In a speech made in Bendigo in 1914, George Reid (who was Prime Minister 1904-1905) pointed out that the Chinese and Japanese had sought to maintain their racial homogeneity for a long time, and that Australia was simply enacting a similar policy. He also spoke of many Australians having an admiration for those Asian nations:
“the small growing family of British origin in Australia was anxious to maintain the integrity of its race, and that in doing that they were only imitating what the Chinese and Japanese had endeavored to do from time immemorial — (hear, hear) — and that Australians had a genuine admiration for the Japanese and Chinese.
They admired the Japanese for their courage and chivalry in fighting and defeating a much bigger antagonist than themselves, and because in their battles they showed to their enemies as much Christianity as they would expect at Exeter Hall. (Applause.) The Chinese were not a warlike race, but a race full of good qualities.”[8]
In 1929 Billy Hughes (former Prime Minister of Australia for the Labor Party and the Nationalist Party) declared that the White Australia Policy was based upon a desire for “self-preservation”:
“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 … 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.”[9]
In an editorial published in The Australian Worker on 2 February 1949, “J.S.H.” wrote:
“The White Australia Policy, which is a very strong article of our political faith, does not mean that we regard other races as being inferior, but for the preservation of our economic and social standards, and to avoid the tragedies of America, South Africa and other lands we must live our own lives in our own land and in our own way”.[10]
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 that he intended to maintain Australia’s immigration policy, but that did not mean that he was anti-Asian, but rather that he wanted to maintain Australia’s population as it was; indeed, Calwell clearly stated that he respected Asians:
“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.”[11]
Arthur Calwell, like Alfred Deakin before him, declared that his position on White Australia was not prompted by any notion of racial superiority. In an article published in The Argus on 24 October 1949, Calwell said:
“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.”[12]
In the same parliamentary debate, on 9 February 1949, John McEwan (leader of the Country Party, 1958-1971; Prime Minister, 1967-1968) stated that the White Australia policy was not built upon racial hatred:
“there is no greater issue of moment to the Australian people than the maintenance of the White Australia policy.
… We justify that policy on economic grounds and not on grounds of racial discrimination or hatred.”[13]
Comments from other prominent and representative figures in Australian history show that just because various people possessed an opinion in favour of a White Australia, that did not mean that they harboured hatred or ill-will for non-white peoples, or advocated violence against them. Indeed, they could simultaneously have respect for non-white people and have non-white friends whilst also supporting a White Australia (as the those things are not mutually exclusive).
Kenneth Mackay (a member of the Queensland parliament), said in 1896:
“I allude to Quong Tart, that he personally is a citizen any nation might be proud of, but one swallow does not make a summer, nor can one man go bail for a people such as the Chinese are.
Fellow Australians, the alien must go, but remember this, he must not be ill-used. The law which gives him the right to come must also protect him while he is here. … If he still remains do not wreak your vengeance on him, but on your legislators. Demand at their hands, in justice to your country’s future, that Australia must be a white, not a piebald nation.”[14]
Henry Lawson, who has been described as Australia’s leading author and poet, supported a White Australia in his writings, but was also known to have non-white friends, including Aborigines, Asians, and Maoris.
Writing of his trip to New Zealand in 1895, Lawson mentions making friends with a young Maori man aboard the ship:
“a big, good-humored-looking young Maori, propped between the end of the table and the wall, playing a concertina. … we had a drink with him … Then the Maori shouted, then we, then the Maori again, then we again”.[15]
During his time in the land of the Kiwis, Lawson worked in a linemen’s gang with five Maori men in 1894, and described those times as “the most pleasant days of my life”. He also went hunting with the Maoris. Mrs. T. Walsh, a mixed-race Maori, said that when she was a young girl the Lawsons had proposed adopting her and taking her back to Australia with them, but her mother was opposed to the idea. According to Anthony Cashion, who knew Lawson, the writer admired the Maori race.[16]
In 1897, whilst he was working as a teacher in Mangamaunu, in a remote part of New Zealand, Lawson wrote in a letter that he preferred his Maori students to the white ones. In modern times, Lawson’s views and words would be considered as “racist” by some, but his admiration for his Maori pupils shines through:
“The other children are bright — cheerful would describe it better — with the exception of one or two half and quarter castes, in whom it was almost startling to me to see that discontented, sulky — resentful is nearer the word — spirit that Olive Schreiner mentions in her article on South African mixed blood. The nearer the white the more so, it seems to me; but it is not so noticeable in the girls — because they are girls I suppose.
… all my nigs are bright … I’d be crowded and do worse in a large school, white or full-blooded Maori children; but give me the Maori child, by a long chalk.
They read better than white children and earlier, but there might be something yet in the contention that you can only teach the Maori to a certain point. Well, I don’t know, but must find out.”[17]
In his short story “Ah Soon” (1912), Lawson wrote in defence of having Chinese friends, even for those who advocated for a White Australia:
“I am anti-Chinese as far as Australia is concerned; in fact, I am all for a White Australia. But one may dislike, or even hate, a nation without hating or disliking an individual of that nation. One may be on friendly terms; even pals in a way.”[18]
In a 1917 letter Lawson mentioned a friend of his who was a mixed-race Australian Aborigine:
“The last time I was in Narrandera I got lost, or lost my mates (one of them a half-caste aborigine)”.[19]
In a short story, “Black Joe” (1900), written by Henry Lawson about an Aborigine known as “Black Joe”, he speaks of his admiration for some Aboriginal people:
“Black Joe was somewhere between nine and twelve when I first met him, on a visit to my uncle’s station
… Black Joe’s father, old Black Jimmie, lived in a gunyah on the rise at the back of the sheepyards, and shepherded for my uncle.
… I liked Black Jimmie very much, and would willingly have adopted him as a father.
… I admired Joe; I thought him wiser and cleverer than any white boy in the world.”[20]
In 1901 the Reverend James Black Ronald, a Presbyterian clergyman and a Labor Party member of the federal parliament, argued to exclude non-whites from the country, saying that the superior class of Asians should be kept out as they would effectively compete against white Australians (a complimentary, but exclusionary, viewpoint). He also stated that he had no antipathy or hatred against non-whites:
“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.
… 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.
… 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.”[21]
Arthur Calwell, who was Minister for Immigration (1945-1949), and leader of the Australian Labor Party (1960-1967), said in federal parliament in February 1949:
“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.”[22]
Although Arthur Calwell gained an ill-deserved reputation for being anti-Asian, due to the nature of his role as Minister for Immigration (in effect, overseeing the White Australia Policy), he actually had a good relationship with the Chinese community, and was relatively fluent in Chinese.
Jerzy Zubrzycki (1920-2009), who has been described as “the Father of Australian Multiculturalism”, said of Calwell that “he did not consider himself to be superior to any Asians, and he maintained close contact with the Asian community of Sydney and, to a lesser extent, of Melbourne. It is said that he knew one of the Chinese languages; whether it was Mandarin or Cantonese, I am unable to say.”[23]
Arthur Calwell (1896-1973) began learning Chinese when he was 50 years old. He said, in 1954, “I picked up my Chinese mainly by talking with Chinese friends, with some help from elementary textbooks which used phonetic spelling.” Calwell apparently had a passable grasp of Chinese, being able to speak to Chinese audiences, but he was not as fluent as a native speaker of the language.[24]
Like Alfred Deakin in 1901, the Daily Mirror (Sydney), in 1954, declared that Australia’s immigration policy was not motivated by notions of racial superiority:
“The White Australia Policy is a racial policy, but that does not imply that it is a racial superiority policy. The Asiatic peoples may be as proud of their origins and background as we are of ours.
In fact their own rigid immigration restriction policies, excluding white people, are proof that they are. Australians respect their immigration laws, do not quarrel with them, and are not sensitive about them.”[25]
The attitudes of leading figures in Australian society regarding non-white people and a White Australia were much more nuanced than some modern ideologues would have us think.
As can be seen from the foregoing passages, even though Henry Lawson was very much in favour of a White Australia, he was not a “race hater” racist. Like many others, he was perfectly capable of maintaining friendships with non-white people, whilst at the same time supporting a White Australia Policy.
Similarly, even though Arthur Calwell was in charge of Australian’s immigration programme, and was a preeminent defender of the White Australia Policy, he had Chinese friends and could speak Chinese.
The architect of the White Australia Policy, Alfred Deakin, did not harbour any ill-will or hatred against non-white people, nor did he base his creation of the restrictive immigration programme upon notions of racial superiority.
The worldview of these Australians was not one based upon “black and white” attitudes regarding non-European peoples. To characterise all racially-minded people as “race haters” would be just as bigoted as characterising all Chinese as “dog-eaters” or all Muslims as “terrorists”; whilst the stereotype may apply to some people in those groups, it is certainly not applicable to all; indeed, in all three cases, we can reasonably assume that the stereotype does not apply to most.
Ironically, those who stereotype the supporters of the White Australia Policy as terrible, horrible, hate-filled racists are actually basing such a viewpoint upon bigotry and prejudice. To understand the historical attitudes of those who supported a White Australia we should approach the topic with an open mind, without pre-judging or mischaracterising those involved — because, if we were to do so, we would be the ones who are being bigoted and prejudiced.
These supporters of a majority-white Australia did not hate Asians, Africans, and Pacific Islanders, but wanted to live in a country with a predominantly white population, a high standard of living, a Christian ethos, and a Western style of culture. We should be careful that we do not fall prey to the ideological prejudices of our own time, and falsely ascribe to others notions of racial hatred which they did not possess.
References:
[1] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 37, 12 September 1901, p. 4804, column 1
[2] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 39, 27 September 1901, p. 5316
Zelman Cowen, “Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs (1855–1948)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Isaac Isaacs”, Wikipedia
[3] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 41, 9 October 1901, pp. 5819-5820
[4] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1905 no. 45, 10 November 1905, pp. 4943-4944 [PDF pp. 15-16]
See also: “Hindustan”, Wikipedia
[5] “Australian Natives’ Association: Banquet in Melbourne”, The Riverine Herald (Echuca, Vic.), 2 February 1904, p. 2
R. Norris, “Alfred Deakin (1856–1919)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Alfred Deakin”, Wikipedia
[6] “The race and the alien”, The Worker (Sydney, NSW), 16 April 1908, p. 7
[7] Mary Gilmore, “The white man’s flag”, The Australian Worker (Sydney, NSW), 22 April 1920, p. 9
[8] ““White Australia” policy: Comments by Sir George Reid”, The Bendigonian (Bendigo, Vic.), 10 February 1914, p. 18
W. G. McMinn, “Sir George Houstoun Reid (1845–1918)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“George Reid”, Wikipedia
[9] 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 [the Aurora catalogue entry for this book gives a publication date of 1929]
[10] J.S.H., “Editorial: Vicious press campaign against Labor”, The Australian Worker (Sydney, NSW), 2 February 1949, p. 3
[11] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 6, 9 February 1949, pp. 65-66 [PDF pp. 28-29]
[12] “Can be no half-measures about White Australia”, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 24 October 1949, p. 2
[13] 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
[14] “The Chinese question: Speech by Mr. Kenneth Mackay, M.L.A.”, The Australian Star (Sydney, NSW), 10 September 1896, p. 3
[15] “Some reflections on a voyage across Cook’s Straits (N. Z.)”, The Worker (Sydney, NSW), 12 January 1895, p. 1
[16] W. H. Pearson, “Henry Lawson Among Maoris”, Canberra (ACT): Australian National University Press, 1968, pp. 86, 89-90 [PDF pp. 108, 111-112]
Also available in text form at: “Henry Lawson Among Maoris”, Victoria University of Wellington (see chapter 5, section III)
[17] Colin Roderick (editor), Henry Lawson: Letters: 1890-1922 Sydney (NSW): Angus and Robertson, 1970, p. 70
W. H. Pearson, “Henry Lawson Among Maoris”, Canberra (ACT): Australian National University Press, 1968, p. 171 [PDF p. 192]
[18] Henry Lawson, “Ah Soon: A Chinese-Australian story”, The Lone Hand (Sydney, NSW), 1 August 1912, pp. 324-328
Also published in: Leonard Cronin (editor), A Fantasy of Man: Henry Lawson: Complete Works 1901-1922, Sydney: Lansdowne, 1984, pp. 500-503
Brian Matthews, “Henry Lawson (1867–1922)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Henry Lawson”, Wikipedia
[19] Colin Roderick (editor), Henry Lawson: Letters: 1890-1922 Sydney (NSW): Angus and Robertson, 1970, p. 262
[20] Henry Lawson, “Black Joe”, in: Over the Sliprails, Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1900, pp. 104-112
[21] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 36, 6 September 1901, p. 4664-4665
“Reverend James Black Ronald (1861-1941): Member for Southern Melbourne (Victoria) 1901-1906”, Parliament of Australia
“James Ronald”, Wikipedia
[22] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1949 no. 6, 9 February 1949, p. 66, column 1
[23] Jerzy Zubrzycki, “Arthur Calwell and the origin of post-war immigration” [bureau of immigration, multicultural and population research (Canberra), 1995, p. 8, column 2], Making Multicultural Australia (Board of Studies NSW)
See also: PF Journey, “Two Wongs do make it right: A new Asian Odyssey for Australia”, Webdiary [see comment “Wong again”, by “Dr Jack Woodforde”, 8 December 2007, 6:09pm, re “Calwell’s warm relations with the Chinese community”]
“Jerzy Zubrzycki”, Wikipedia
[24] ““Pidgin” not for Calwell”, The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), 6 December 1954, p. 28
“Arthur Calwell”, Wikipedia
[25] “White Australia must stay”, Daily Mirror (Sydney, NSW), 11 March 1954, p. 22 (Late Final Extra)
Leave a Reply