[Editor: This chapter is part of The White Australia Policy: The Rise and Fall of Australia’s Racial Ideology (2025).]
The Post and Telegraph Act
The Post and Telegraph Act of 1901 was a fairly standard piece of legislation. It was designed to bring all of the postal services of the various states under federal control, unifying them into one postal body, and to provide a general set of postal regulations. Prior to federation (1901), each colony had its own postage stamps and mail delivery system; these arrangements remained in place until the federal government was able to organise a national organisation to be in charge of the previously state-based postal functions, communication services, and relevant infrastructure.
There were two sections of note in the Post and Telegraph Act.
The first was a ban upon delivering mail to individuals and organisations engaged in gambling (this especially impacted companies such as Tattersalls).
The second was a ban upon non-white labour being used on ships carrying Australian mails. This controversial clause was initiated by the federal Labor Party parliamentarians, who put forward an amendment which stated that all contractual agreements to carry Australian mail were required to include a condition that only white labour would be employed to carry the mail.
This meant that all ships which were contracted to carry Australian mail (and which were therefore financially funded by the federal government) were legally required to employ only white workers, as a condition of their contracts.
Although this amendment also applied to land-based contracted carrying of Australian mail, it was primarily designed to protect the jobs of white maritime workers, due to the practice of some shipping companies hiring non-white labour at significantly lower rates of pay than those demanded by white sailors. Concerns had also been expressed that the hiring of coloured sailors could also negatively impact upon the working conditions on the ships (as sailors from lesser-developed lands had lower expectations regarding working conditions, and were therefore more likely to accept poorer conditions in their working environment).
In the House of Representatives on 25 July 1901, Chris Watson (leader of the Labor Party), spoke out against the employment of lascars (Indians) by shipping companies:
“For many years past there has been an agitation among a great number of people against the continued employment of coloured races on mail boats
… ever since the Orient Company started opposition to the P. and O. Company, the former company had been employing white labour, and at the same time had to compete against the P. and O. Company, whose crews were composed almost entirely of lascars. I think the only exceptions so far as the P. and O. boats were concerned were in respect to the engineers and officers and quartermasters, who were Europeans.
… We have to consider that this is a question affecting not only those who travel by the mail boats between here and the old land, but one which very materially affects the conditions of employment of seamen right along the Australian coast
… The importance of this new development — in which the Orient Company have apparently at last had to succumb to the competition of the P. and O. Company in respect to the employment of coloured labour — affects every seaman on the coast, because these mail steamers compete in regard to the passenger traffic to a large extent, and in a lesser degree, perhaps, in respect to the carriage of cargo, with the vessels on the coast owned by our own people and manned by white labour.
If we are to have an extension of this new development to the whole of the vessels employed by the Orient Company in the Australian mail service, it seems almost a certainty that the other lines of steamers trading with the old country, which are not subsidized, will be also compelled to follow suit.
… we are interested by reason of the competition between these vessels and our own coasters in insuring that those who own the coastal vessels should not have to compete on an unfair footing with these steamers manned by coloured races.
… the Orient Company after a struggle extending over many years, during which they have been anxious to properly preserve the British seamen as a class and keep them from absolute extinction — which seems to be the way they are going, under the present policy of the British people — are now driven by the fierce competition of many other lines, and especially of the P. and O. Company, to employ coloured labour. The P. and O. Company has been allowed for years to continue, even with the subsidies that were paid, to employ lascars at very low rates of wages, and not only at low rate of wages, but under conditions as to air space and accommodation under which the Board of Trade will not allow any white man to work.
… I contend that, notwithstanding that these lascars are British subjects, we have the right to object to anything that will have the effect of lowering the tone of the race generally or will have the effect of unfairly competing with our own citizens who are already employed on the coast.
… We hear constant complaints in the magazines and other thoughtful journals about the disappearance of the purely British seaman, not only in the old land, but also on our own coast. Other nations, I am glad to say, take a little livelier interest in the encouragement of their maritime populations. We do not find, as far as Germany is concerned, that her subsidized mail boats employ other than her own citizens, and in respect to America they put a clause in their Acts, which govern the granting of subsidies to mail steamers and others working under their flag, that they must employ at least a certain proportion of their own subjects before they are eligible to claim any subsidy.
… It was bad enough in all conscience while the thing was confined to one particular company. Large company as that is, still it only did a fraction of the business that was transacted throughout Australasia; but when we see the sheet-anchor of white employment disappearing, and the Orient Company forced to give in to the severe competition with which it has had to contend, surely it becomes a matter for the reconsideration of the Government whether they shall not take some steps to preclude the possibility of the further extension of this evil.
… I do ask the serious and earnest consideration of honorable members to the danger that seems to be before us in respect to the employment of these lascars. Especially do I ask the Government to reconsider their position before the Postal Bill comes on for discussion in this House; and that an opportunity may be given honorable members of pronouncing in favour of a white Australia, so far as our maritime population, as well as that within the borders of the Commonwealth itself, is concerned.”[1]
Chris Watson also used the argument that Indian sailors could not be relied upon in times of an emergency, and cited two examples:
“Most honorable members will probably recollect the circumstances attending the wreck of the Quetta on the Queensland coast, and I understand that it was because of the behaviour of the lascars on that British-India boat on that occasion that the Queensland Government were forced by public opinion in that State to take steps to prevent the repetition of such a scene in connexion with subsidized mail boats. I do not wish to say a great deal with respect to the behaviour of the crew on that occasion, but it is well-known that the boats were rushed by the lascars, and that a very poor chance was given to women and children and other passengers, probably unable to take care of themselves, to save their lives. … they were panic-stricken and rushed the boats.
I have another instance in my mind. I think it was in the case of the steamer Deccan in the Red Sea, where an almost similar set of circumstances occurred, and the whole evidence goes to prove that, while for the mere purpose of stoking or doing casual work in fine weather, these lascars may be fairly efficient, it is certain that in time of stress and trouble — which is the time when everything in the way of stamina, and coolness, and courage is required — they are wanting, and it does seem to me that we, who participate in any proceeding which encourages the employment of that class of men in duties of this sort, are certainly moral participators in the responsibility, which must be shouldered by those who have charge of these affairs.”[2]
Therefore, when the time came to debate the proposed legislation, the Labor Party suggested an amendment that stipulated that Australian mail, subsidized by the federal government, could only be carried by white workers. This necessarily entailed that all ships which carried Australian mail had to be crewed by white labour.
The “whites only” section of the legislation was initiated in parliament by Billy Hughes, the Labor member for West Sydney (who was later to become Prime Minister of Australia, 1915-1923).[3]
The relevant rule was embodied in section 16 of the Act:
“16. — (1.) No contract or arrangement for the carriage of mails shall be entered into on behalf of the Commonwealth unless it contains a condition that only white labour shall be employed in such carriage.
(2.) This condition shall not apply to the coaling and loading of ships at places beyond the limits of the Commonwealth.”[4]
The postage policy was problematic, because the post conveyed between Australia and the United Kingdom (a key part of Australian overseas mail) was also funded by the British government, and involved companies which were not Australian in origin. The issue was hotly debated in the federal parliament, but the clause was eventually approved.
At a public meeting in Maitland (NSW) in January 1902, the Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, said that using white labour instead of coloured labour “may mean more money by way of subsidies, but the determination of the country is that its mails shall be carried only by people of its own race and sympathies, even if the expense is greater”.[5]
A few months later, in November 1902, Edmund Barton explained the legislation to an audience of his constituents, at another public meeting held in Maitland:
“we put through the Post and Telegraphs Act — 159 clauses and schedules — a machinery Act for consolidating six State Acts, and making a continental department of what was formerly six departments. It was the subject of much discussion.
The first was over the section providing for only white labour to be employed by companies which contract to carry the over-sea mails of the Commonwealth. We do not desire to pay companies that employ Africans or Asiatics, to carry our mails.
Another debatable section was that to prevent the Postmaster-General delivering letters to people engaged in promoting lotteries or games of chance.”[6]
Whilst the clause banning non-whites from being employed in the conveyance of Australian mail received support from the democratic socialist (leftist) Labor Party and the (centrist) Protectionist Party, there was political opposition to the idea, especially from those in the conservative (rightist) Free Trade Party. Many conservative supporters of a White Australia believed that the ban was irrelevant to the racial demographics of Australia, as it was not relating to immigration, and considered that the clause was an unnecessary restriction of normal business practices and free trade.
George Reid, who was the Opposition (Free Trade) leader (and subsequently Prime Minister, August 1904 to July 1905), said in a speech in Bowral (NSW) on 20 May 1904:
“I am a thorough believer in the white Australia policy, but we have placed ourselves in a ridiculously false position in regard to mail contracts.
This is another case where one labour leader steered the ship of State. … The result is we must have a special mail service of our own all because one place in the world which is nearly as hot as another place out of it cannot be allowed to be a sneaking hole for a coloured man. … It throws the grand principle of a white Australia into the regions of utter bathos and contempt.
… How we can disrupt these great arteries of Imperial commerce upon such a mean slavish subjection to the labour party I can’t understand.”[7]
As could be expected, the international shipping companies were unhappy with the new regulations. As many ocean-going ships employed non-white labour in various capacities, it was problematic and troublesome for the companies to switch over to exclusively white labour for the Australian mail runs.[8]
Nonetheless, the Post and Telegraph Act ensured that Australian sailors had more employment opportunities. Although it may not have been an integral part of the White Australia Policy, it was one of the numerous legislative expressions of the White Australia agenda.
References:
[1] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 30, 25 July 1901, pp. 3054-3056 [PDF pp. 15-17]
[2] Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1901 no. 30, 25 July 1901, pp. 3055-3056 [PDF pp. 16-17]
[3] “House of Representatives: Post and Telegraph Bill: White labor question”, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW), 6 September 1901, p. 6, column 1 [“Mr. Hughes (N.S.W.) moved the addition of a new clause, to follow clause 15”]
L. F. Fitzhardinge, “William Morris (Billy) Hughes (1862–1952)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“Billy Hughes”, Wikipedia
[4] “Post and Telegraph Act 1901 (No 12 of 1901)”, Australasian Legal Information Institute [see section 16 on p. 189, PDF p. 5]
[5] “The Prime Minister’s speech: An able and interesting exposition: His policy explained and defended”, Clarence & Richmond Examiner (Grafton, NSW), 14 January 1902, p. 5
[6] “Sir Edmund Barton’s address: The work of the session: Present and future politics in the Commonwealth: An enthusiastic reception”, The Maitland Weekly Mercury (West Maitland, NSW), 29 November 1902, p. 11
[7] “The federal campaign: Mr. Reid speaks at Bowral”, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW), 18 August 1903 (Second Edition), pp. 5-6 (see p. 6, column 2)
See also: “Preferential trade”, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 21 August 1903, p. 5
Commonwealth of Australia, “Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives: Official Hansard”, 1904 no. 20, 20 May 1904, p. 1386 [PDF p. 48], column 2
W. G. McMinn, “Sir George Houstoun Reid (1845–1918)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“George Reid”, Wikipedia
[8] For example: “Shipping items”, Daily Commercial News and Shipping List (Sydney, NSW), 19 December 1902, p. 5 [see section: “The Orient Company and the Lascar”]
Leave a Reply