This still very relevant article is also a valuable history of exclusionist Australian immigration policies and look at its white supremacist official labor movement, as well as the larger question of migration and workers. Written for pre-conference discussion of the Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat, a subdivision of the Red International of Labor Unions.

‘The ‘White Australia Policy’ and Problem of Immigration’ by S. Carpenter from Pan-Pacific Monthly (San Francisco). Nos. 26 & 27. May & June, 1929.

I. INTRODUCTION

THE problem of Immigration is of outstanding interest and importance in Australian politics and economics. It gains in importance when analyzed in its relation to the Australian and international labor movements, a task which so far, it seems, has been woefully neglected.

Here is an island continent with an area larger than that of the U.S.A., and with a population smaller than that of New York City. Add to this the fact that Australia is situated in the center of the Pacific, which means in the very heart of the most probable arena of the next world war between the three main competitors for predominance in the Pacific (Britain, Japan and U.S.A.); then the proximity of Japan and its lack of natural resources and its comparative over-population; the proximity also of such vast reservoirs of cheap labor as China, India and the Pacific Islands; also the post-war immigration restrictions by the U.S.A. Government, and the growing misery of vast masses of workers seeking economic relief from political and economic terrorism in Italy, Poland, Jugoslavia, etc.; and last, but not least, the growing unemployment in the mother country, in England, with the growing fear of revolution by the British bourgeoisie, coupled of course with their frantic efforts of the British imperialists to people their Pacific out-post–Australia–with ready material for the next war and you get a sketchy outline of the ramifications of the immigration problem for Australia and, in the first place, for the Australian and international working class.

The confusion and distortions which are characteristic of the Immigration Problem as dealt with by the spokesmen of Australian capitalism, in which category we must include the politicians of the A.L.P. (Australian Labor Party) and of the various so-called Labor Governments, have as rich a range as the colors of the spectrum.

The treatment of the immigration problem in the past, ranges from a bourgeois-professorial treatise on the possible affinity or aversion found between the blood corpuscles of a true 100% British-Australian and those of a Chinese, Japanese or “Southern-European” (this is the sort of stuff the Institute of Pacific Relations, Honolulu, indulges in); it then passes through the phase of the most blatant and asinine declamations by nationalist politicians and parliamentarians about “the superiority of the white race”…Then through a diplomatic but severe declaration by the nationalist Prime Minister that the “White Australia policy” is one of the basic principles of this country. Then, it passes through the peculiar nationalist jingoism of the Labor Party, whose policy on immigration cannot be distinguished from that of the diehard Nationalist Party. For not only does the A.L.P. carry on its official programme the plank:

“The cultivation of an Australian sentiment, the maintenance of a White Australia, etc., etc…”

but it has also introduced an even “subtler” differentiation in racial prejudice and race hatred by systematically feeding the workers with a new poisonous bit of political charlatanry: “The Southern European” prejudice. Hardly an issue of the “Labor Daily” or the “Australian Worker”, but we find vicious attacks on those “Southern Europeans”, a term invariably used by these “Labor” demagogues as synonymous with “scab” or second rate people.

And, finally, at the other extremity of the immigration spectrum, is the attitude (not always clearly enough defined) of the more militant, revolutionary section of the Australian working class which, instinctively more than knowingly and deliberately, feels that the so-called “White Australian policy” in all its shades and variations, is incompatible with the true interests of the working class and with the principles of proletarian internationalism.

But the “White Australia” doctrine and policy is only one aspect of the Australian immigration problem. Equally important is the problem of non-Asiatic–in the main British immigration.

As we shall see later on, in the section dealing with State aided mass immigration, the Australian and British governments are cooperating in schemes to settle en masse hundreds of thousands of British workers in Australia. Special loans are set aside by Britain for financing these mass settlement schemes (about half a million emigrants are thus to be got rid of by British capitalism in the next decade).

British Emigrants

This aspect of the immigration problem is of even greater immediate importance than that of Asiatic immigration, for it is an essential factor in the current policies of British and Australian capitalism, and it affects immediately and directly the working class of Australia. This should be borne in mind when considering the attitude of the militant section of the working class on the question of immigration.

The outstanding features of these mass-migration schemes are (1) the desire of British capitalism to get rid of its dangerous “surplus” labor–unemployment having definitely become chronic in that country; (2) the joint effort of British and Australian capitalism to reduce the working and living conditions of the Australian working class to the British and European level, and (3) imperialistic considerations in relation to Australia’s position in the Pacific and the prospects of an imperialist war in the Pacific area.

II. HISTORICAL AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF AUSTRALIAN IMMIGRATION

For a clear understanding of the specific character of the Australian immigration problem, it will be necessary to give a brief sketch of its historical and economic background. This will enable us to distinguish between the original economic basic factor of the “White Australian” policy and its later accretions of political demagogy and racial prejudice for nationalistic and imperialist purposes.

It will also enable us to define more clearly our working class attitude on immigration.

The policy of restricting immigration into Australia–now generally known as the “White Australia” policy–became definitely established in 1901, after the federation of the several colonies into the Commonwealth Government. This policy was directed, in fact though not in name, against Asiatic immigration. But the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 was not the beginning, it was rather the culmination of several decades of partial restriction of Asiatic immigration by the individual colonial governments, mainly N.S.W., Queensland and Victoria.

Nature of Early Asiatic Immigration

In the early days of the Colony, there was no such problem as Asiatic immigration. It should be borne in mind that Australia was originally a convict colony. So long as the settlers had a sufficient supply of free convict labor, they were not interested in the huge reservoir of cheap labor in the Pacific. But towards the middle of the 19th century, with the rapid expansion of the pastoral interests and the consequent shortage of labor which made itself felt, the pastoralist interests turned towards China, India and the Pacific islands in an effort to obtain coolie labor. They naturally sought Government subsidies for their coolie importing schemes. In 1842, for instance, there was formed a special “Coolie Association” for the purpose of “obtaining permission to import coolies and other laborers from the East Indies”.

But even in those early days, these efforts of the coolie importers met with the determined opposition of the workers both in the colony and in England.

Sir Henry Parkes wrote at the time about the pastoralists “who had been accustomed to having the convicts’ toil for nothing, and they cannot bring their minds to paying for that of the free men.”

During this period and until the end of last century, Asiatic immigration to Australia was mainly of two categories: (1) Contract or indentured laborers brought from Asia and Polynesia, and (2) the influx of Asiatic laborers in considerable numbers, beginning with the rush of the Chinese to the Victorian goldfields in the early fifties.

Contract or Indentured Labor

In search for cheap labor, the Australian pastoralists first turned to China, where contract emigration from the southern seaports to various countries had been carried on since 1845. In 1848 a shipment of 100 adult coolies and 21 boys arrived in N.S.W. from Amay. The men were to receive 212 dollars a month, and boys, a dollar and a half, with food rations, “as specified”…

During the early gold rush, when white labor became very scarce, new efforts were made to obtain Chinese coolies, but the gold fever spread to the Chinese themselves. Besides, the inhuman treatment of the coolies, and the unusually high mortality rate among them during their voyage out, caused many of them to abscond and to be “troublesome”. Attempts to obtain coolies from India were also made, but they too failed, because of opposition from the Indian government, which refused to allow the emigration of its subjects.

But as gold diggings became less remunerative and as the gold fever subsided, the scarcity of labor became less keen. Between the early sixties and the end of the 19th century, efforts to secure Kanaka (Pacific island), Chinese and Indian indentured labor were made chiefly from tropical and sub-tropical districts of Queensland, the Northern Territory and West Australia.

Kanaka Traffic

By the beginning of 1868, 2017 Kanakas had been brought into Queensland. But the abuses connected with their recruitment, transport and subsequent treatment, were so great that the government had to interfere.

But by 1891; the number of Kanakas still under contract in Queensland was 9362 out of a total of 46,387 introduced since the beginning of the traffic. Between 1892 (when the traffic was resumed) and 1900, another 11,000 were taken to Queensland.

Japan as a Labor Reservoir

When the Kanaka traffic was reopened in 1892, it was stipulated that the imported laborers should be employed only in the cane fields. Planters then turned to Japan as a possible reservoir to supply cheap labor for the other branches of the sugar industry.

In 1893 a large consignment of Japanese coolies was landed at Cairns, Townsville and in other parts of North Queensland.

The opposition, mainly from the labor camp, to this immigration of Japanese was no less strenuous than to the immigration of Chinese coolie labor, especially since the Japanese traffic was unregulated, no limitation being placed on the kind of work for which the Japanese workers were indentured, and the terms of the contracts were not publicly known. Moreover, there was introduced the element of fear of the Japanese government as a mighty imperialist power.

In South and West Australia, hundreds of indentured Chinese coolies were introduced annually, with official sanction, on railway construction, etc., until further importation was prohibited by federal law in 1901.

Today, there is no indentured colored labor in Australia, except in the pearl fisheries. Asiatics may indenture for the fisheries under special permit (mainly Japanese, Malayans and Papuans).

Unindentured (or Free) Immigration of Asiatics

We have seen how until about the middle of last century, there were practically no free Asiatic immigrants into Australia. A few Chinese merchants were the sole exception. Asiatic immigration had thus been actually sought for by the Australian pastoralists and other capitalist interests.

But as soon as the news of the gold discoveries circulated in China, there began an inrush of Chinese to the goldfields of Victoria and N.S.W. This took place under what is known as the “credit ticket” system already in operation to Malaysia and California, and now extended by Chinese speculators and exploiters to Australia. Under this system the cost of transport was usually advanced to the emigrant laborer at an exorbitant rate of interest (usually on the security of the persons of the debtor’s relatives), and on the understanding that the creditor, through his agent, should exercise control over the debtor’s activities until the principal and interest were paid off.

The First Clashes Between White and Asiatic Labor

By 1854, about 2,000 Chinese had gathered on the Victorian gold fields. It was in the mining industry, therefore, that trouble first arose as the result of the competition of the Chinese miners. In Bendigo (Victoria) in 1855, and Lambing Flats (N.S.W.) in 1861, serious disturbances arose from attempts to expel the Chinese forcibly from the diggings. In N.S.W., the European miners formed themselves into an Anti-Chinese “Miners’ Protective League”. The program outlined by this League is of interest:

“…The expulsion of the Chinese; repeal of the gold duty; police promulgation of the word of God throughout the mining districts; protection of native industries, etc.”

(cited by J.T. Suthcliffe in his “History of the T.U. Movement”).

A general uprising was only narrowly prevented by government troops. Various forms of restricting Chinese were adopted by the Victorian, South Australian and N.S.W. governments. License fees and entrance taxes were introduced.

These measures, however, did not prevent the Chinese from landing in other colonies, and travelling overland to the diggings in Victoria and N.S.W. Thus, according to the 1861 census, there were about 13,000 Chinese in N.S.W., and nearly 25,000 or over 11% of the adult population in Victoria. But so far there had not yet crystallized any general opinion against the principle of Asiatic immigration. This developed first in the Trade Unions which had originally opposed all proposals for the importation of indentured labor. The Trade Unions later began to oppose the immigration of free Chinese because of the difference in standard of living.

III. THE TRADE UNIONS AND ASIATIC IMMIGRATION

It is interesting to trace the evolution of what is now known as the “White Australia” policy, as it was shaped by the Australian Trade Union movement, until today, hardly a Trade Union leader, and certainly no Labor Party politician, is capable of or dares to question such a “policy” from a critical working class point of view.

In 1873 there was a protracted Miners’ Strike at Clunes (Victoria). The miners had refused to work Saturday afternoon shifts. The mine owners thereupon proceeded to fill the places of the strikers with Chinese laborers.

About two years later there was considerable trouble in Queensland over the same question.

In 1878 there was another serious conflict between the Trade Unions and the Australasian Steam Navigation Co. The Seamen of N.S.W. went on strike against the employment of Chinese seamen on these boats.

The concerted action of the Trade Unions of the various colonies (who had called an inter-colonial Congress in 1879) resulted in the elimination of the Chinese seamen. Pressure from the trade unions became so great that the Premiers of the colonies met in Conference in 1881 and agreed to restrictive measures.

Then occurred the crisis of 1888. The report of a Chinese Commission which had investigated and reported on the conditions. and treatment of the Chinese immigrants in European colonies and in Australia especially, coupled with the arrival or expected arrival (“invasion”) of a large number of Chinese to the Northern Territory, created a panic among the White Australians, and immediately severe restrictive measures were adopted.

Chinese immigration into Australia was now effectively restricted. After 1893 the desirability to extend the Chinese restriction to all Asiatics was frequently discussed in parliaments. The importation of Japanese by sugar planters in Queensland increased the antagonism of the Labor Party.

Development of Policy

How the development of the White Australia policy is reflected in the agendas and decisions of the Trade Union Congresses (the inter-colonial T.U. congresses, eight of which took place before federation in 1900), may be seen from the following.

At the first Inter-colonial Trade Union. Congress in 1879, the first point on the agenda was “immigration, both Asiatic and otherwise”. The policy adopted was that of restricting Asiatic immigration.

At the 1891 Congress resolutions were passed in favor of severe restriction of Asiatic immigration.

Prior to the election of 1889 in Victoria, the Parliamentary Committee of the Melbourne Trades and Labor Council drew up a platform. Among the 14 planks of this platform we find the demand for

“A bill to prevent the introduction of criminal, pauper or Asiatic labor”.

In 1896 (prior to the 1897 elections), at a meeting of the Trades Hall Council (Melbourne) a sub-committee composed of representatives of the T.H.C. and the United Labor and Liberal Party of Victoria, formulated a platform in which, under the heading. “Social Reforms”, we find:

“Prohibition of importation of Chinese and Asiatic labor and of workmen under contract”.

Prior to the 1893 election in Queensland, the Workers’ Political Association issued a platform with the demand:

“Exclusion of colored, Asiatic and contract or indentured labor”.

After the last of the Inter-colonial T.U. Congresses (1898), there was held, in May 1899, a special conference, to work out at scheme for the federation of inter-colonial labor organizations. Among the many objects enumerated, we find:

“To prevent the influx of colored races”.

And, finally, the finishing touch to this “White Australian” picture was given by the Third Interstate Congress of the Political Labor Party (1905) which adopted the following objective:

“The cultivation of an Australian sentiment based upon the maintenance of racial purity, and the development in Australia of an enlightened self-reliant community”. In the A.L.P. Program of today this objective has been edited to read:

“The cultivation of an Australian sentiment, the maintenance of a White Australia, etc.…”

While we are on the subject of the A.L.P. attitude on Asiatic immigration, it is difficult to resist the question “Wherein does the A.L.P. and the official Trade Union movement differ from the arch-reactionary Nationalist Party on this vital question?”

The answer is even more irresistible.

As Mr. Bruce sees it:

“In a speech of June 23rd, Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister, referred to the question of immigration. He said that the Commonwealth did not control the number of British migrants. That was an affair belonging to each of the States, which made requisitions for the numbers they required. The Commonwealth did, however, control alien immigration. Australia had a “White Australia” policy which was fundamental and vital, but which was not considered favorably in all quarters…The question had been raised at the League of Nations, but never discussed, as Australia held it was a domestic question. As the League gained in power, however, it was probable that the policy would come in for severe criticism.

“Australia was an undeveloped country, and economically, the eyes of the world were upon it. They had to be in a position which was unchallengeable, to have a national aspiration, and with that to maintain the British character of the Australian people. Australia was 98% British and was determined to remain so.”

(From “The Age”, Melbourne, 25th June, 1928. Cited by I.L.O. Monthly Record of Migration.)

IV. GREAT BRITAIN AND “WHITE AUSTRALIA”

Before dealing with the specific problem of peopling Australia with increasing numbers of “surplus” workers from Great Britain, and with the policy of assisted migration which the Australian Government has been pursuing for many years in conjunction and with the aid of the British Government, it will be interesting to note the attitude of British imperialism towards the question of Asiatic Immigration into Australia and towards the “White Australia” policy.

This attitude on the part of British imperialism is necessarily determined by diplomatic and imperialist considerations in relation to the other imperialist powers in the Pacific. It would seem quite natural for Britain to be generally in favor of a “White Australia” with a predominantly British population, in order to make Australia secure as a military and naval outpost in the Pacific, in relation to both Japan and the United States.

But in view of certain “delicate” diplomatic relations of Great Britain with Japan, e.g., military alliances against the growing rivalry of the U.S.A., it is rather “unbecoming” for Britain to state openly that she is in favor of the exclusion of Asiatics from Australia. It is on this issue of form rather than substance, that occasional conflicts arose between the Australian and the British imperial governments.

Thus when the inter-colonial conference of Premiers (1896) not only rejected the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, but also agreed to extend the provisions of the Chinese restrictions (described above) to all Asiatics, which meant Japan particularly, these decisions were vetoed by the Crown. Britain claimed that the proposed restriction of Indian immigration affected the “unity of the Empire”. Moreover the rapprochement between England and Japan which later developed into the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, was being already fostered, and no colonial action that might impair these good relations with Japan could be allowed Japan’s protests could not be ignored.

When the question was discussed one year later at the Colonial Conference held at London (1897), Joseph Chamberlain, who was at the time Colonial Secretary, expressed the sympathy of the British Government with

“the determination of the white inhabitants of these colonies, who are in comparatively close proximity to millions and hundreds of millions of Asiatics, that there shall not be an influx of people alien in civilization, alien in religion, alien in customs–whose influx moreover would most seriously interfere with the legitimate rights of the existing labor population”.

But Mr. Chamberlain asked the Premiers to consider whether they could not achieve this aim without saying in so many words “exclude Asiatics”. He then suggested the famous “Dictation Test”, which provided for the exclusion of immigrants who could not write out and sign in a “European language” a certain application or dictation. New South Wales, West Australia, and Tasmania readily adopted the language test.

V. THE PRESENT IMMIGRATION LAWS AND THEIR OPERATION

THE Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, which was adopted after the federation of the colonies into the present form of Commonwealth Government, already definitely embodied the so-called “White Australia” policy, for the first time on a pan-Australian scale. This law superseded all previous immigration legislation of the various states. By this law, an immigrant might be required to write out, at official dictation, a passage of fifty words in any European language. It is thus clear from the wording of this law that it was intended as an instrument of exclusion of Asiatic immigrants. It was understood from the first that European immigrants would not be required to pass this test.

The Japanese Government protested. To soothe the Japanese Government, an amending act (1905) provided the substitution of “any prescribed language” for the words “any European language.” But no regulations having been drawn up prescribing any language, the original act is still de facto in force. Students, merchants, etc., are admitted by a special passport arrangement. In 1912 certain concessions that had been made to Chinese of British nationality (Hongkong) were offered to all Chinese and later to all Asiatic and Pacific island nationals. In 1919 certain passport exemptions were made in respect to Indians.

Important Amendments to the Original Immigration Law

Amending Immigration Act 1920: Principal provisions of this act are those prohibiting the entry of (a) any person who advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth or of any State or of any other civilized country, or of all forms of law, etc. (b) and of Germans, Austrians, etc….a consequence of the World War.

Amending Immigration Act 1924.

It is required that every alien immigrant must be in possession of at least £40 landing money, unless his maintenance has been guaranteed by one residing in Australia.

Amending Immigration Act 1925.

Several important amendments, the principal of which are those providing power (1) to prohibit the entry of any person declared by the minister to be–in his opinion from information received from the Government of the U.K. or of any other part of the British Dominions, or from any foreign government, through official or diplomatic channels, undesirable as an inhabitant or visitor, etc. (2) to prohibit by proclamation either wholly or partially, either permanently or temporarily, the immigration of aliens of any specified nationality, race, class or occupation (a) on account of the economic, industrial or other conditions existing in the Commonwealth; (b) because the persons specified are deemed unsuitable; (c) because they are deemed unlikely to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Australian citizenship within a reasonable time after their entry. (3) To deport persons other than those born in Australia who have been concerned in Australia in acts directed towards hindering or obstructing, to the prejudice of the public, the transport or the conveyance of passengers, or the provision of necessary services and whose presence in Australia is considered to be injurious to the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

It will be seen from the above amendments to the Immigration Law that Australian capitalism was not late to fall into line of shaping its laws in conformity with post-war developments on the industrial and political fields. The spectre of Communism, and the growing industrial unrest in this country, coupled with the function of Australian capitalism as an outpost of British Imperialism, are clearly seen to be the motives of such provisions, as the exclusion of “Any person who advocates the overthrow of…any State or any civilized country…”

This means that a rebel worker who had fought against say the Spanish Fascist Dictatorship of Primo de Rivera or an Italian worker who is opposed to the Fascist terror of Mussolini, could be refused entry into this country. The Amending Act of 1925 (noted above) widens these provisions even further. “To prohibit the entry of any person declared by the Minister to be undesirable from information received from the Government of the U.K. or from any other foreign Government…”

On the whole the policy of Asiatic exclusion has been effectively enforced. Since the inauguration of the Commonwealth, the Asiatic population of Australia has decreased. In 1901 47,014 Asiatics were resident, but in 1921 there were only 28,087, including 17,009 Chinese, 2860 Hindus, 2856 Japanese and 1083 Malays.

The original Act further prohibited the entrance of immigrants under contract agreement to perform manual labor within the Commonwealth, except (a) crews of coasting vessels employed at the ruling rate of wages, (b) persons exempted by the Minister as possessing special skill needed in Australia. This provision was the result of Labor influence. Its administration caused even more trouble than the exclusion of Asiatics…

Therefore, in 1905, the Deakin Ministry introduced a separate measure to deal with contract immigrants. The contract must be in writing, and the approval of the ministry has to be obtained before the landing of the immigrant. Such approval will not be given if the contract is made to affect an industrial dispute, or if the remuneration and other terms offered are not as advantageous to the immigrants as those obtaining for workers of the same class at the place where the contract is to be carried out.

Since 1921 it has become evident that Australia must expect an increased immigration, consequent upon the restrictive policy adopted by the U.S.A.

In January, 1923, the arrival in Sydney of about 300 Italians, most of them destitute, brought the question of Italian immigration into public notice. An agreement was reached with the Italian Government (which refused to agree to a quota) to issue passports only to those who had £40 or those nominated by residents in Australia.

The tentative restriction of European immigration by agreement with the governments concerned was extended at the end of 1924 to cover intended immigrants from Greece, Jugo-Slavia, and Albania. Not more than 100 immigrants of each nationality will be admitted in any one month, and they are also required to possess £40 or be nominated by a resident.

VI. BRITISH IMMIGRATION INTO AUSTRALIA

We have already pointed out that British capitalism looks to Australia to absorb increasing numbers of “surplus” workers from Britain. This is done not only with the object of relieving British capitalism of the growing pressure (economic and political) caused by unemployment at home, but also with the object of flooding the Australian labor market, and so to force down working conditions, making production in Australia more profitable both for the new Australian and the many British-Australian manufacturers. Other factors entering into this scheme are: the desire to increase the Australian demand for commodities and to strengthen Britain’s preparations for war.

It is for this reason that migration is the central question in plans for Australian development.

Migration Agreement Between British and Commonwealth Governments

On April 8, 1925, the British and Commonwealth Governments entered into an agreement under which it is proposed to furnish to the Governments of the various states, loan moneys at a very low rate of interest, to enable suitable areas of land to be made available for settlement, or to enable such public works to be carried out as will tend to develop and extend settlement areas, or will enable areas already settled to carry larger populations. The maximum amount of loan moneys provided for in the agreement is 34 million pounds. It is provided that for every £75 issued to a State Government under the agreement, one assisted migrant shall sail direct from the U.K. and be received into and satisfactorily settled in the State concerned. If full advantage is taken of the offer of loan moneys contained in the agreement, 450,000 new settlers will be absorbed during a period of ten years.

Assisted Immigration.

Assisted immigration has been a factor of some importance in the increase of population. Statistics show that 1,025,682 persons have been brought to Australia in connection with schemes for assisting immigration.

During the period May 1, 1925–March 31, 1928, the Commonwealth and British Governments jointly donated the following contributions towards the passages of approved settlers for Australia from the United Kingdom: Children under 12 years, £6/10/- (representing all of the half fare); juveniles 12 and under 17, £27/10/-; juveniles 17 years and under 19 years, £22; married couples, including widowers or widows, and wives nominated by husbands, with at least one child under 19, £22 per parent (children at rate according to age); domestic servants, £33; others, including children of 19 years and over, £16/10/-. Allowing for this financial assistance, children under 12 years will be carried free, etc.

In addition to these contributions, loans of the balance of the passage are in special cases granted by the governments concerned. Persons entitled to assisted passages are divided into two groups. “Selected” and “Nominated.” “S” immigrants are those such as farm hands and domestics who are originally recruited abroad by the Commonwealth Government. “N” immigrants are those nominated by persons resident in Australia, and the nominators are held responsible for their nominees upon arrival, so that they shall not become a burden upon the State.

Results of Assisted Immigration. In the earlier days of the settlement of Australia, State-assisted immigration played an important part. Such assistance ceased for the time being in the different states at various times before the beginning of this century. From 1900 to 1905 no assistance of any kind was given. Since 1906 assistance has again been given.

The number assisted in 1914 was 20,805; in 1915 it dropped to 5,796, and in 1919 to 245; in the following year it rose again to over 9,000, and rapidly to as many as 30,123 in 1927. Altogether the number of assisted immigrants from the early times to 1927, inclusive, was 1,025,682.

VII. GENERAL STATISTICAL DATA

The following statistical data, based on the official reports of the Commonwealth Government, will help to give the reader a clearer idea of the role of immigration in Australia, and of certain aspects of the policy of restriction of Asiatic immigration.

From 1861 to 1927 the increment to the population arising from the excess of births over deaths amounted to 3,811,757, or 74.90 per cent. of the total increase, while the increase from net immigration amounted to 1,277,512, or 25.10 per cent.

During the 27 years of the present century the total increase to the population was made up of 1,957,992, or 79.29 per cent., by natural increase, and 511,523, or 20.71 per cent., by net immigration.

The greatest increase to the population by net immigration which has occurred in any one decade was during the ten years 1881 to 1890. This period, however, concluded in world-wide speculation, which, in Australia, took the form of speculation in land values, and the effect of the financial collapse which followed this boom is shown by the small increment by migration from 1891 to 1910. For many of the years during this last-mentioned period there was an actual loss to Australia population by net migration. In 1907 the stream of migration again turned in Australia’s favor, and during the five years, 1909-1913, the net immigration represented 281,193. The war interrupted the flow, but in 1927 the net immigration represented 48,924 persons.

The number of persons admitted without Dictation Test was:

1923–95,725
1924–105,571
1925–98,279
1926–105,918
1927–115,314

Of these totals the corresponding figures for British immigrants were:

1923–85,440
1924–88,335
1925–82,662
1926–90,562
1927–93,382

Of the Asiatic immigrants there were:

1923—1924—1925—1926–1927

Chinese: 1,974–1,917–1,256–1,780–1,767
Japanese: 228—240—440—328–251
India-Ceylon: 141—174—186—188–190

Non-Asiatic Immigrants.

1923—1924—1925—1926–1927

Italian: 1,739–4,540–6,102–3,952–7,884
Jugoslav: 240–1,933—950–1,427–1,432
Russian: 256—312—515—477–371

VIII. IMMIGRATION PROBLEM AND THE WORKING CLASS

Like every other important economic problem which confronts the working class today, so, too, the problem of emigration and immigration cannot possibly be solved in the interests of the working class as a whole as long as capitalism exists.

This does not mean that we may therefore fold our arms and allow the capitalist class to do as it pleases about migration. On the contrary, we must fight capitalism on this as on every other vital issue, because the policy of capitalism and imperialism in the field of migration is always designed to serve their interests to the detriment of the working class.

But in order to be able to fight capitalism on any issue, we must first be sure that we understand the basic principles and policies involved in order to make these clear to the working masses. Here we must admit that the problem of immigration has been badly neglected in our movement. If anything, the labor movement has allowed confusion and dangerous jingoistic prejudices to creep in and to befog the issue of migration in its relation to the working class.

Ask the average trade unionist and A.L.P. member of Australia today what he thinks about foreign immigration and you will get approximately the following reply:

(1). There are over 200,000 unemployed workers in Australia today already, so why allow more workers (regardless of nationality) to come in and glut the labor market, thus reducing wages and living standards.

(2). That he or she is definitely opposed to the immigration of Asiatics. In the answer to the question “Why?” there is first of all the basic economic fear of “coolie competition,” and, secondly, a growth which has been accumulating with the aid of reformist demagogy of racial prejudice and a feeling of “superiority of the white race.”

(3). There enters a third factor, namely, another differentiating racial prejudice, fostered by British imperialism and Australian reformism; this ultra-jingoism is directed against “Southern Europeans,” meaning Italian, Jugoslav, Greek and other workers. As these lines are being written (March 7, 1929) the Sydney “Labor Daily” reports as follows on an Interstate Conference of Labor women (A.L.P.), which is being held at this date in Melbourne:

“An animated debate took place on a motion by the South Australian delegates that the Federal Government be asked to arrange for a return of all the unemployed Southern Europeans to their own countries. Miss May Holman (W.A.) said that foreigners in her state got employment to the detriment of Australians…”

We thus see that the basic factor in all these fears and prejudices entertained by the Australian worker today, is that of fear of economic competition which may endanger his very job, and the working and living standards generally. It is precisely this fear which capitalism has always played on in order to divide the working class along craft, sectional and racial and color lines.

We have seen from the historical section of our article that the employers never hesitate to mix their so-called White Australianism with plenty of Asiatic blood–so long as it proves profitable to them.

But for the Labor movement to ape the bourgeoisie blindly and to sow the worst jingoistic prejudices among the workers of one country against the workers of another country or race or color is absolutely criminal. But this is just what the Australian Labor Party and the Trade Union reactionaries have been doing for decades, until today large sections of the Australian working class are blinded by this jingoistic poison.

The most characteristic manifestation of this jingoism occurred at the 1928 Emergency Congress of the A.C.T.U., where the question of affiliation of that body to the Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat was hotly debated. Mr. Gibson, a prominent reactionary trade union leader, made himself famous at that Congress, where he declared the Secretariat to be

“a heterogeneous mob of Asiatics with unpronounceable names, who have the impertinence to lay down the policy to the Australian workers.”

We get the full flavor of Australian Labor Party jingoism when we place the above gem alongside the following document: (This is a motion brought in by Mr. Hamilton in the South Australian House of Assembly, at its session of August 8, 1928.)

“That, in the opinion of this House, the resolution carried by the All-Australian Trade Union Congress in Melbourne on July 21, affiliating a large majority of the Labor unions of Australia with the Pan-Pacific Secretariat, is a grave menace to the industrial conditions ruling in Australia, and to the White Australian policy…

“That this House is further of the opinion that, although the aforesaid affiliation has been agreed to and confirmed by the All-Australian Trade Union Congress, the rank and file of the trade unions, and the people of Australia generally, deeply resent this close association with people, the vast majority of whom are in a much lower stage of evolution than the Nordic races, and who cannot be regarded as their equals in education, environment, or humanitarian ideals…That as the destructive policy of Communism, which includes the “class war,” appeals only to the lower mentalities of the human race, its dissemination among the untutored millions of the Eastern nations, is fraught with the gravest danger to the civilized world; and this House strongly disapproves of any section of the population of this State assisting or being called upon to assist in the promulgation of doctrines which are inimical to peace and ordered progress.”

The Tasks of the Militants

In this as in every other problem that concerns the working class, the militant Left Wing is confronted with the definite task of giving the lead to the working masses, and to clarify the basic principles involved.

It is important to understand that, while capitalism is unable to solve within its confines the problem of migration–no more than it is able to solve the problem of unemployment–yet the causes which make for the migration of workers from one country to another are on the increase. This is particularly so since the war. Unemployment has actually become chronic in England, in Europe generally and even in prosperous America. The shrinkage of the world market, the introduction of ingenious schemes of rationalization, the intensification of labor and the mechanization of production are throwing ever-growing armies of workers into what has become the category of “unemployables.”

Emigration of workers from one country to another no longer comprises unskilled workers exclusively, as was the rule before the war. Large numbers of skilled workers are now drawn into the stream of emigration by the very processes mentioned above.

At the same time, facilities for emigration have been considerably restricted after the war. (Notably in the U.S.A.) The workers of the colored races (primarily of China and India) are laboring under particularly great difficulties, owing to the “color-bar laws,” which forbid them to penetrate the “civilized” countries of the white races.

Besides the usual factors making for imperialist wars, such as the struggle for markets, for sources of raw materials and spheres for capitalist investments, there thus enters the additional factor of the struggle for places and objects requiring the application of labor power and thus affording an opportunity to release the dangerous “surplus” of labor power at home.

It is the immediate task of the militants to carry on a determined and unceasing struggle against all forms of race prejudice and race hatred fostered by capitalism and reformism.

In the words of the Preamble to the Statutes of the Pan-Pacific T.U. Secretariat, we must

“fight against and remove all racial and national barriers and prejudices which still divide the exploited classes and oppressed peoples to the advantage of the exploiters and oppressors.”

For this purpose, the closest contact must be established between the trade union movement of this country with the trade unions of the other countries concerned in the problem of migration.

Reformists Aid Employers

While we must fight persistently against race and color prejudices wherever we find them in the labor movement, and while we cannot possibly hesitate to endorse the general principle of free and unhindered immigration and emigration of workers from any country to any other country (a problem which is as little likely to be solved within the confines of capitalism in the interests of the workers as, say, the problems of unemployment, rationalization, etc.), it is equally obvious that the workers of Australia, acting in conjunction with the labor movement of Great Britain, must fight the mass migration schemes of Messrs. Bruce and Baldwin. It cannot be doubted but that these schemes are exclusively in the interests of the exploiters and imperialists.

While the best and closest relations must be maintained between the workers of this country and the immigrant workers of all other countries, and serious attempts made to organize them into the Trade Union movement in active struggle against capitalism, it should be stressed that the workers in Britain must be thoroughly acquainted, prior to emigrating, with the capitalist offensive in this country, with the true nature of the State-aided migration schemes, etc.

But it would seem that this alone is insufficient. The Bruce-Baldwin mass migration plans must be actively combatted as such, not only in Australia, but also in Britain. This, of course, presupposes an active struggle against British capitalism by the British working class and their Trade Unions. We know from experience that “Industrial-Peace” heroes of the Tillett-Turner-Purcell-Thomas type are only too anxious to help British capitalism get rid of the bothersome “unemployables.”

It was no other than Mr. Ben Tillett who recently signed a joint report on Rationalization and Unemployment, together with Lord Melchett (Mond), in which he endorses both rationalization and mass migration.

If consistently militant, the trade unions will draw the immigrant workers no matter of what nationality, race or color–into the trade union organizations, converting them into real fighters against capitalism and for better working conditions in the country in question. (See the Color Bar in the A.W.U. and in other unions.)

The A.W.U. Excludes Asiatics From Membership

Just how far this jingoism and race prejudice has already penetrated into the official programs and policies of the trade union movement may be judged from the fact that the Australian Workers’ Union, numerically the strongest union in Australia outside the A.C.T.U., has incorporated the exclusion of Asiatics from membership in the A.W.U. in its official Constitution and Rules.

It is both amusing and tragic to read these rules pertaining to the qualifications for membership in that organization. Following is only an extract from Rule 6 of the A.W.U. Constitution. After a 30-line enumeration of the various trades and crafts which are eligible for membership in the A.W.U., Rule 6 concludes with the following qualification:

“…provided that he or she is (a) Of European descent; or (b) An Australian aboriginal or Maori, or negro citizen of the U.S.A.; or

(c) The offspring or descendant of a marriage between a person in class (a) and a person in class (b); or

(d) A person born in Australia who is the offspring or descendant of a marriage between a person of European descent and a person not of European descent; or

(e) Any other person… who is admitted by resolution of the Executive Council of the Union.

And provided, also, that no fresh applicant claiming admission as the issue of mixed parentage born in Australasia shall be admitted to membership unless he produces a certificate of his birth.”

Stated simply and briefly, this rule means that no Asiatic worker is eligible for membership to the A.W.U.

It will be remembered that from the very inception of the Pan-Pacific T.U. Secretariat, especially from the moment that the Australasian Council of Trade Unions had decided to affiliate to the P.P.T.U.S., the A.W.U. launched a most venomous campaign both against the A.C.T.U. and the P.P.T.U.S. The A.W.U. today is the burg of class collaboration and compulsory arbitration in Australia. The A.W.U. is today ruled by a clique of reactionary bureaucrats of the type of Lewis in the U.S.A. and Thomas in England. It will thus be seen that the above cited anti-Asiatic rule is quite in keeping with the anti-working class policies and tactics of the A.W.U. leadership.

It will be readily seen from the above description of the actual immigration laws that it is not sufficient nor effective to fight only against the legislative restrictions. It is by far more urgent to eliminate the hostile attitude of large masses of workers towards immigrant workers.

The basic factor in the hostility generally felt by the workers of this country towards immigrant workers being the fear of competition and the fear of losing the job, it becomes obvious that everything possible must be done to insure the full protection of the immigrant workers, in order to prevent the capitalists from using them as a lever to lower wages and reduce working and living standards. Such work can be carried out effectively only in conjunction with the trade unions of the countries from which the workers emigrate.

Here is where the need for close co-operation between the workers of Australia and the workers of China, Japan, India, Indoneasia, etc., becomes glaringly clear.

On Congress Agenda

And here is where one of the chief functions of the Pan-Pacific T.U. Secretariat is revealed. It is from a full realization of the importance of this problem, that the P.P.T.U.S. has placed “Immigration” as one of the main points on the agenda of the Pan-Pacific T.U. Congress to be held at Vladivostok in August of this year.

It may be of interest to note here that some time ago the N.S.W. Labor Council decided to form special committees whose function was to be to meet immigrant workers as the ships arrived in port, in order to bring them at once into contact with the labor movement. But, like so many other good resolutions, this one, too, has remained a dead letter.

The question of the organizational and propagandist methods to be adopted in approaching newly arrived immigrant workers in an effort to mobilize them at once into the ranks of active trade unionists will need special attention. Fitting literature, especially designed for the immigrant, printed in various languages, will have to be used in this work. So far nothing of this sort has been done or even attempted in Australia. Instead, the daily press, in particular the labor press, is full of poisonous allusions to the “Southern Europeans,” a term which has become synonymous with “scab.”

100 Per Cent. Scabs

This was particularly noticeable during the recent waterside strikes when, in order to hide their own treacherous tactics, the reactionary trade union bureaucrats deliberately diverted the indignation and combative spirit of the workers from the real enemy–the shipowners–to the “Southern European” workers, who constituted but an insignificant fraction of the blacklegs. Most of the scabs were good, 100 per cent. “White Australians.”

In conclusion it should be noted that the various international organizations of capitalism and reformism, which from time to time make the gesture of “handling” the problem of migration, are as impotent of solving or even ameliorating it, as they are of solving the other contradictions of capitalism.

The Geneva “Labor Office” of the imperialist League of Nations, the bourgeois-pacifist-imperialist Institute of Pacific Relations, the reformist Amsterdam T.U. International, and the Second International have all debated this question to the minutest technical details (almost nothing but the technical details), and the result is as great a fiasco as that of the famous “8-hour day Convention.”

The only international organization which has ever tackled the migration problem seriously and from a consistently internationalist and working class point of view is the Red International of Labor Unions, which at its various Congresses and Plenary Sessions has had special Commissions dealing with this question.

The last (IV) Congress of the R.I.L.U., held in March, 1928, instructed the Executive Bureau to prepare the creation of an International Emigration Bureau.

It will be the task of the P.P.T.U.S. to pursue the serious study of the migration problem in the Pacific. The above article is intended as a first, cursory contribution to such a study.

The Pan-Pacific Monthly was the official organ of the Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat (PPTUS), a subdivision of the Red International of Labor Unions, or Profitern. Established first in China in May 1927, the PPTUS had to move its offices, and the production of the Monthly to San Francisco after the fall of the Shanghai Commune in 1927. Earl Browder was an early Secretary of tge PPTUS, having been in China during its establishment. Harrison George was the editor of the Monthly. Constituents of the PPTUC included the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the Indonesian Labor Federation, the Japanese Trade Union Council, the National Minority Movement (UK Colonies), the Confédération Générale du Travail Unitaire (French Colonies), the Korean Workers and Peasants Federation, the Philippine Labor Congress, the National Confederation of Farm Laborers and Tenants of the Philippines, the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions of the Soviet Union, and the Trade Union Educational League of the U.S. With only two international conferences, the second in 1929, the PPTUS never took off as a force capable of coordinating trade union activity in the Pacific Basis, as was its charge. However, despite its short run, the Monthly is an invaluable English-language resource on a crucial period in the Communist movement in the Pacific, the beginnings of the ‘Third Period.’

PDF of full issue: http://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A32141/datastream/OBJ/download/The_Pan-Pacific_Monthly_No__26.pdf

PDF of issue 2: http://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A32142/datastream/OBJ/download/The_Pan-Pacific_Monthly_No__27.pdf