The dismantling of the White Australia policy: elite conspiracy or will of the Australian people?

The White Australia policy was both an immigration policy and a nationalist doctrine which reflected Australia's desire to maintain itself as a white, British nation. Its abolition in 1973 created the conditions for the multicultural society Australia has become. Nevertheless, sporadic immigration controversies during the past two decades suggest the residual influence of this doctrine. Some commentators even claim that contemporary conflicts are the legacy of a reform process implemented by political leaders without the knowledge and consent of the Australian people. This article examines the factors and processes which compelled the dismantling of White Australia. It shows that assertions of an elite conspiracy to abolish it are exaggerated, failing to take into account the incrementalist nature of the public policy process in Australia and general public acceptance of policy reform.     

‘Not on Your Life’: Cabinet and Liberalisation of the White Australia Policy, 1964–67

The liberalisation of the White Australia policy in the mid-1960s was a seminal event in Australian history. It marked the beginning of the end for the racial conception of society which had defined the federation since the late-nineteenth century. Cabinet’s discussions of the proposed changes during these years demonstrate that most Australian political leaders were not only fundamentally opposed to reform but also unconvinced by arguments emphasising the policy’s administrative inconsistencies, lack of humanitarianism and racially discriminatory features. Nor were they entirely swayed by arguments of diplomatic expediency, which had been advanced by senior Immigration and External Affairs officials since the 1950s. The decline of British race patriotism in the early 1960s weakened the ideological foundations of White Australia and allowed policy-makers to reconsider its foreign policy implications, especially in terms of Australia’s relations with Asia. Although cautious, the reforms of the mid-1960s represented an important break with the policy’s fundamental principles and provided the groundwork for further liberalisation and the formal abolition of White Australia in the 1970s.     

General Cariappa encounters ‘White Australia’: Australia,India and the commonwealth in the 1950s

There have been a number of studies of the White Australia policy and some examination of white Australia's relationship to the new, multiracial Commonwealth that emerged after the Second World War. Drawing extensively on Indian sources, this article examines how Australia was viewed by India's high commissioner to Australia and New Zealand, General K. M. Cariappa. In the period from September 1953 to April 1956 he sparked considerable controversy by suggesting that the White Australia policy ran the risk of alienating Asian opinion and undermining the Commonwealth ideal in India and Pakistan. Cariappa maintained a high public profile throughout his stay in Australia and was widely regarded as one of the most prominent diplomats posted to Canberra in the 1950s.     

The fuzzy limits of self-reliance: US extended deterrence and Australian strategic policy

As a close US ally, Australia is often seen as a recipient of US extended deterrence. This article argues that in recent decades, Australian strategic policy engaged with US extended deterrence at three different levels: locally, Australia eschews US combat support and deterrence under the policy of self-reliance; regionally, it supports US extended deterrence in Asia; globally, it relies on the US alliance against nuclear threats to Australia. The article argues that in none of these policy areas does the Australian posture conform to a situation of extended deterrence proper. Moreover, when the 2009 White Paper combines all three policies in relation to major power threats against Australia, serious inconsistencies result in Australia's strategic posture—a situation the government should seek to avoid in the White Paper being drafted at the time of writing.     

The introduction of multiculturalism in Canada and Australia, 1960s–1970s

This article compares the emergence of a policy of multiculturalism in Canada and Australia between the 1960s and 1970s. It charts the rise of the policy in the two countries through the adoption of a philosophy of multiculturalism as the basis of their national identities. There is a distinction between philosophy and policy: a multicultural policy emerged out of a philosophy of multiculturalism. Furthermore, a philosophy of multiculturalism replaced the ‘new nationalism’ as the foundation of the national identities of both English‐speaking Canada and Australia. The abandonment of the White Canada and White Australia policies and the adoption of non‐discriminatory immigration policies in both countries were also of importance in the emergence of a policy of multiculturalism. There are many similarities in the Canadian and Australian experiences. However, the major differences are explained by the presence of the French‐Canadians in Canada and the early non‐British migration that Canada received in the late‐nineteenth century compared with Australia.     

Australian defence policy and the concept of self-reliance

Since the Vietnam War, Australian defence policy has been based on the concept of self-reliance—the ability to defend Australia without allied combat forces. Self-reliance arose from concerns about US support in conflict with Indonesia. It has implications for Australian foreign policy, force structuring, joint operations and the defence industry, which were most coherently laid out in the 1987 White Paper. Later White Papers adapted this framework, but the 2013 White Paper seems to move towards a new approach to defence policy and strategy, which continued use of the term ‘self-reliance’ obscures rather than elucidates.     

Disguised anti-colonialism: Protest against the White Australia Policy in Malaya and Singapore, 1947–1962

A manifestation of the anti-colonialist sentiment in Malaya and Singapore during the post-war period of decolonisation was the vociferous protest against the White Australia Policy. Australia's restrictive immigration policy was seen as an offensive colour bar, similar to the various racial restrictions that British authorities placed on their colonial subjects, which symbolised white dominance. By protesting against the White Australia Policy, the colonial subjects of the British in Malaya and Singapore were indirectly attacking white colonial rule in Southeast Asia. Antagonism towards the White Australia Policy became less vocal as Malaya and Singapore proceeded towards self-government and independence, when many of the colonial colour bars were removed. However, low-key resentment against what was seen as a symbol of white colonialism still persisted in relations with Australia.     

Formative Geographies of Belonging in White Australia: Constructing the National Self and Other in Parliamentary Debate, 1901

The relationship between nationally unified calls for immigration restriction in the White Australia period and the emergence of an imagined national identity has been the focus of much valuable historical research. Through the method of content analysis, a geographical lens was used to re-examine the Commonwealth Parliamentary debates regarding the development of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 and to provide empirical support to the existing scholarship. The content analysis provided statistical evidence for the ways in which immigration restriction in this specific historical context was legitimised and rationalised by social constructions that reproduced racisms. Constructions of the Self and the Other were fundamental in defining exclusion and inclusion during the White Australia era. The national Self was complexly defined by overlapping constructions of the Self as Australian, British (racially and culturally) and White. This is indicative of the tensions and negotiations between national interests and cultural, historical and ‘racial’ ties to Britain at the time. Additionally, content analysis provided nuanced insight into the ways in which the designation of inherent (and diametrically opposing) racial attributes to the White Self and non-White Other justified the ways in which ‘they’ were different from ‘us’. In this way the Other was characterised as an intrinsic threat to the development of the nation and the wellbeing of its peoples. ‘We’, on the other hand, were integral to the development of White Australia.     

The White Paper on European Governance: Implications for Urban Policy

This paper discusses the recent European Commission White Paper on European Governance, arguing that the document offers interesting possibilities for the future development of the European Union (EU), how it is governed and more particularly for 'European Urban Policy'. However, the paper argues there are problems with its use of the term governance as a strategy for reform and with a number of its proposals to widen access to the European Commission (EC) and the policy process. With regard to urban policy it is suggested that the White Paper's emphasis on a greater role for sub-national government and citizens' is to be welcomed. Although once again it is unclear whether the Commission has fully thought through the implications of its proposals both for itself and the groups it wishes to engage with. More specifically it is argued that the Open Method of Coordination is broadly similar to the methods whereby both current urban (and spatial) policy have been developed and should be embraced. Overall the White Paper is something of a mixed bag; however, this is to be expected of a document which is primarily intended to stimulate discussion about the future of EU governance.     

The Ryan White Act in Dallas

Virtually every locality affected by the AIDS epidemic has had to confront changes in the demographics of the disease, shifts in federal priorities, and medical advances in AIDS treatment. Creating a consistent federal policy has proven difficult because the epidemic manifests itself differently in virtually every locality it invades. As a result, some local caseloads increasingly are dominated by intravenous drug users and others by gay men. In recognition of this reality, the primary federal program to fund AIDS services relies on local decisionmakers to make allocation decisions for serving the needs of their caseload. Under the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act of 1990, local Health Services Planning Councils were assigned the task of creating an effective continuum of care for persons with HIV I AIDS and were empowered with the task of allocating federal funds to accomplish that objective. In some cases creating and fostering an effective continuum of care proved to be an essentially noncontroversial managerial task, while in other localities political turmoil and rampant self-interest served as barriers to program effectiveness. This article explores the relationship between local political culture and the development of AIDS programs in Dallas County, Texas. Specifically, we compare the provision of AIDS services in Dallas before passage of the Ryan White Act in 1990, how these services were affected by the Ryan White program, and the experiences since the reauthorization of the Ryan White Act in 1996.     

The White House and Congress on Child Care and Family Leave Policy: From Carter to Clinton

Over the last two decades four presidents produced a variety of family policy initiatives with mixed results. Carter issued his nine-point plan on the family and convened the first White House Conference on Families in American history. Reagan created the White House Working Group on the Family and issued Executive Order 12606, which established family impact statements. George Bush continued many of Reagan's policies and pushed family values to near the top of the political agenda by 1992, and Bill Clinton set forth his eight-point plan on the family and moved quickly to reverse many of the policies of the Reagan-Bush era. Discussed is the role of the White House and Congress in shaping two family policy initiatives in particular: The Child Care and Development Block Grant of 1990 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.     

Deportation Discretion: Tiered Influence,Minority Threat,and “Secure Communities” Deportations

As deportations from the United States rose to unprecedented levels, a nationwide immigration enforcement program Secure Communities helped identify deportable noncitizens under arrest in county jails. Examining county‐level variation in deportation activity between 2008 and 2013, this paper contributes to immigration policy research by examining how county officials in some locations facilitated exceptionally restrictive deportation outcomes while others exercised the discretion to turn noncitizens over for deportation sparingly. Consistent with a hypothesized “tiered influence” relationship, but contrary to a “racial threat” hypothesis, Hispanic concentration predicts the highest levels of exercised discretion where Hispanic concentration is neither too small nor too large. Noncitizens under arrest seem to have benefited from above‐average Hispanic concentrations, except in counties where Hispanics exceed about 40 percent of the population.     

Power in Australian foreign policy

The 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper emphasises the importance of ‘maximising’ Australia’s power and influence. However, the White Paper and much of the commentary on Australian foreign policy do not clearly conceptualise ‘power’ or indicate how it ought to be increased. The Lowy Institute’s recent Asia Power Index implies one possible strategy via its resource-based approach to measuring power. We outline a different approach and argue that power should be conceptualised and evaluated as a specific relationship causing behavioural change, rather than as a general attribute of its wielder. To complement the Lowy Institute’s carefully catalogued database, and facilitate a more focused conversation about maximising power and influence in Australian foreign policy, we offer a typology identifying five pathways through which states can translate their material and non-material resources into outcomes that serve the national interest.     

The quest for ‘wriggle room’: Australia and the Refugees Convention, 1951–73

The extent to which the Pacific Solution and other refugee policy developments under the Howard government were contested within Canberra circles will not be known until cabinet files are opened many years hence. However, if recent research into the White Australia policy is anything to go by, the files may shed unappreciated nuance on the context and reasoning behind such developments. We cannot pre-empt this research, but we can explore documents to which we do have access to deepen insight into Australia's refugee policy foundations, and to prepare the ground for more informed assessments of recent developments. Using archived policy files, this article examines the internal debates that surrounded Australia's accession to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The picture that emerges challenges simplistic assessments as to the motives of policy makers of the time. It also shows how different government departments—in this case Immigration and External (now Foreign) Affairs—can support policy changes for different reasons, at different speeds, and not always in the order that might be expected.     

The Australian 2016 Defence White Paper,great-power rivalry and a ‘rules-based order’: an imagined correspondence between Carr,Bull and Bell

This piece is an imagined email correspondence between three renowned international relations scholars, E. H. Carr, Hedley Bull and Coral Bell, who are discussing the Australian 2016 Defence White Paper. The purpose of such an exercise is to reflect on the ‘big-picture’ international relations questions posed by what might otherwise be thought of as a relatively technical defence policy document. In particular, the correspondence between the three focuses on the central importance of the White Paper’s assumptions of a ‘rules-based global order’ and the relationship between this order and US power. In their time, all three authors spoke directly to questions of power, law and order in their scholarly work, which had been deeply influenced, in all three cases, by periods spent working at the ‘coalface’ of these issues in government in Britain and Australia. As such, Carr, Bull and Bell have much to say about how Australia is positioning itself for a post-unipolar world.     

日本"有事法制"议案和新版《防卫白皮书》评析

“有事法制”议案赋予了日本自卫队以“国家军队”的职能,赋予了日本政府使用武力乃至“先发制人”解决可能发生的争端的权力,开辟了日本在海外行使武力的道路;《2003年防卫白皮书》则重新阐述了日本关于战争的认识,重新确立了日本的军事防卫重点,重新确认了日本自卫队的主要任务。这表明日本的“专守防卫”政策发生了重大变化。军国主义思想始终没有彻底清算,社会政治生态右倾化进一步加深,冷战后政治大国欲望的加速膨胀,以及迫于“美日同盟”的压力等,是日本防卫政策变化的主要原因。日本社会政治发展趋势和国家发展方向都将受到防卫政策变化的巨大影响。     

From Promising Settler to Undesirable Immigrant: The Deportation of British-born Migrants from Mental Hospitals in Interwar Australia and South Africa

This article examines the process by which British-born migrants to Australia and South Africa were deported from mental hospitals in the 1920s and 1930s. It shows how men and women who arrived as permanent settlers could be re-classified as immigrants subject to expulsion. Debates over who was responsible for those who through mental illness or alcoholism were deemed ‘undesirable’ were conducted at the levels of both high diplomacy and petty bureaucracy. Tracing the history of deportation as a means of social engineering within the empire, this article highlights the tension between the transnational ideology of white supremacy and its expression in national terms. Using the case files of those deported from two settler colonial mental hospitals, Callan Park in Sydney and Valkenberg in Cape Town, as well as official deportation paperwork, it also traces how such diplomatic decisions were refracted through the process of attempted implementation. These files show firsthand both the social history of deportation and the mechanisms through which the settler colonial state aimed to shape its population by excluding not only those perceived to be racially other, but also those judged to be racially unfit. The process of determining domicile and of deportation itself reveals much about the frequently precarious circumstances and life histories of these migrants and their often far-flung networks, as well as the ways in which migrants and their families were able to negotiate the regulatory mechanisms of both the state and the asylum.     

Washington's Response to the AIDS Epidemic: The Ryan White CARE Act

Passage of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act of 1990 followed a form familiar to students of policymaking in the American intergovernmental system: the provision of significant federal financing for policy initiatives located primarily at the state and local levels. The successes and failures of the Act, including its 1996 reauthorization, suggest both the strengths and the limitations of that design. This paper examines the structure of the Act as a vehicle for the federal government to fund AIDS service delivery at the state and local levels and the intergovernmental consequences of allocation policies associated with the Act. It concludes that perennial problems of equity and access cannot be resolved by the delegation of responsibility for significant policy or funding decisions to localities; rather, questions about the role of the federal government in overcoming intralocal and interlocal disparities remain to be addressed.     

Chinese Students in White Australia: State,Community, and Individual Responses to the Student Visa Program, 1920-25

A recent archival discovery reveals that around four hundred visas were issued to students from China to study in Australia from 1920 to 1925. This article explains and explores the significance of this little-known initiative under the White Australia Policy by reference to China's global resurgence, the role of the Chinese consulate-general in local community affairs, and support and resistance among Chinese community leaders in response to these developments. It highlights a paradox associated with the students' arrival, specifically the Melbourne publication of fabricated ‘Chinese letters home’ at a time when literate students were writing personal letters to their families and friends in China about their impressions of Melbourne, their understanding of local labour and gender relations, and their engagement with the big political and business issues of the day. The recently-released letters and papers of a contemporary student, Joe Tong, tell an untold story of Chinese Australians in the postwar era.