The Victorian Trades Hall Council Responses to the Presence of Chinese Immigrants in the Labour Force between 1888 and 1948 were a Result of Racism rather than genuine Economic Fear. Do you agree?
by Ellie Wallace
 |
 |
 |
Throughout history, immigration has proven itself a contentious topic. In a Victorian context, this can be easily illustrated through the history of discourse conducted between the late nineteenth and early twentieth century within the Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC). The archived minutes of their meetings from 1888 to 1948 provide insight into their feelings surrounding the presence of Chinese immigrants in the labour force, and the feelings of the working class more generally. This essay will discuss that although economic fear was a catalyst for many of the reactions of Trade Hall members, underlying racist sentiment had an undeniable influence. It will attempt to show that council attitudes towards Chinese immigrants from 1888 to the 1900s was undoubtedly racist. It will explore the attitudes displayed by the Trades Hall Council post-Federation, and how these feelings became to some extent permissible and legalised given federal policies such as the Immigration Restriction Act. Finally, it will show that post-WWII attitudes became increasingly economically focused, shown through a relaxing of resentment towards assisted immigration policies, however still remained largely guided by a racist ideology.
From the late 1880s to the beginning of the 1900s, Trade Union sentiment recorded in Council minutes and in Intercolonial Trade Union Congress speeches was incontestably anti-Chinese. At the Second Intercolonial Trades Union Congress, held at the Melbourne Trades Hall, the ‘Chinese Question’ and the important notion of competition was a big topic.1 Godwin, from the United Furniture Trade Society in Melbourne, contrasted the “progressive” society of the west, to the “stationary” character of the east.2 Discussion then followed surrounding the grievance that Chinese people could work more cheaply than Australians, citing that they only came temporarily and did not bring any family with them.3 As such, Members of Congress identified the need for a fair wage agreement, as it would make the country more prosperous than where foreign cheap labour was predominant, and that industries where the benefits rely on the hardships of employees are best not to enter into at all.4 Additional problems also arose out of the fact that given their wages and cramped living conditions, Chinese labourers did not have to pay taxes, and work on Sundays, which increased the wages for their supposedly inferior craftsmanship, particularly, in this case, in the furniture trade.5 He even goes so far as to say that “a state of serfdom” is inevitable if they allow this to continue.6 Godwin advocates for the compliance of all foreign Chinese labourers to the conditions of the Health Act, and that they observe the rules of the eight-hour system.7 He ends by stating it would be a terrible shame “if Australians were really destined to be peopled, not with English but with Chinese settlers; if the abominations of a Chinese quarter are to be found everywhere, and if white labour is to be driven out before the advancing steps of its rivals.”8 This Congressional evidence shows that whilst their concerns about European immigration were founded mainly on economic fears, shown through discussion of the need for a fair wages agreement, the way they discuss the Chinese as a problem to be dealt with and the positioning of them as direct rivals to Australian labourers shows evident racist attitudes. Even at the First Intercolonial Trades Union Congress, it was thought that “[t]he acceptance of Chinese people meant that Australia “faced the prospect of becoming mixed-race… [which posed] a range of profound threats.”9 To support this, they identify that the “strongest advocates of State immigration are those noted for paying the very lowest wages.”10 Council minutes from 1888 concerning a Chinese Restriction Bill, and that “a deputation be appointed to wait on the Premier to ask when the proposed Bill will be implemented” further shows their preoccupation of matters with xenophobic tendencies.11 Adding to this, the Melbourne Trades Hall delegates also display their racist attitudes, upon including “a Bill to prevent the introduction of criminal, pauper or Asiatic labour.”12 Through aligning Asiatic labour with that of paupers and convicts, the VTHC demonstrates that economic concerns were evidently not a problem across all races, and that they had chosen to target Asian immigrants in particular. The Depression of the 1890s was “a bleak time for trade unions,”13 and it had been clear that the working conditions of workers had been a big point of concern, leading to movements for factory reform in the 1880s.14 These two incidents demonstrate the economic troubles plaguing the unionists during this time, which could have had a role in compounding anti-Chinese attitudes. It was demonstrated in the First Intercolonial Trades’ Union Congress on the 6th of October, 1879, that Asian immigrants were seen as a “stain on the reputation of the State.”15 The Congress unanimously agreed “that the importation of Chinese is injurious, morally, socially, and politically, to the best interests of the colony, and demands speedy legislation.”16 The discussion surrounding not only the economic problems which the Chinese pose but also the moral and social implications of their presence in Australia prove that economic fears were not the only factor influencing these reactions; they instead arose largely as a result of deeply engrained racist attitudes.
Post federation, the predominately racist Union sentiment towards the Chinese community persisted, but was now partly hidden under the guise of the now permissible, legalised racism that came with the passing of legislation such as the White Australia policy of 1901. The establishment of the ‘White Australia’ policy played “a critical part in the exclusion of Asian immigrants,”17 and favour for the policy was most prevalent in unions which covered workers who were semi-skilled or even unskilled, due to the ease with which Chinese immigrants may enter their industries.18 The willingness of the Amalgamated Shearers’ Union to discuss the “introduction of free trade union membership for Aborigines, whose union potential was praised,”19 showed their selective racism exhibited towards the Chinese population. In April 1910, Engineers complained in a meeting of the VTHC that immigrants which were new to the country “were being given employment at Newport Workshops, whilst men whose names had been registered at [the] Labor Bureau for a considerable time, were unemployed.”20 In July of 1912, it was also reported that the Premier was in denial about having “instructed the Railway commissioners to give preference to immigrants to the detriment of Australians.”21 This shows that although the White Australia policy was in place, unionists still had to deal with the economic problems posed by immigrants. In 1914 however, the Trades Hall council condemned “the actions of the Port Phillip Stevedores Union [as] antagonistic to all principles of trade Unionism inasmuch as it fosters racial hatred amongst the Working Class.”22 This move seems to show that the Trades Hall Council, in theory at least, stood for anti-racist values. In 1926, the VTHC commented on the White Australia policy, saying that the “real basis of our White Australia policy was not racial but economic and social.”23 However, some scholars have been so direct as to claim that “the real impetus for White Australia was hostility to the Chinese,”24 starkly contrasting the views put forward by the VTHC. A few months after this, the VTHC confirmed their alliance to the White Australia policy, however stated that any person currently holding citizenship, should have the same rights as Australian born citizens, regardless of ethnicity or skin colour.25 In 1929, White Australia was not considered a “vital question,”26 insinuating a persisting racial discrimination, despite earlier insistence denying this. Throughout 1927, assisted immigration was deplored, the VTHC stating that the numbers of 450,000 in a 10 year period from Great Britain is too high,27 and that it “consider[s] it callous and inhuman to permit the continuance of the policy of dumping further shiploads of people seeking work into this country, where they are immediately confronted with an army of unemployed in such straightened circumstances that they are forced to apply for Government relief.”28 This shows the VTHC supposedly looking after the interests of the immigrants, however most likely having more nationalistic alliances at heart. Interestingly, the Trades Hall Council also comments on their disapproval of “outside intervention in China’s affairs [which] is not only unjust but would sow the seeds of another Great War and must be opposed.”29 This shows their unwillingness at this time to aid China, which could support understanding of feelings of unionists towards Chinese immigrants in Australia. In 1932, discourse on the White Australia policy was revived, with the outlining on the 7th of July, the rules of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, which deem people with a sub-standard English literacy and competency, a diseased person, a recently convicted felon, someone under an agreement to carry out labour which contradicts Commonwealth minimum rates, and anyone who is thought of as an “idiot or insane person”30 as being eligible for deportation. This shows once again their alliance with the White Australia policy. According to Burgmann, “racism was both the logical and temporal precursor of union fears of the economic competition of non-Europeans”31 and their exclusion of the Chinese immigrants from unions only “helped to perpetuate a wages gap between European and Chinese workers which served employer interests.”32 The refusal of unions to accept Chinese workers into their ranks at the expense of creating more competition demonstrates their racist attitudes. After the enactment of the White Australia policy in 1901, racism in unions became almost legalised, through the allowance of an act which only served to homogenise Australia’s population. Policy, on the part of the government and the Unions, now attempted to justify under economic concerns frameworks that were still inherently racist towards Chinese immigrants.
A small change in discourse came towards the middle part of the twentieth century, especially after World War II, where immigration policy started to become more tolerant, and most, but importantly not all, racist sentiment took a backseat to genuine economic concerns. Throughout 1938 and 1939, the Trades Hall Council was still very much opposed to the idea of the assisted immigration of migrants who will be “compelled to compete in an already overcrowded labor marker for their livelihood.”33 The VTHC further comment however, that any migration assistance program should be preempted by the Federal Government establishing the “40 hour working week in industry and increase in the basic wage,”34 a plan for how to improve the sale and marketing of Australian products internationally35 and an agreement that no goods or commodities, such as turbines “which could be manufactured in Australia be imported in future.”36 This demonstrates their strong desire to alleviate economic fears in a climate of immigration at this time. However, in 1939 the VTHC agrees to the assistance and “rescue of refugee victims of Facist terrorism”37 but condemn the Government’s restricted policy which only serves to “prosperous and middle class people with capital and ready money, while persecuted trade unionists and workers generally who are without means, are prevented from coming to Australia.”38 Whilst this seems to show the VTHC casting aside economic fears for the dire situation of those impacted by Fascist terrorism, it seems implied that those most affected by this terror are in Europe, which doesn’t do anything to contradict evidence they were antiChinese. This meeting of the VTHC also includes a lost motion to organise the establishment of a Special Committee to deal with the potential victimisation of refugee immigrants,39 which could again demonstrate racist tendencies and the desire to protect only Australian labourers. A month later, the VTHC discusses the wish of ensuring that refugees which came to work were subject to the same wages and conditions as Australian employees, and are still pushing for them to first fix the unemployment problem in Australia before bringing more people in, and ensuring that those who were allowed into the country would assimilate appropriately and observe “Australian living standards.”40 In August 1940, the VTHC stated that they supported those in China and “their struggle for National Independence … [recommending] that every support be given to organisations working for the relief of China or for developing cultural and peace relations with China.”41 A few months earlier, the Council has also expressed their support for the “China Famine Relief Fund.”42 This too shows somewhat of a change in racist attitudes, however says nothing about the treatment of Chinese within Australian borders. It can be assumed though, given the White Australia policy, that the treatment of Asian immigrants in Australia was still deplorable. According to a newspaper article from April 1948, the Government was encouraging all immigrants to join suitable unions to ensure they would be able to “get full advantage of arbitration awards”43 and maintain award conditions in response to a submission by the Melbourne Trades Hall Council. Minutes from the meeting of the VTHC on the 15th of April, 1948, two days before the article, detail a debate to decide on the wording of a recommendation on immigrants being brought into the country, stating that in order for them not to intervene, they need to be consulted on their capacity to take on these immigrants into their industries.44 But once again, this article was, specifically relating to British migrants, and doesn’t specify feelings towards other ethnic identities. This then could be connected to a more diluted form of racism, one in which there is an allowance for the permissibility of immigration, as long as immigrants fit in with the standards of the unions, such as British people, and at a push, Southern Europeans. One week earlier, the Trades Hall Council again discussed immigration, this time specifically about Baltic immigrants, and Secretary Stout explained his visit to a camp of 800 Baltic migrants, who “appeared to be a very excellent type.”45Here, the motivations seem to be more about the physical appearance and characteristics rather than their effect on the labour force, although later in the document it states the requirements of some of the Baltic labourers to undertake work without causing the displacement or unemployment of Australians, requirements which arose as a result of C.S.R’s increased production of sugar by request of the Government.46 This shows that the unionists were also concerned with the impact the presence of the immigrants will have on people already in the industry and the future of their employment. It was people from Britain who made up most of the immigration intake until after WWII, then other sources needed to be found47 and “[a]t the outset the acceptance of post-war immigration by the unions and the Australian community in general was clearly contingent upon the maintenance of White Australia. Indeed, the federal Labor government went to extraordinary lengths to expel Asian war refugees via a special law, the Wartime Refugees Removal Act.”48 This shows the commitment of the government and unions to purely European immigration, and a harsh exclusionist policy in regards to Asian immigrants.
In the post-war period, the growth of the population, to “which immigration was seen as accelerating - was desired for what it was believed to bestow: stronger defence and economic development.”49 In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was widely believed that “immigration exacerbates unemployment.”50 However, it has been shown that there has been no evidence to support the concept that immigration leads to a rise in the rate of unemployed Australians.51 The exclusionist tendencies of the Melbourne Trades Hall in general could have contributed in some way to the refusal of unions to accept Asian immigrants, with Brigden expressing the inextricable link between space/size and power.52 Perhaps members of the Trades Hall were worried about the mass of the Chinese impacting on their monopoly of power and privilege, a perceived threat to their territory. However, there is little evidence to back this claim up. It may be something to consider however, their refusal to initially admit women into their midst potential evidence for this. To this end, an article was published in January, 1928, which outlined the concerns of the Australian Workers’ Union regarding the amount of immigrants arriving in Australia from Southern European countries, “who are given preference of employment”53 and call for it to be stopped for now. Following WWII, the ACTU “acceded to increase levels of immigration… [and] subsequently, with a few trivial exceptions, Australian unions did not practice exclusion against immigrants,”54 they had finally swapped to a position of mandatory unionism for all immigrants.55 Whilst this shows their willingness to now unionise with immigrants, again there is no mention specifically of races, perhaps due to the White Australia policy still being in place, which meant that immigrants were still mainly coming from European countries anyway. Finally, following WWII, the unions began accepting government assisted immigration policy, provided that certain economic needs were met. However, this does not mean that racism disappeared, as there was still a high level of racial preference evidently prevalent in their conversations.
Overall, this essay has shown that while economic concerns were of vital importance to unionists between 1888 and 1948, anti-Chinese views were always present. Beginning in the 1880s, council responses to the presence of Chinese people are shown to be based less on economic concerns and more on their dislike of the character of Asian immigrants, as shown through the meeting of the Second Intercolonial Trades Union Congress and the anti-Chinese slanting of discourse in VTHC meeting minutes in 1888. At the beginning of the twentieth century however, this racial attitude was essentially legalised, with the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, which meant that any anti-immigrant attitudes could be seen as a product of economic and social concerns, rather than overt racism. In the years following, and as immigration began to be seen as crucial for the rebuilding of Australia’s economy, particularly during the post-WWII period, unions became more tolerant of Government assisted immigration, but not without still exhibiting some preference towards those that should be admitted to the country. Therefore, it has been shown that although economic concerns were in part, a reason for the reactions of the VTHC to Chinese immigrants, after evaluating the discourse carried out at Trades Hall meetings and consulting secondary sources, it seems clear that a racist ideology was undeniably present, albeit in different levels and ways.
References
[1] Intercolonial Trades Union Congress, The Second Intercolonial Trades Union Congress: An Official Report 1 of the Debates. (Melbourne: Walker, May & Co, 1884), 45.
[2] Ibid., 46.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 47.
[5] Ibid., 48.
[6] Ibid., 49.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 50.
[9] Phil Griffiths, “The “Necessity” of a Socially Homogenous Population: The Ruling Class Embraces Racial Exclusion,” Labour History 108 (2015): 124.
[10] Intercolonial Trades Union Congress, The Second Intercolonial Trades Union Congress, 109.
[11] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 2/11/1888, Minute Book, 1888-1893, p7, 1978.0082.0002, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[12] “The White Australia Policy”, Convict Creations, http://www.convictcreations.com/history/whiteaustralia.htm
[13] School of Historical Studies, Department of History. “Trade Unions - Entry - eMelbourne - The Encyclopedia of Melbourne Online.” Document. Accessed August 27, 2015. http://www.emelbourne.net.au/ biogs/EM01507b.htm.
[14] Carlotta Kellaway, Melbourne Trades Hall Lygon Street Carlton: The Workingman’s Parliament. 1st ed. (Carlton, Victoria: Victorian Trades Hall Council, 1988), 5.
[15] First Intercolonial Trades’ Union Congress, First Intercolonial Trades’ Union Congress: Report of 15 Proceedings, (Sydney: Samuel Edward Lees, 1879), 36.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Michael Quinlan and Constance Lever-Tracy, “From Labour Market Exclusion to Industrial Solidarity: Australian Trade Union Responses to Asian Workers, 1830-1988,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 14, no. 2 (1990): 159.
[18] Ibid., 167.
[19] Ibid., 168.
[20] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 28/4/1910, Minute Book, 1910-1913, p31, 1978.0082.0009, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[21] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 7/7/1912, Minute Book, 1910-1913, p470, 1978.0082.0009, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[22] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 15/10/1914, Minute Book, 1914-1921, p202, 1978.0082.0010, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[23] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 14/1/1926, Minute Book, 1921-1926, p635, 1978.0082.0011, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[24] Quinlan and Lever-Tracy, “From Labour Market Exclusion to Industrial Solidarity,” 166.
[25] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 4/2/1926, Minute Book, 1921-1926, p647, 1978.0082.0011, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[26] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 11/4/1929, Minute Book, 1926-1930, p523, 1978.0082.0012, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[27] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 4/8/1927, Minute Book, 1926-1930, p262-263, 1978.0082.0012, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[28] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 16/6/1927, Minute Book, 1926-1930, p238, 1978.0082.0012, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[29] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 27/1/1927, Minute Book, 1926-1930, p183, 1978.0082.0012, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[30] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 7/7/1932, Minute Book, 1930-1932, p516-517, 1978.0082.0013, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[31] Quinlan and Lever-Tracy, “From Labour Market Exclusion to Industrial Solidarity,” 162.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 24/3/1938, Minute Book, 1938-1940, p115, 1978.0082.0016, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid., 117.
[37] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 13/4/1939, Minute Book, 1938-1940, p316, 1978.0082.0016, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 1/5/1939, Minute Book, 1938-1940, p336, 1978.0082.0016, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[41] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 1/8/1940, Minute Book, 1940-1943, p77-78, 1978.0082.0017, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[42] Trades Hall Council Meeting Minutes, 8/4/1943, Minute Book, 1940-1943, p571, 1978.0082.0017, Trades Hall Council Papers, Melbourne University Archives, Melbourne.
[43] “Immigrants and Unions,” The West Australian, April 17, 1948.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Franca Icovetta, Michael Quinlan, and Ian Radforth. “Immigration and Labour: Australia and Canada Compared.” Labour History 71 (1996): 91.
[48] Quinlan and Lever-Tracy, “From Labour Market Exclusion to Industrial Solidarity,” 171.
[49] David Pope and Glenn Withers, “Do Migrants Rob Jobs? Lessons of Australian History, 1861-1991,” The Journal of Economic History 53, no. 4 (December 1993): 719.
[50] Ibid., 720.
[51] Ibid., 736.
[52] Cathy Brigden, “Creating Labour’s Space: The Case of the Melbourne Trades Hall.” Labour History, no. 89 (2005): 128.
[53] “Migration, Southern Europeans, Union Objection,” The Sydney Morning Herald, January 10th, 1928.
[54] Santina Bertone, Gerard Griffin, and Roderick D. Iverson, “Immigrant Workers and Australian Trade Unions: Participation and Attitudes,” International Migration Review 29, no. 3 (October 1, 1995): 724.
[55] Ibid.