This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/annie-white-australia-policy
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| How one refugee signalled the end of the White Australia policy | How one refugee signalled the end of the White Australia policy |
| (6 months later) | |
| Sixty-five years ago today, a second world war refugee from Indonesia and her eight children achieved a stunning legal victory in the High Court of Australia. The case of Annie O’Keefe and her family made international headlines, highlighting the cruel implementation of Australia’s race-based immigration laws and the obstinacy of the immigration minister, Arthur Calwell. The action in the High Court was the first successful legal challenge to the White Australia Policy and was perhaps the first step towards the policy’s ultimate abolition 24 years later. | Sixty-five years ago today, a second world war refugee from Indonesia and her eight children achieved a stunning legal victory in the High Court of Australia. The case of Annie O’Keefe and her family made international headlines, highlighting the cruel implementation of Australia’s race-based immigration laws and the obstinacy of the immigration minister, Arthur Calwell. The action in the High Court was the first successful legal challenge to the White Australia Policy and was perhaps the first step towards the policy’s ultimate abolition 24 years later. |
| Annie O’Keefe was among around 15,000 people who were evacuated to Australia from nearby countries during World War II and given sanctuary. While the Australian government was happy for the 10,000 or so wartime refugees of European background to remain in Australia, when the war was over it began work on forcing the 5,473 non-Europeans to leave. While the majority of the non-European refugees left voluntarily, by late 1948 Calwell and his department were turning their attention to forcing the removal of the 800 or so who remained. | |
| Annie had arrived in Australia in September 1942 at the age of 33 with her then husband Samuel Jacob and their seven children, being at risk because of the assistance Samuel had given Allied forces fighting the Japanese army in the Aru islands in Indonesia. They settled in the outer Melbourne community of Bonbeach, boarding in the home of John O’Keefe, an unmarried retired postal worker. | Annie had arrived in Australia in September 1942 at the age of 33 with her then husband Samuel Jacob and their seven children, being at risk because of the assistance Samuel had given Allied forces fighting the Japanese army in the Aru islands in Indonesia. They settled in the outer Melbourne community of Bonbeach, boarding in the home of John O’Keefe, an unmarried retired postal worker. |
| Shortly after his eighth child was born, Jacob returned to Indonesia to take part in a military mission. Before he left, he asked O’Keefe to take care of Annie and the children if anything should happen to him. Jacob did not return, dying in a plane crash in September 1944. Because of the postwar unrest in Indonesia, Annie and her children were permitted to stay temporarily but by 1947 the Australian government began to pressure them to leave. O’Keefe married Annie in June 1947, believing that the marriage would also allow Annie to remain in Australia and her children to continue their education in Bonbeach. However, the Government did not accept that the marriage conferred citizenship and issued a deportation order for Annie and the children in January 1949. | Shortly after his eighth child was born, Jacob returned to Indonesia to take part in a military mission. Before he left, he asked O’Keefe to take care of Annie and the children if anything should happen to him. Jacob did not return, dying in a plane crash in September 1944. Because of the postwar unrest in Indonesia, Annie and her children were permitted to stay temporarily but by 1947 the Australian government began to pressure them to leave. O’Keefe married Annie in June 1947, believing that the marriage would also allow Annie to remain in Australia and her children to continue their education in Bonbeach. However, the Government did not accept that the marriage conferred citizenship and issued a deportation order for Annie and the children in January 1949. |
| When a local Catholic priest used the pulpit to attack the planned deportation, media and public interest grew quickly. Calwell received letters from all around Australia asking him to reverse the decision, and Sydney’s Daily Telegraph set up a fighting fund which raised £747 in just five days for a legal challenge. Public criticism came from many quarters, including Labor party branch members, returned soldiers’ groups and church members, among them Calwell’s confidante Cardinal Daniel Mannix, the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne. While the Liberal-Country opposition strongly supported the White Australia Party, it saw Calwell’s victimisation of individuals as foolish and likely to weaken support for the policy. | When a local Catholic priest used the pulpit to attack the planned deportation, media and public interest grew quickly. Calwell received letters from all around Australia asking him to reverse the decision, and Sydney’s Daily Telegraph set up a fighting fund which raised £747 in just five days for a legal challenge. Public criticism came from many quarters, including Labor party branch members, returned soldiers’ groups and church members, among them Calwell’s confidante Cardinal Daniel Mannix, the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne. While the Liberal-Country opposition strongly supported the White Australia Party, it saw Calwell’s victimisation of individuals as foolish and likely to weaken support for the policy. |
| Calwell responded in Parliament in February 1949, declaring that he had a responsibility “to hand down this country to our children and our children’s children in the same manner as we received it from our fathers and as they received it from their fathers”. He continued: “We can have a white Australia, we can have a black Australia, but a mongrel Australia is impossible, and I shall not take the first steps to establish the precedents which will allow the floodgates to be opened.” | Calwell responded in Parliament in February 1949, declaring that he had a responsibility “to hand down this country to our children and our children’s children in the same manner as we received it from our fathers and as they received it from their fathers”. He continued: “We can have a white Australia, we can have a black Australia, but a mongrel Australia is impossible, and I shall not take the first steps to establish the precedents which will allow the floodgates to be opened.” |
| The Government’s action drew wide criticism in southeast Asia. The Singapore-based Malay newspaper Utusan Melayu said the deportation threatened the goodwill Australia had built up in supporting Indonesian independence. Asians were trying to forget past indignities and understand Australia but Calwell’s action was a great disappointment, the paper added, noting that Australia’s support for Indonesia had “raised hopes among Asians generally that Australia realised her dependence on Asian goodwill for her future security”. | The Government’s action drew wide criticism in southeast Asia. The Singapore-based Malay newspaper Utusan Melayu said the deportation threatened the goodwill Australia had built up in supporting Indonesian independence. Asians were trying to forget past indignities and understand Australia but Calwell’s action was a great disappointment, the paper added, noting that Australia’s support for Indonesia had “raised hopes among Asians generally that Australia realised her dependence on Asian goodwill for her future security”. |
| Public financial support enabled the O’Keefe family to challenge the deportation order. On 18 March 1949, the High Court of Australia, in a 4-2 decision, ruled that the immigration department did not have the power to deport Annie O’Keefe because she had not been declared a prohibited immigrant when she arrived in Australia. The decision was received with great joy in Bonbeach. | Public financial support enabled the O’Keefe family to challenge the deportation order. On 18 March 1949, the High Court of Australia, in a 4-2 decision, ruled that the immigration department did not have the power to deport Annie O’Keefe because she had not been declared a prohibited immigrant when she arrived in Australia. The decision was received with great joy in Bonbeach. |
| Newspapers reported that neighbours rushed to Mrs O’Keefe’s home to tell her the news and that the O’Keefe children’s classmates at St Joseph’s School cheered when the nuns shared the result of the court case. Mrs O’Keefe declared herself “drunk with happiness” and began planning an Indonesian-style party on the beach at which she would serve nasi goreng (described to newspaper readers as “a spicy Indonesian dish”). | Newspapers reported that neighbours rushed to Mrs O’Keefe’s home to tell her the news and that the O’Keefe children’s classmates at St Joseph’s School cheered when the nuns shared the result of the court case. Mrs O’Keefe declared herself “drunk with happiness” and began planning an Indonesian-style party on the beach at which she would serve nasi goreng (described to newspaper readers as “a spicy Indonesian dish”). |
| Calwell immediately declared his intention to introduce legislation to close the loophole revealed by the High Court decision. His legislation, which became the Wartime Refugees Removal Act, was passed by the Parliament with the opposition of only two MPs – the left-wing independents Jack Lang and Doris Blackburn. It took effect on 12 July 1949, giving the minister wide powers to designate which wartime refugees could be deported and introducing jail sentences for people who harboured them. | Calwell immediately declared his intention to introduce legislation to close the loophole revealed by the High Court decision. His legislation, which became the Wartime Refugees Removal Act, was passed by the Parliament with the opposition of only two MPs – the left-wing independents Jack Lang and Doris Blackburn. It took effect on 12 July 1949, giving the minister wide powers to designate which wartime refugees could be deported and introducing jail sentences for people who harboured them. |
| While the Liberal-Country coalition supported the legislation, it did not have the same enthusiasm for its implementation, particularly as public opposition to Calwell’s hardheartedness grew. Calwell’s treatment of a Philippines-born US Army sergeant Lorenzo Gamboa who had married an Australian woman in 1943 caused such outrage in the Philippines that the national parliament passed the Reciprocity Immigration Bill. If it had been enacted, the legislation would have prevented Australians from entering the Philippines. | While the Liberal-Country coalition supported the legislation, it did not have the same enthusiasm for its implementation, particularly as public opposition to Calwell’s hardheartedness grew. Calwell’s treatment of a Philippines-born US Army sergeant Lorenzo Gamboa who had married an Australian woman in 1943 caused such outrage in the Philippines that the national parliament passed the Reciprocity Immigration Bill. If it had been enacted, the legislation would have prevented Australians from entering the Philippines. |
| Before Calwell had the opportunity to force the deportation of many of the people targeted by his legislation, the Chifley Labor Government faced the electors and, in December 1949, was swept from office. In January 1950, the Menzies government’s new immigration minister Harold Holt declared that the remaining wartime refugees merited special consideration and would be allowed to stay. Later, a number of couples separated by past deportations, including Lorenzo and Joyce Gamboa, were given the opportunity to reunite. | Before Calwell had the opportunity to force the deportation of many of the people targeted by his legislation, the Chifley Labor Government faced the electors and, in December 1949, was swept from office. In January 1950, the Menzies government’s new immigration minister Harold Holt declared that the remaining wartime refugees merited special consideration and would be allowed to stay. Later, a number of couples separated by past deportations, including Lorenzo and Joyce Gamboa, were given the opportunity to reunite. |
| While Annie O’Keefe and her children were allowed to remain in Australia, her eldest son Sam, who was at school in Ambon when the family fled Indonesia, was never allowed to join them. Annie and John added a daughter to the family in 1950. The Wartime Refugees Removal Act remained on the books until it was repealed by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1973, the same year that the White Australia policy was finally put to rest. | While Annie O’Keefe and her children were allowed to remain in Australia, her eldest son Sam, who was at school in Ambon when the family fled Indonesia, was never allowed to join them. Annie and John added a daughter to the family in 1950. The Wartime Refugees Removal Act remained on the books until it was repealed by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1973, the same year that the White Australia policy was finally put to rest. |