FrankGol, it's all very well to quote politician's speeches, but they are not the LAW.
Immigration is determined by legislation, not speeches. You mention the Immigration Act of 1901, but conveniently don't quote from.
Why is that FrankGol? Maybe because you know very well it makes no provision for racial discrimination!

And you didn't address any point I raised.

A on rise convictional wisdom of the world is that Australia is a country of racists.

Just displaced and fleeing for their lives “boys of Sudan” of different countries could be understood for reasons made them coming to Australia.

However, they not always fit Anglo-racist well-live predicament of 1956 mentioned above as some of them really left countries too young to have skills but murdering and raping, and some steady the native land mafia-supplied sourcing to rely in Australia on.

Shockadelic

You – and Oligarch - are in denial about the White Australia Policy. But you can’t re-write history to suit your own wishes.

I quoted from Hansard (12/9/1901) the second reading speech of Attorney-General Alfred Deakin who was introducing the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. Second reading speeches are universally accepted as the responsible minister’s explanation of the intention of the legislation under debate.

In his speech, Deakin used the term repeatedly. E.g. “The program of a ‘white Australia’ means not merely its preservation for the future – it means the consideration of those who cannot be classed within the category of whites, but who have found their way into our midst.”

When referring to the intention to (a) prohibit ‘coloured people’ coming into Australia and (b) deport ‘coloureds’ already here, Deakin said, “The two things go hand in hand and are a necessary complement of a single policy – the policy of securing a ‘White Australia’…If we exclude all coloured peoples we go a long way towards obtaining a white Australia…Members on both sides of the House…are all united in the unalterable resolve that this Commonwealth shall be established on the firm foundation of unity of race…”

Opposition to the Bill was minimal. All parties supported it: e.g. "We want a White Australia and are we to be denied it because we shall offend the Japanese or embarrass His Majesty's ministers? I think not…” (Billy Hughes, Hansard 12/9/1901 p. 4825). The Act was overwhelmingly passed and assented to on23/12/1901.

The mechanism used to exclude non-whites was the Dictation Test (clause 3 (a)) whereby non-whites were given a written test of 50 words in any European language chosen by an immigration officer. If the prospective immigrant passed, but was considered to be racially unsuitable, the officer could then give the test in another European language until they failed.

There's a a full transcript of the Act at:
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth4ii_doc_1901a.pdf
Its full title was: “An Act to place certain restrictions on Immigration and to provide for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited Immigrants”.

Now what other question was that Shockaholic?

Thanks for the link. Now everyone can see there is no mention of excluding people because of their race.

In fact, the act specifically exempts Pacific Islanders working in Queensland and any migrant already living in Australia!

The only sections that could be construed as "racial" are the fining of ship captains who bring stowaways who aren't European (people smugglers), and the compulsory dictation test for non-British migrants who COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES!

We see the words "British" and "European" (cultural definitions), but not "white" (biology).

Yes, the dictation test COULD be applied, but wasn't compulsory unless specifically requested by an appointed officer.
And, hello, the test was in EUROPEAN languages, i.e. CULTURAL CRITERIA.

What people were prohibited?
The destitute, the insane, infectious/contagious invalids, criminals, prostitutes, mercenary labourers who would take jobs from Australian workers.

Should these people have been permitted entry? It seems the point of the act wasn't preserving race, but cultural standards.

What other points did I raise? I have to repeat myself, do I?

Oligarch noticed the questioning of "forced assimilation" which is an oxymoron.

Then there was the analogy between multiple personality disorder (bad/sick) and multiculturalism (good/healthy). If multiple realities in an individual indicate something's wrong with them, why not societies?

The article authors (remember them?) rejected the idea of a "dominant cultural pattern", even though we obviously have one: British/Judeo-Christian/European. What's WRONG with that?

Here's a new question: Were you aware that in the early 20th century the terms "race", "nation", "people" and "culture" were SYNONYMS?

Me-thinks perhaps it is you, FrankGol, who are trying to re-write history.

Now please don't quote any more speeches or ask me to repeat things I've already said.

Shockadelic

You claim it was not race but culture that drove the White Australia Policy (WAP). When the PM told Parliament that the equality of all men was “never intended to include racial equality… There is no racial equality”, no-one misunderstood. (Hansard, 26/9/1901, p.5233)

True, the Act does not mention race. International objections, e.g. from the UK, Japan and India, made this a delicate political problem. The Dictation Test was the practical solution.

You correctly say, “the test was in EUROPEAN languages” but incorrectly construe language to be “CULTURAL CRITERIA”. It was perfectly clear why the Act mandated European languages and not ASIAN or AFRICAN languages.

Everyone administering the Test knew what was wanted. Instructions were issued by the Chief Clerk in each State. An example:
"All aboriginal inhabitants of Africa, Asia and Polynesia should be subjected to the test unless they come within the exceptions to Section 3, or are Pacific Island labourers... In the case of White Races, the test will be applied only under special circumstances (qu. Norris, 'The Emergent Commonwealth, MUP 1975).

On 28/5/1902, the Departmental Secretary wrote to the PM, Barton: "… We continue to eject the monstrous Jap and the wily Chow...The April returns show that no coloured aliens passed the test..." (NLA, MS 51/1/976).

You claim that the Act specifically “exempted Pacific Islanders working in Queensland and any migrant already living in Australia!” Right on the first; wrong on the second. The reason for the first was they were dealt with differently. Under the Pacific Island Labourers Act, recruiting had to cease in 1904 and as many Pacific Islanders as possible had to be repatriated by 1907. Under the Sugar Cultivation Act 1913 all non-white canefield laborers had to pass the dictation test.

You claim “the act wasn't preserving race, but cultural standards” then ask: “Were you aware that in the early 20th century the terms ‘race’, ‘nation’, ‘people’ and ‘culture’ were SYNONYMS?”

Have you not just destroyed your own argument? If race and culture are synonyms, then exclusion on cultural grounds is the same as exclusion on racial grounds.

"True, the Act does not mention race."
At last, he admits it!

But then the usual routine:
"You correctly say, “the test was in EUROPEAN languages” but incorrectly construe language to be “CULTURAL CRITERIA”."

WHAT?! Language isn't cultural? What have you been smoking?

You quote a book published in 1975 (just whose recollections were they?):
"All aboriginal inhabitants of Africa, Asia and Polynesia should be subjected to the test unless they come within the exceptions to Section 3, or are Pacific Island labourers"

Again, we see the Pacific Islanders exempted.
And the aboriginal inhabitants of Africa, Asia and Polynesia?
Different races coincide with different CULTURES!
The two go together, but you insist everything's about race and only race.

An aboriginal inhabitant of Asia isn't just an Asian body (race), but an Asian mind.
And mind is the birthplace and home of culture.

You say: "You claim that the Act specifically “exempted Pacific Islanders working in Queensland and any migrant already living in Australia” Right on the first; wrong on the second."

Sorry, right on both counts.
Read section 3(n) again: "Any person who satisfies an officer that he has formerly been domiciled in the Commonwealth or in any colony which has become a State".
Migrants who can prove they've already been living here are exempt!

QUEENSLAND legislation (The Pacific Island Labourers Act, the Sugar Cultivation Act) only apply in that state, and federal law (see above) overules state law.

"Have you not just destroyed your own argument? If race and culture are synonyms, then exclusion on cultural grounds is the same as exclusion on racial grounds."

I said they WERE synonyms. My own CONTEMPORARY use of words obviously has the current meaning. I wouldn't think I would need to explain this to you.

My point was that in 1901, if someone said "the white race" or "a white nation" they may mean what we today would call "European culture".

The meaning of words can change over time.
If someone had a "gay" time in 1930, it had nothing to do with drag queens and leathermen.
Same spelling, different meaning.