Abstract:
Chinese people in Australia and New Zealand have been subject to a number of legislative instruments aimed at restricting their immigration, beginning almost as soon as they entered Australasia in the mid-1800s. The measures employed show substantial parallels across both jurisdictions. While it may be tempting to dismiss these measures as being emblematic of a racist past, critical analysis of the attitudes of past legislators is able to forewarn society of any resurgences of discriminatory legislation. This paper seeks to analyse the reasoning given by politicians to justify the implementation of anti-Chinese legislation under the lens of Edward Said’s orientalism. It argues that the reasoning demonstrates each of Said’s four dogmas of orientalism, successfully characterising the Chinese as ‘other’ and thus is inherently orientalist in nature.
Although looking to similar jurisdictions can provide helpful insight into legislative
solutions for policy problems, this paper finds that such comparison is not to be
substituted for one’s own critical analysis. The traces of orientalism appearing in modern political campaigns and in public opinion in Australia and New Zealand suggest that while orientalism has not yet returned to legislation, it would be prudent for both legislatures to bear in mind the risk of orientalism when developing new immigration policy.
