Chinese restriction, naturalisation and mobility in colonial and post-Federation Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1924, On Hing’s naturalisation certificate, issued in New South Wales in 1875, was tendered as evidence in a case heard before the Court of Quarter Sessions in Sydney. The case concerned On Hing’s daughter, Lucy Wong Sau, who had been arrested as a prohibited immigrant under the Immigration Act on her return to New South Wales after 35 years in China. With proof of Lucy’s Australian birth in the form of her birth certificate, and proof of her father’s Australian domicile in the form of his naturalisation certificate, the Court of Quarter Sessions ruled in her favour. Within months, however, the Commonwealth had appealed to the High Court, who ruled against Lucy, finding that she was not a member of the Australian community. In this paper I want to consider the interplay of naturalisation, mobility and Chinese restriction laws in colonial and post-Federation Australia, particularly within the context of the family. Before 1888, when naturalisation of Chinese was prohibited by law in New South Wales, nearly 1000 Chinese men were naturalised in the colony. Many of them sought naturalisation to avoid the prohibitive poll tax that was re-introduced with the 1881 Influx of Chinese Restriction Act. Over the following decades naturalised Chinese residents of New South Wales, and their families, continued to draw on their status as British subjects to negotiate anti-Chinese laws, particularly when they travelled out and back into the colony. In the paper I will trace the relationship between naturalisation and Chinese restriction laws in New South Wales from the 1880s, and discuss several notable cases, including that of On Hing and his daughter Lucy Wong Sau.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".