The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 defined as a prohibited immigrant anyone who failed a dictation test of 50 words in any prescribed language. Customs officials were instructed to use this test as an 'absolute bar' to the admission of 'coloured persons'.

Page from the draft 'Immigration Restriction Act 1901–1910 – Confidential notes for the guidance of officers', 1911

NAA: A1, 1917/16266, p.51

Exemptions were allowed for 'any person who satisfies an officer that he has formerly been domiciled in the Commonwealth or in any colony which has become a State'. In some circumstances, certificates of birth or naturalisation could be used to gain re-entry, provided the bearer could prove their identity. But in most cases, non-Europeans intending to travel overseas were required to obtain a Certificate of Domicile.

In the first year or so of the Act's operation, a strict definition of 'domicile' was applied. Customs officials were instructed to consider questions such as whether the applicant had his wife and family with him, and whether he owned land or maintained a permanent business address. Under such a definition, few applications were approved.

Photograph of Naik Mahomet, c. 1902

NAA: A9, A1902/7/64, p.1

Naik Mahomet wished to visit his family in India. He had lived in Australia for eight years, owned property, and was a respected member of his community. To support his application he included a reference from the mayor of Coolgardie, as well as a letter from a business associate who commented, 'I could not have had a more trusty man than you'. But it wasn't enough. The Customs official who forwarded Naik Mahomet's file to the Department of External Affairs admitted that the case deserved consideration, but added 'it will be seen that he has a wife and three children in Karachi and does not even propose to bring them here'. No certificate was issued.

Letter from Charles Crossland to Naik Mahomet, 26 July 1898, forwarded in support of his application for a Certificate of Domicile

NAA: A9, A1902/7/64, p.9

Memorandum from the Collector of Customs, Fremantle, to the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, 24 October 1902

NAA: A9, A1902/7/64, p.4

From early 1903, the definition of 'domicile' was relaxed. Applicants had to provide evidence of five years' residence in Australia, and references attesting to their good character. Munshie Kreem Bux benefited from the change in policy. As a hawker who dealt in fancy goods, his only property was his stock and a pack horse worth about £50. His application was, however, approved.

Application for Domicile Certificate submitted by Munshie Kreem Bux, September 1903

NAA: A1, 1912/667, p.2

In 1905, the clause relating to proof of domicile was removed from the Immigration Restriction Act. In its place was a more rigorous system which required non-Europeans intending to travel overseas to obtain a certificate exempting them from the dictation test – a CEDT. The certificate was valid for three years, but could be extended on application and payment of an additional fee. Two copies of this certificate were made, complete with photographs and handprints. One was kept by the person travelling, the other remained on file. Upon the traveller's return, the certificates were compared and the identity of the bearer verified. If all seemed in order, the traveller was duly admitted. The new system was a response to concerns about forgery, identity fraud, and illegal entry. While it seemed more complicated, non-Europeans who obtained a CEDT could travel abroad knowing their re-entry was assured.

Certificate Exempting from Dictation Test issued to Jaffer Soongar, 24 April 1924

NAA: E752, 1924/2, p.15

To prove they were of good character, applicants for a CEDT provided character references from friends or associates. Local police were also asked to report on the applicant's habits and reputation. 'He is in our opinion an honest and industrious man and a good citizen', Richard Bell, a general merchant in the South Australian town of Farina, wrote in support of the Afghan camel driver Said Peroo.

Photographs of Said Peroo, c. 1928

NAA: PP4/2, 1928/981 p.13

Character reference for Said Peroo by Richard Bell, Bell Brothers, Farina, 4 September 1923

NAA: PP4/2, 1928/981, p.32

Those non-Europeans who left Australia without a certificate were in a rather more difficult position, particularly if they had been absent for a number of years. In 1912, Melbourne wholesalers Latoof and Callil wrote to the Collector of Customs on behalf of a former client. Dewan Allie Khan had worked as a hawker in Victoria before leaving Australia in 1902, shortly after the Immigration Restriction Act had come into force. Without a CEDT or a Certificate of Domicile, he had to convince the Department of External Affairs that he deserved readmission. Although the local police confirmed that he had held a hawker's licence for 10 or 11 years, and was well regarded by local merchants, the department rejected his application.

Letter from Latoof and Callil to the Collector of Customs, Melbourne, 4 January 1912

NAA: A1, 1914/16460, p.30

Report by Constable George Scott, Victoria Police, on Dewan Allie Khan's application to re-enter Australia, 13 January 1912

NAA: A1, 1914/16460, p.29

As he did regularly, AH Pritchard of the Austral–Indian Society took up the hawker's case. In a long letter to the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, he presented Allie Khan's details, pointing out that other hawkers in similar circumstances had been allowed to enter. Additional testimonials were enclosed, including one from Mr Eassie, Fitzroy's Sanitary Inspector. Whether swayed by argument, or simply the pressure of persistent lobbying, the department relented – Dewan Allie Khan was able to return.

Letter from AH Pritchard to Atlee Hunt, Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, 6 April 1914

NAA: A1, 1914/16460 pp.14–16

Character reference for Dewan Allie Khan by O Eassie, Sanitary Inspector, 3 April 1914

NAA: A1, 1914/16460, p.21

Department of External Affairs memorandum, 17 July 1913

NAA: A1, 1914/16459, pp.8–9

Ellum Deen was another Indian hawker who found himself stranded overseas. He left Australia urgently in 1905 to attend to family business, believing that as a British subject he would be able to return. By 1907 he was desperate to come back, writing to AH Pritchard, 'For God sake get the passport for me & send quick'. Nothing seems to have been done at the time, perhaps because, as departmental officials surmised, Mr Pritchard believed that appeals were useless 'in view of the Depts constant refusals'.

Photograph of Ellum Deen, c. 1913

NAA: A1, 1914/16459, p.17

Letter from Ellum Deen to AH Pritchard, 2 September 1907

NAA: A1, 1914/16459, pp.2–3

File note, 7 February 1914

NAA: A1, 1914/16459, p.12

AH Pritchard's approach in 1913 was indeed refused, but he persisted, forwarding a detailed declaration from Ellum Deen. When officials questioned claims that the hawker had been eager to return for several years, Pritchard pointed to his own long service as a government interpreter: 'I would not have you ... on any account to mistrust or doubt my statements'. Once again the government reconsidered its position, and after a long wait Ellum Deen finally returned to Australia.

Letter from AH Pritchard to the Secretary, Department of External Affairs, 17 January 1914

NAA: A1, 1914/16459 pp.14–16

Department of External Affairs memorandum, 17 July 1913

NAA: A1, 1914/16459, pp.8–9