Historiography tends to seek patterns of inevitability, attempting to explain a decided course rather than incorporating other evident, though unfulfilled possibilities. In the case of historiography on the Allied Occupation of Japan, this is particularly obvious. Occupation scholarship appears absorbed by the overarching US presence in Japan during this period, reflects the dominant paradigm of the Cold War and when it does venture past the US remains focused on the US-Japan dichotomy. Australia also participated in the Occupation, also held a vision for a Pacific future and developed a relationship with Japan. Often the Australian perspective did not coincide with that of the US especially on the terrain of ideological and historical experiences and interpretations. The potential for conflict between the two nations’ approaches to post-surrender Japan is particularly evident in labour reform policy and issues of social and economic justice – the focus of this thesis. Australian policies towards labour reform under the Chifley Labor Government are examined in this thesis within the context of the Australian labour movement’s historical legacy, Orientalism and racial stereotypes, the Cold War, US hegemony, idealism and pragmatism and overall Australian policy towards Occupied Japan as a dual-paradigm structure. This thesis investigates attempts to turn labour reform polices and ideals into practice, via the diplomatic control machinery established for the Occupation namely the Allied Council for Japan and Far Eastern Commission and as articulated by Australian government representatives including Dr H.V. Evatt, William Macmahon Ball, Patrick Shaw and Sir Frederick Eggleston. The thesis contests the predominant simplistic harsh peace label given to Australian policy in the current literature. By examining Australian policy towards Occupied Japan from a micro perspective, what emerges is a more complex foreign policy mosaic to which the research in this thesis is a contribution / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)