The History of Aboriginal Welfare in the Colony of NSW 1788-1856

Susan Green

This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Social Sciences

University of New South Wales

August 2014 PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname or Family name: Green

First name: Susan Other name/s: Margaret Kim

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: Social Sciences Faculty: Arts and Social Science

Title: The History of Aboriginal Welfare in the Colony of NSW 1788-1856

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

Abstract

Debate has occurred over the past decade about Aboriginal Australians' 'welfare dependency'. How can this challenging discourse be deconstructed and understood? This thesis returns to the roots of the imposition of welfare on Aboriginal Australians in the colony of New South Wales. It examines the period from the invasion of Sydney Cove by the British in 1788 and the early settlement to 1856. This thesis addresses the question: In what ways was welfare used by the British in the process of colonisation of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales? The methodology employed is a Critical Indigenous approach. Generally, Australian history has been told by non-Indigenous Australians, informedby a Western understanding and interpretation of documentary and other evidence. Understandings and interpretations are derived from Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing and being. 'Seeing' the creation of welfare for Aboriginal peoples in the early colony through this Indigenous critical historical method opens a new understanding of Aboriginal welfare. Archival documents not used previously in this way, are examined to understand how the early Governors of New South Wales and the British government of the day conceptualized and dealt with Aboriginal people. In particular this thesis explores how Aboriginal people were welfarised within the colony of New South Wales. Further to this it is found that welfarisation was not only the result of colonisation but also used as a method in the process of colonising. The findings of this thesis provide a new way of thinking about what occurred during the colonisation of New South Wales and the impact upon Aboriginal people. It also provides a way in which to consider how it is possible to decolonise the way in which we understand our past, know who we are today and allow us to address current issues in a manner which is based on human rights and social justice. It is essential for all Australians, not only Aboriginal people, that we are able to break free from the shackles of our colonial mentality and commence the process of decolonisation.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all fom,s of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses ly).

Witness

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and re uire the a roval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award: COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

'I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or · s ation.'

Signed

Date

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

'I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has oecurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to di ·

Signed

Date OR~NAUTY STATEMENT

'I hereby declare that lhls submission fs my own wodt and to Ina oost of my knowlodge II contains no rrt-'lafials prsviousfy pubu~ or wrl~en by another person, Qr $Ubs.tantial pi'OpOfti:)nS ol matenal which have. been accepted tor tho award or any other degroo or diploma at UNSW cr any other educalional il'•sltutioo. except when~ due acknowledgemOOl IS made m the thesis Any oontnbu:tion n\ado to the research by others, with whom I havo worked at UNSW or etsewnere, ts e)(plicttty admowledged •Cl tho thesis. I also declare that !lle irnellectual content of this thesis- iS tho product ol my own work. except to the extent that assistance from others in the proiecfs design and concoptloo or tn style. presen'ta and 11ngulstic expressiOn tS ackl'lo't\·ledg-ed '

Oate

2

Abstract

Debate has occurred over the past decade about Aboriginal Australians’ ‘welfare dependency’. How can this challenging discourse be deconstructed and understood? This thesis returns to the roots of the imposition of welfare on Aboriginal Australians in the colony of New South Wales. It examines the period from the invasion of Sydney Cove by the British in 1788 and the early settlement to 1856. This thesis addresses the question: In what ways was welfare used by the British in the process of colonisation of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales? The methodology employed is a Critical Indigenous approach. Generally, Australian history has been told by non‐Indigenous Australians, informed by a Western understanding and interpretation of documentary and other evidence. Understandings and interpretations are derived from Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing and being. ‘Seeing’ the creation of welfare for Aboriginal peoples in the early colony through this Indigenous critical historical method opens a new understanding of Aboriginal welfare. Archival documents not used previously in this way, are examined to understand how the early Governors of New South Wales and the British government of the day conceptualized and dealt with Aboriginal people. In particular this thesis explores how Aboriginal people were welfarised within the colony of New South Wales. Further to this it is found that welfarisation was not only the result of colonisation but also used as a method in the process of colonising. The findings of this thesis provide a new way of thinking about what occurred during the colonisation of New South Wales and the impact upon Aboriginal people. It also provides a way in which to consider how it is possible to decolonise the way in which we understand our past, know who we are today and allow us to address current issues in a manner which is based on human rights and social justice. It is essential for all Australians, not only Aboriginal people, that we are able to break free from the shackles of our colonial mentality and commence the process of decolonisation.

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to all the Aboriginal women in my family who did not live to experience a life outside of colonisation. In particular this thesis is dedicated to my sisters, Kim and Peta, my Grandmother Vera, Great-Grandmother Eliza and Great Great-Grandmother Louisa. Your spirits continue to walk with and guide me through my journey in this life.

3 Acknowledgements

I would like to firstly acknowledge the Spirits, Ancestors, Elders, Indigenous people and the lands I have travelled through and will travel through during my life journey.

I would then like to acknowledge all those who have been a part of the journey of this thesis and the lessons you have brought me. Whilst I have not named you here (as there are so many individuals that it would be impossible to do so) the lessons you have brought are still an important part of the development of this thesis and also of my life.

I would also like to especially acknowledge my family; Glenn, Andrew, Daniel, Alicia, Grant, Taniesha, Tylor, Teana, Abgail, Tevita and Aurora; for all your love and just for being. I want to particularly acknowledge my father, Neil for passing onto me the strength to survive whatever may come. In particular I want to acknowledge my husband Glenn for being proud of me, always believing in me and in particularly all the support and love that he has brought to my life. As well thank you Glenn for being the one to hold everything together so that I could focus totally on this thesis, especially in these last couple of months. Yes darling, it is finally done.

A special acknowledge has to go to my Tidda and best friend Becky. You were there from the very first undergraduate assignment to this point. You know me better than anyone else in this life and you have always stuck by me. There is so much more than I could say, but really don’t need to as you know how much you mean to me.

I make a special mention of Bindi, who has shared this journey with me through her own struggles during the PhD process.

Lastly but certainly not least, I acknowledge my supervisors, Eileen Baldry and Michael Wearing, without whom I would never have managed to get to this point. You both have been incredible with not just your knowledge, but also your friendship and support. What you have given me is invaluable and can never be repaid. You both truly show that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people can work together in a non-colonising way. You both are the benchmark for non-Aboriginal people in working with and alongside Aboriginal people. You are the evidence that decolonisation is possible.

4 Table of Contents

Contents Page

Abstract 1 Originality Statement 2 Dedication 3 Acknowledgements 4 Table of Contents 5 Chapter One: Introduction: Setting the Scene 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 The Research Question 11 1.3 The Research Journey 17 1.3.1 Who Owns the Past? 23 1.4 Whose Words/Whose knowing? 26 1.5 Inverting the Gaze 28 1.6 Outline of the Thesis 29 1.7 Conclusion 35

Chapter Two: The Story of One Woman’s Journey into the Past: A Methodology 2.1 Introduction 37 2.2 The Journey 38 2.3 Indigenous Methodology 50 2.3.1 Historical Documentary Research 55 2.3.2 Qualitative Research Method 58 2.3.3 Identification of Relevant Documents 60 2.4 Data Collection 61 2.5 Data Analysis 62 2.5.1 Thematic Analysis 62 2.5.2 Analysis 63 2.6 Interpretation of Findings 65

5 2.7 Validity 66 2.8 Reliability 66 2.9 Limitations 68 2.10 Conclusion 69

Chapter Three: The Development of Welfare in the colony of New South Wales in the 18th and 19th Centuries. 3.1 Introduction 72 3.2 The British Poor Laws 74 3.2.1 Workhouses 76 3.3 Australian welfare in the 18th and 19th Centuries 81 3.4 Aboriginal peoples and 18th and 19th Century Welfare 89 3.5 Conclusion 96

Chapter Four: Social Relationship – Capitalism, Empire and Colonisation 4.1 Introduction 101 4.2 Capitalism 102 4.3 Colonisation 107 4.3.1 Terra Nullius 109 4.3.2 A Convict Colony? 117 4.3.3 The Establishment of the Colony 119 4.4 Colonial Relationships 120 4.4.1 The Relationship Between Colonialism and Capitalism 120 4.5 The Colonial Relationship – Bennelong and Phillip 123 4.6 Conclusion 124

Chapter Five: Colonial Governance 5.1 Introduction 126 5.2 What is Governance 127 5.3 Aboriginal Governance Prior to 1788 129 5.4 British Colonisation 134

6 5.5 Colonial Policy to 1860 136 5.6 Conclusion 150

Chapter Six: Instructing the Governors 6.1 Introduction 153 6.2 Implementing the Instructions 156 6.2.1 Protection 156 6.2.2 Conciliating 167 6.2.3 Observing 169 6.2.4 Civilising 172 6.3 Governing the Savage Subject 178 6.4 Conclusion 179

Chapter Seven: Inquiry about the Colonised 7.1 Introduction 181 7.1.1 The British Report (1837) 183 7.1.2 The NSW Reports 189 7.1.3 The First NSW Inquiry and its Report (1838) 190 7.1.4 The Second NSW Inquiry (1843) 191 7.1.5 The Third NSW Inquiry and its Report (1845) 191 7.1.6 The Fourth NSW Inquiry Report (1849) 192 7.2 The Themes 193 7.2.1 Impact of Colonisation 194 7.2.2 Protection 196 7.2.3 Civilising the Natives 202 7.2.4 Ideologies and Values 204 7.2.5 Duty of the British 206 7.2.6 Object of Curiosity 209 7.3 Conclusion 210

7 Chapter Eight: Talking Back 8.1 Introduction 213 8.2 Back to the Beginning –Governing a Colony 214 8.3 Implementation of Instructions 215 8.4 Symbolic Inquiries 220 8.5 Welfarisation of Aboriginal peoples 222 8.6 The Maintenance of Welfarisation in the 21st Century 227 8.7 A Step Towards De-Welfarisation 229 8.7.1 Bennelong 229 8.7.2 Maria 231 8.8 Maintaining Colonisation and Welfarisation 234 8.9 Conclusion 240

Chapter Nine: Conclusion: A New Beginning 9.1 From the Past to the Present 243 9.2 The Present 245 9.3 From the Present to the Future 247

References 250

8 Chapter One1

Introduction: Setting the Scene

In remote first Australian communities where unemployment and relative poverty are the norm, welfare with poorly enforced mutual obligations and heavily subsidised public housing gives greater incentives for individuals to remain unemployed than to get meaningful employment or move to take up work. (Forrest 2014:128)

1.1 Introduction

My name is Susan Green, a Galari woman of the Wiradjuri nation located in central Western New South Wales. The Wiradjuri people’s country is approximately double the size of the United Kingdom and is made up of three main river systems; Galari (Lachlan), Murrumbidgerie (Murrumbidgee) and Wambool (Macquarie) as well as over thirty separate clan (family) groups (Clayton & Barlow 1997:27-29). I am a wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, sister, cousin and kin. My family has experienced generations of child removals and institutionalization. We are survivors who are still fighting to retain our culture and to resist the ongoing colonisation of our lands, bodies and souls.

The size, position and natural wealth of Wiradjuri country has meant that they have played a major role in Aboriginal Affairs...They have resisted strongly from Windradyne’s pitched battle, through William Ferguson’s protests, to Paul Coe’s legal challenges. There have been Wiradjuri shearers, soldiers, lawyers, sportspeople, poets and preachers, in towns and cities throughout NSW...the Wiradjuri have retained their kinship ties, a distinctive culture and their strength through all the changes. (Horton 1994:1189-1190)

1 Please note that throughout this thesis, the term Indigenous refers to Indigenous populations regardless of location and the term Aboriginal is used to refer to the Indigenous populations of Australia, unless either term appears within a quotation.

9 I am proud to say that I am part of a growing number of Wiradjuri academics and if successful, will join the growing numbers of Wiradjuri who hold a PhD.

I was born on the lands of the Eora and lived within the lands of many different Aboriginal nations as I grew up. I currently live on the lands of the Darug Nation. This local area, Darug country, was colonised within the first two of years of Governor Phillip’s arrival and the establishment of the colony of New South Wales. In 1795 there was a battle between the Darug people and the colonists at a place called Richmond Hill, now known as Grose Vale, which resulted in Governor Patterson reporting that the settlement may need to be abandoned due to the hostility of the local Aboriginal people (Collins 1798). Needless to say the settlement was not abandoned and today the majority of the local population descend from the colonisers or are people who have arrived in more recent times. My own nation the Wiradjuri, also fought many battles against the colonisers, one of which resulted in martial law being proclaimed in 1824 by Governor Brisbane (Brook & Kohen 1991:178). The Wiradjuri people, as with other Aboriginal Australia peoples, continue the fight against colonisation and this thesis is just one step in the struggle toward decolonisation. I use the term decolonise frequently in this thesis because it is a crucial concept in Indigenous peoples’ liberation from the colonisation of hearts and minds that has taken place over centuries. Decolonising requires that all people (non-Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous) recognise the value of Indigenous knowledges and worldviews. Indigenous knowledges and worldviews need to be used in understanding not just the present but also the past and the future. This means that Indigenous perspectives and understandings of the past must be given the same value and recognition as those perspectives from non-Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, Indigenous voices must be given prominence in the re-telling of our stories and how Indigenous people are represented. Finally Indigenous people need to be the experts on their own lived experiences and realities rather than being the subjects or objects in another’s story. Decolonisation will only have occurred once Indigenous people set the agenda.

1.2 The Research Question

10

In what ways was welfare used by the British in the process of colonisation of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales?

This thesis also considers a number of sub-questions:

 What was the relationship between colonisation of Aboriginal people and the early colony of NSW?  How was welfare introduced into Aboriginal society in the early colony of NSW?  How did the Governors govern the colony and Aboriginal people?  How did the Governors understand who Aboriginal people  How did these rights fit or clash with the British claim of ownership of the land and the rights to govern Aboriginal people?  How did the governors deal with the clashes of rights and resistance of Aboriginal people?

O’Brien and Penna (1998:7-8) have a three point definition of social welfare; first it is about the well-being of members of the population as individuals and as a collective and is based on scales that measures wealth, security and participation; secondly it is a system of social and institutional relationships through which people maintain their individual or collective welfare and thirdly as a discourse, which is about how knowledge about welfare is culturally constructed and politically sanctioned. Bryson (1992:33) argues that colonising countries, including Britain, used the discourse of welfare as part of their economic and cultural dominance of colonised peoples. Further to this Bryson (1992:33) also states that the British claimed they were civilising and introducing Christianity to the people who they were colonising. McMahon (1996:6) explains that right from the beginning of the establishment of the colony of NSW that there was an expectation that the Government had a role to play in the provision of services to those in need and Aboriginal people were included in the group of those in

11 need. This thesis draws upon Bryson definition of welfare as being a discourse that is used to economically and culturally dominate people in the process of colonisation. It also acknowledges McMahon claims that the British Government saw that it had a role to play in the provision of welfare to Aboriginal people. Hence the concept of welfare within this thesis is based on both the idea of the duty of the Government to provide welfare to groups in needs and also that welfare is a discourse that produces knowledge about those who are categorised as being in need of welfare.

Initially I was intrigued to understand how Aboriginal people in Australia had used welfare to survive and that, I thought, was my main research question. I wanted to research this question because a problematic discourse around welfare dependency and Aboriginal people had been developing for some years. The term welfare dependency is part of the welfare discourse that produces knowledge about the poor that are based on moral judgements. Engels (2006:5) argues that the use of the concept ‘welfare dependency’ is a label used by governments to reshape welfare reform within Australia. Further to this Engels (2006:6-7) explains that welfare dependency is based upon the old distinctions of deserving and undeserving (individual failing), and that this continues to blame the individual for what are government imposed arrangements. A recent review of income support commissioned by the Australian Government, released an interim report: A New System for Better Employment and Social Outcomes. Interim Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform to the Minister for Social Services (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). This report commences by providing an analysis that social problems, such as poverty, are caused by individuals being welfare dependent and that the solution is employment (Commonwealth of Australia 2014:8). In fact the entire report is focused on employment rather than on other factors that can impact an individual experiencing poverty. Further to this the report focuses on groups at risk, including Indigenous Australians, stating that Indigenous Australians have poorer outcomes than others across a range of indicators including employment (Commonwealth of Australia 2014:34). Further to this, in relation to addressing welfare dependency with Aboriginal people, it highlights a trial joint partnership between the Australian Government, the Queensland Government and the Cape York Institute for

12 Policy and Leadership. This is a welfare reform program that included a number of areas that managed and controlled the lives of people through their eligibility and receipt of welfare payments (Commonwealth of Australia 2014:115-116). The Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership is directed and run by Noel Pearson, who is discussed in the next paragraph and in Chapters Eight and Nine.

When I commenced the research for this thesis in the early 2000s, an Aboriginal man from Cape York in Queensland, Noel Pearson, who was being proclaimed an Aboriginal Leader by the then Australian Federal Government, was stating that the problems faced by Aboriginal people were due to Aboriginal people being reliant on welfare payments. Pearson’s book, Our Right to Take Responsibility (2000a) and numerous articles on Aboriginal welfare dependency, fuelled this debate (Howard 2007, Hughes 2007, Sutton 2009). Pearson’s views mirrored those of both the then Australian Government led by conservative Prime Minister John Howard and the governments that have since followed, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2007- 2010 and 2013) and Prime Minister Tony Abbott (2013-current) as well as public commenters, who all reduced the disadvantage and marginalisation experienced of Aboriginal people to welfare dependency. They argued that the solution to the problems facing Aboriginal people was the restriction of welfare payments and services as well as punitive measures against those who were reliant on welfare (Pearson 2007, Langton 2008, Forrest 2014).

I wanted to explore alternative, evidence based understandings of the poverty and disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal Australians, as it was not obvious to me that the ‘welfare dependency’ position was one that was well established. I wanted to recommend approaches that empowered and assisted Aboriginal people, communities and individuals to address the underlying causes of disadvantage and apparent reliance on welfare.

One of Pearson’s claims has been that Aboriginal people were better off during the late 1960s before they were entitled to receive welfare payments and services (2000b:140-141). So to begin my exploration of this proposition that Aboriginal welfare

13 dependency is the root cause of Aboriginal disadvantage and marginalization, I needed to develop an understanding of welfare and how it was delivered as well as the purposes of providing welfare since colonisation. This led me to investigate how Australia’s welfare system was developed. It took me back to the beginning of the colonisation of Australia, or rather the development of the colony of New South Wales, then further back to the British Poor Laws that were created and expanded during the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries. I was also able to consider the purposes of welfare and how it was used to manage those who were considered to be ‘problems’, (i.e. the poor) by governments during those times.

By immersing myself in the New South Wales colonial period archives in the New South Wales State Library, I was able to locate many interesting documents. These documents included records that showed the counting of the numbers of Aboriginal people within certain areas and the recording of names and ages, marital status and children, the distribution of blankets to Aboriginal people and the establishment of missions and reserves for Aboriginal people. As well as records on Aboriginal people, there were documents on the provision of welfare to non-Aboriginal people in the colony. Of interest were records about the establishment of facilities for the poor. The reason this was of particular interest was that it has long been argued that the colony of New South Wales rejected the British Poor Laws and that things such as workhouses did not exist (Dickey 1987). However, workhouse facilities did exist in the colony, although they were frequently called other names such as Asylums, soup kitchens as well as schools and hospitals for the poor (Garton 1990).

Whilst exploring these early records and the beginnings of welfare in the colony, I also realized what an enormous job I had given myself and that realistically it was not going to be possible within a single thesis to consider Aboriginal welfare from 1788 to contemporary Australia. I had previously thought that there was little formal welfare, policy and legislation regarding Aboriginal people up to the development of Protection legislation and policies in the late 1890s. However, I was discovering a wealth of government legislation, policies and action regarding the positioning and the welfare of

14 Aboriginal people between 1788 and 1890. When outlining Aboriginal welfare and policy history many scholars term this period ‘Settlement’ or ‘Invasion’ or ‘Contact’ (Sherwood 2010:42-44, Hollinsworth 1998:78-79, Armitage 1995:14-17). However, this glosses over the vast amount of action, both formally and informally, that was occurring at the time. It was at this point that my study began to gain focus with a decision to limit my research to the period between the establishment of the colony to the granting of responsible government – thus from 1788 to 1856. In 1856 the colony of New South Wales was granted ‘Responsible Government’ and was able to elect its own Governors (Clune & Turner 2009:10-12). Whilst this decision precluded the period 1856 to 1890 before the period of ‘Protection’, it did allow for a consistency in considering the actions, type and processes of government.

The search for documentation from that period regarding Aboriginal welfare policies, started with gathering information on what the British government of the day had instructed the colonial administration to do in relation to Aboriginal people within the colony. I looked to the Governors’ instructions upon appointment. Each governor had a set of instructions regarding how each was to interact with and treat Aboriginal people. This led to looking at how the governors implemented their instructions and an examination of the correspondence between the governors and the British government, as well as other governors’ documents and records in relation to Aboriginal people. In addition to these records, another set of government records was examined; these were Government Inquires into the treatment and conditions of Aboriginal people. These documents offered some insight into how the actions of the government towards Aboriginal people were thought of by those in government.

In addition to limiting the time period under consideration, as the documents were examined it became obvious that the thesis was not about Aboriginal people their actions. Rather the documents were pointing clearly to this period in the colony’s development of relations with Aboriginal peoples being about a number of white men and their actions. At first I struggled with this. As an Aboriginal person I wanted to tell the story of Aboriginal people from an Aboriginal perspective. I had not considered telling a story of

15 ‘white men’, from an Aboriginal perspective. In fact I would have thought it impossible and not desirable to do so. However, this was the direction into which I was being led. To understand what happened one must understand the actions of all the parties involved. Unfortunately I could not do justice to the stories of both parties (Aboriginal people and the British colonial administration and its governors). This was because the story the documents revealed that Aboriginal welfare in the early years of the colony was a story about the administration and its governors, because the imposition of welfare was entirely the action of the British. Therefore, I needed to try to understand (admittedly from an Aboriginal perspective) the actions and the thoughts of those governors. Although there has been much written about the actions and the history of the New South Wales colonial governors (Clune & Turner 2009, Butlin 1994, Egan 1999, Pembroke 2013:205-213, Hoskins 2009), what this thesis reveals is a new understanding of their actions in relation to Aboriginal people. In addition the development of that understanding is new: it is being interpreted and told by a descendant of the colonised rather than a descendant of the coloniser and has drawn upon a methodology founded in an Indigenous way of knowing and doing. This methodology is discussed in detail in the methodology chapter (see Chapter Two).

This research journey started with the question ‘How have Aboriginal people in Australia used welfare to survive’, but instead changed to the question ‘In what ways was welfare used by the British in the process of colonisation of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales’. This thesis examines how the British drew on their ideologies and practices in welfare policy and provision to colonise Aboriginal people resulting in the welfarisation of Aboriginal people. I use the term welfarisation to denote the development of a special category or classification of individuals and groups whose needs are seen as problematic and are met through the imposition of charity and treatment rather than on the basis of rights (Brogden & Nijhar 2000:46). The welfare and provision of services for Aboriginal people has been and continues to be based on the categorisation of Aboriginal people as being a problem that needs to be corrected or dealt with. This is in contrast to Aboriginal people having rights based on their membership of society and as their rights due to their original ownership of the land, their status as First

16 Peoples of the country and due to the losses they experienced and continue to experience through colonisation.

1.3 The Research Journey

I started this journey over a decade ago as a single mother with three teenage children. At the time I had just graduated with an Honours degree in Social Work. I was more than a little uncertain about what I was about to venture into. In fact I was certain that I was not capable of undertaking higher degree research at all, and many times along the way I almost gave up. Here I am now a middle aged Aboriginal woman whose own children have grown into young adults with their own families and lives, a grandmother and now a step mother to another three children, two of whom are grown but one of who is not much older than my eldest grandchild.

The drive to investigate, in an Aboriginal way, the ‘welfarising’ of Aboriginal people grew from my own life experiences. So much has happened; there have been so many twists and turns, starts and stops and detours both in my life and in this thesis. There have been disappointments and loses, but thankfully many, many more exciting adventures and discoveries. My life and this thesis have taken me to new places and to other countries. I have learnt much about my country, my people and myself. I have a sense of belonging that I did not quite have before, both as an Aboriginal woman and as an Australian. My ancestors lived on our lands (the lands of the Wiradjuri) since time itself began and I have kin who still live there today. My ancestors experienced colonisation, not in the first days of the invasion but within a few short years. Our lands became pastoral stations and my ancestors and family until very recently were forced onto an Aboriginal reserve. Government legislation and policies controlled every aspect of my ancestors’ lives, from where they lived and worked to what contact they had with each other. My family has experienced generations of child removal, including my and my siblings’ removal. As a child I had already developed a very clear understanding of what ‘welfare’ was and how harmful it was. As I reached my mid-teens and as a young adult I started to see how welfare was used to discriminate against Aboriginal people.

17 Thus when I first started university studies and people suggested I should do social work and that I would make a good social worker, I refused steadfastly to even consider it. I started my university degree wanting to be a psychologist. Being a single mother with limited education and with three children, one of whom was seriously ill it was not an easy journey.

I started my studies with two subjects, one in psychology and one in sociology. By the end of the first semester I was not overly fond of psychology (as it did not fit with the way I saw the world – fixing problems with the individual) and grew to love sociology instead. Sociology gave me a way to understand the experiences of the individual but within social structures. It helped me to make sense of the events I had experienced since I was little. It moved the personal to the political and also showed me there was a way to change the world. With my new found understanding leading to empowerment, I decided that the first part of the world I wanted to change was the ‘welfare system’ for Aboriginal people. I thought that the best way to do that was to become a ‘social worker’ and to work with my people. So despite my initial reservations I jumped into a social work degree.

I started my social work degree thinking that I already knew everything (a common error that I have made numerous times throughout my life) and that I was only there to get that piece of paper, which would confer on me title of ‘expert’. I was fortunate to be taught by some wonderful individuals who challenged me in gentle and at times not so gentle ways. They made me think, they forced me to justify and prove the claims I was making and whilst they stripped away my certainty they also were able to feed my passion for justice. This learning process also helped me begin to clarify what I wanted to do. Whilst I started out thinking that I was going to be a ‘superhero’ and save my people, I began to realise that I was only one person and as one person there was no way I could begin to bring about the changes that were necessary to overcome the legacy of colonisation, a colonisation that has resulted in the deep disadvantage and marginalisation that Aboriginal Australians continue to face. I realised that many more than one individual was needed to take up this challenge and the social work profession was the obvious one

18 to do this, with its focus on social change and social justice. However, social workers had been involved in implementing the policies and practices that had harmed and continue to harm Aboriginal people and communities. Furthermore, whilst I had grown to love studying and also admired a number of my teachers, I was frustrated with the social work curriculum. In fact it was the lack of Indigenous content that really concerned me and by my final year I was speaking out about it. Thus it was at this point that I wanted to change the social work profession, to make it more appropriate for working with Aboriginal people and communities.

After a number of years working as a Social Worker I was fortunate enough to move to a university where the opportunity to work alongside someone who was also concerned about Indigenous content within social work curriculum emerged. Over a decade later that has seen the development of a core course on Aboriginal studies and the development of thinking and discussion on Indigenous Australian social work and the need for decolonisation of social work in Australia.

Whilst this was happening, I commenced my journey with this thesis. It has been a long journey, over a decade in fact. This too has been a journey in which I started thinking I already knew everything, but it developed into a journey that took a life and form of its own. I did not start this journey with an interest in the white man and what he thought, my interest was only in the Aboriginal experience. However, as the journey progressed it became more about a group of ‘white’ British men and their actions and thoughts. There have been many times at which the journey has been extremely distressing. To read what happened to Aboriginal people during the first 80 years of the colony of New South Wales impacted upon me in a very personal way. These people were my ancestors and I was directly descended from a number of them, thus making them my own flesh and blood. In fact it became my own story. I am a product of history, what happened to those people who came before me, shaped and influenced who I was to be but also the actions of those who came before me shaped and influenced who I am. Therefore the actions of those in power influenced the decisions and actions of those who followed. The legislation, policies and practices that governed the lives of Aboriginal people in the

19 early colony, would continue to influence and shape the decisions that would be made over the lives of the coming generations. Who I am today and the way I see and understand my world is not only shaped by what has occurred during my life time but also by what has occurred throughout time. As well who I am is in direct relationship to others who share this period of time with me and with those who came before me. This thinking is part of what forms Indigenous methodology, which will be discussed in the next section of this chapter. This thesis, the research and the interpretation of what has been found, has been shaped by those experiences that have shaped and informed my life, both within my lifetime, but also historically. Incorporating the journey gives this thesis the Indigenous perspective I present here.

The ways in which Indigenous Australian populations have been viewed and understood has been based on Western research and ways of knowing. The colonisers developed this understanding by viewing Indigenous peoples through a lens, shaped by the concepts of the Enlightenment, which flourished in 18th century Europe and Britain. This was also the era that ushered in the Industrial Revolution and in which the slave trade created great wealth for European and American industrialists and land owners. Theorists of the Enlightenment used reason (not divine revelation) to arrive at their understanding of human society. Most believed that human development proceeded along a hierarchical chain:

…from a state of ‘savagery’ in which hunting was the major mode of subsistence; to one of ‘barbarism’ which was characterized by nomadic pastoralism; to ‘civilisation’ in which agriculture and commerce dominated. (Norris 2010:50)

Research undertaken by people influenced by these views regarding human development and in particular regarding Indigenous populations took this concept of a hierarchical chain of human development as truth. Linnaeus in 1751 outlined four categories of societies in order of most developed to primitive: Europeans, Africans, Asiatics and American Indians (Hollinsworth 1998:36-38). Linnaeus also suggested a fifth category which he called ‘Monstrosus’ (Hollinsworth 1998:36) to accommodate populations not

20 even fit for the category of primitive. Using this reasoning, the British (as Europeans) saw themselves as being the most advance. Thus it is not be surprising that the results of any research undertaken by the British during this period, further reinforced the idea that they were superior and that Indigenous populations were “monstrosus’, savages or barbaric (seen in reports such as the Governor’s reports, submissions to and reports of the inquiries and writings of explorers and settlers such as Cook, Banks, Trench 1961, and Cunningham 1828). Said (1978:31-73) in his work on Orientalism, discusses how the coloniser produces knowledge about the colonised and that in holding that knowledge one has power and authority over that for which it holds knowledge. Said (1978:31-73) goes on to argue that holding this authority over the ‘other’ allows the coloniser to deny the autonomy of the colonised, as the colonised only exist in the way in which the coloniser knows the colonised.

Theories and ideology from the time of the Enlightenment were used to justify the practices of colonisation. The hierarchical understanding of human advancement influenced theories about ownership of land and property. In discussing human advancement Hobbes (1651) outlined:

…no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Further to this in considering ownership of land and property Locke (McPherson 1980) claimed that the land could only be owned if it was being cultivated, improved and used for grazing or built on. If the land was not being used in this way, it was deemed vacant and was available to be claimed by anyone who would use it appropriately.

These theories of human development and of property provided the rationalization that the British used to justify taking land from Indigenous Australians. Indigenous peoples

21 were said not to be using the land and to be incapable of having sovereignty over it, as they were the lowest group on the hierarchical chain of development (Ford 2010). This was illustrated in the report of the Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements), which found that due to their ‘barbarous state’, Aboriginal people had no rights to sovereignty or to ownership of their lands (Great Britain 1837:82). Furthermore, the writings of key people within the colony of New South Wales also reflected these views (Woolmington 1988, Egan 1999). As will be discussed in Chapter Six, the analyses of the Governors’ documents indicate that any observing or learning about Aboriginal people was done to further the purposes of colonisation and for the advancement of the coloniser.

This brief summary indicates the importance of seeing the archival colonial documents through a new lens, an Indigenous Australian lens. It is essential to an understanding of what occurred in the early colony to the First Peoples and the country that were the target of colonisation, that the documents left behind must be looked at through the lens of and by the colonised. To do this the methodology that underpins the research must come from the colonised so that the voice of the colonised is heard alongside the voices of the coloniser. The coloniser wrote the history and created the knowledges of colonisation ignoring and making invisible Indigenous Australian peoples’ knowledges and perspectives. In doing this work I and other Indigenous Australians are able to progress decolonising and healing from the past.

1.3.1 Who Owns the Past?

This thesis considers one aspect of Australian colonial history: the manner in which welfare was used to colonise the Indigenous population living in the area that became the colony of New South Wales. Whilst Australia’s early colonial history and the treatment of the Aboriginal people by the colonisers have been considered before, this thesis presents a new approach to examining, interpreting and understanding what occurred. Historians such as Reynolds (1972, 1981, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2011), Blainey (1975), Keneally (2009), Hughes (2003), Karskens

22 (2009a, 2009b), Egan (1999), Hirst (2008), Hill (2008), Connor (2002) and Ryan (2012), amongst many others, have examined the history of colonisation and contact between Aboriginal people and the British colonisers. Whilst for the most part their findings are critical of the actions of the colonisers and sympathetic towards the impact on Aboriginal people, the methods they have used and their emerging interpretations are situated in a Western knowledge tradition and are seen through Western eyes.

These Western views and understandings of history are not without challenge though, both by Western historians and by ‘others’, such as Indigenous peoples. In fact, debates appear from time to time about whose version or history is correct and who has the right to tell and interpret that history. Boucher sees history as being ‘the creation of shared knowledge about the past’ (2013:300). However, to have a shared knowledge, it is vital to know whose knowledge and whose past is being shared. On considering the question of ‘Who owns Australia’s Past?’ one historian proclaimed:

Much silly and dangerous Australian history which reprojects today’s fashionable views on Aborigines, women, migrants and protest groups on the past and results in ludicrously distorted accounts, is currently being written (Morgan 1985:33).

Morgan did not place any value on the voices of those who were objectified within Australian history. Sadly his views were and are shared by others and the debates continue. Just over 20 years after Morgan’s comments another historian also tackled the question of ‘Who Owns the Past?’ (Clendinnen 2006:1-72). In responding to the claims by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, that the type of history taught within Australian schools was the wrong type of history and that he wanted ‘a structured narrative’ that was based on an ‘objective record of achievement’, Clendinnen proclaimed that she sympathized with the Prime Minister but that his desires for a ‘single, simple story’ was not possible because there were other people here first and there were also other stories (2006:1-4).

23 However, whilst Clendinnen seems to enter the debate on who has the right to tell and interpret history, she quickly slips into a debate about whether those who use history to tell fictional stories have the right to do so. Clendinnen is not arguing against people telling their own history, but rather questions the value of fictional stories to present historical fact and even claims that authors of these fictional stories are trying to ‘bump historians off the track’ (Clendinnen cited in Grenville 2007:72). What Clendinnen misses is how useful these fictional stories are in assisting us to move beyond the historical ‘fact’ and to imagine and maybe even connect to the lived realities of those alive at that time. Grenville, author of three well researched historical novels about the early New South Wales colony, replied to Clendinnen. She states, in relation to her book The Secret River, that she was seeking a way ‘of empathizing’ and giving an ‘imaginative understanding of those difficult events’ (2007:70). Birch (2013:249) in his support of Grenville’s work states, ‘Fiction can be an empowering way of understanding the past’. In fact in the process of trying to understand the actions of the key figures within this thesis, I used the work of Grenville and others to help imagine what the realities were of living in that time and place and how these realities might have affected the people’s thoughts and actions. Young (2007/08) argues that historians themselves use links ‘…to narrative, to myth and to the legends’ thus allowing the reader to imagine and believe.

The debate over ownership of Australian history and whose version of history should be privileged has been a long one. McIntyre and Clarke (2004) outlined a battle that has been going on from at least the early 1950s and has involved not just historians but also others such as University Chancellors, Prime Ministers, government officials including ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and other interested parties. These debates were titled the ‘History Wars’ in the 1990s and historians, politicians and public commenters have all had their say. Manne describes the ‘History Wars’ as a war ‘whose main field of battle is the bitter and still unresolved cultural struggle over the nature of the Indigenous dispossession and the place it should assume in Australian self-understanding’ (2009:15). Much of this debate has centered on the telling of Aboriginal sections of Australian history and which versions are acceptable and should

24 be taught. The current Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott believes that the Australian school history curriculum needs to give more attention to ‘the heritage of Western civilization’ (Lane & Maher 2013). However, it is not just the Western content of the history curriculum that is at issue, it is also about the interpretation of what is seen as Aboriginal history. Whilst there are various people involved in the debate, the two people with the highest profiles in this area are Windschuttle (2002, 2004, 2009) and Reynolds (1972, 1987, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2011). Windschuttle, it has been said, has relied on the old theoretical perspective of the Enlightenment period arguing ‘… that Australia was never truly owned by its original inhabitants, that they were too savage to understand such a concept as property, too primitive to organize a war and too vulnerable to survive settlement’ (Taylor 2003). Henderson (2004) argues that Windschuttle takes exception to those who don’t agree with his version of history and describes historians such as Reynolds, as ‘fundamentally mistaking the Australian character…’. Reynolds in an interview states that Aboriginal history was ‘written out’ of Australian history because ‘it didn’t fit in with the sort of favourable picture that historians wanted to create of the new nation’ (ABC 1999).

1.4 Whose Words, Whose knowing?

An important note in the History Wars debate is the lack of prominence given to the voices of Aboriginal Australians, including those who are historians. It is not that they have had nothing to say: Grieves (2003) calls Windschuttle to account for his claims and Maynard (2003:139) makes the point that Aboriginal peoples’ voices have been silenced as exemplified by the mostly white debates around the history wars. A white historian and academic, Professor Peter Read, argues ‘…Indigenous people had become equal partners in relating and interpreting their own past’ (Read 2013:24). Despite this claim, whilst discussing Aboriginal historians and authors, Read (2013) himself keeps referring to non-Aboriginal historians. Read’s writing illustrates how the focus keeps coming back to the non-Aboriginal ‘experts’, leaving Aboriginal people on the side-lines and as the objects of the debate. Birch (2007:108) states that Aboriginal people were not involved in these debates beyond being objectified. The position of Aboriginal people as

25 ‘objects’ within this debate is of particular significance due to their positioning as objects throughout the history of the colonisation of Australia.

As well as this positioning of Aboriginal people as ‘objects’ in the debate, there is also a question about the nature of historical inquiry. Breen highlights that the differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historians is that there are ‘two competing versions of the past informed by two competing understandings of the nature of historical inquiry’ (2008:172). For Aboriginal people the past is not detached from the present and the inquirer will understand the past from their own perspective which is based upon the inquirer’s own past, including that of their ancestors. Non-Aboriginal people tend see the past as being separate from the present and that one needs to look at the past through objective and detached eyes.

As already noted, one of the problems, from an Aboriginal perspective with Australian history, is that the voice of Aboriginal people is missing or has been dismissed. A rationalization for this is that, as there are no ‘written’ records from Aboriginal people from the early colony of New South Wales, there is therefore no recognized history that doesn’t stem from a Western perspective. In telling the history of the colonisation of Australia there has been a reliance on the written documents of the coloniser. Haebich (2005:3-4) argues that what was known about Aboriginal people came from ‘white male observers’. This thesis also relies on those records but brings different knowledge, methodology and understanding to the interpretation of those documents. I am a descendant of those who were colonised, an Aboriginal person whose ancestors lived through those times and whose life continues to be impacted by what occurred in the early colony. In the words of Bostock, ‘I go to white sources to find out about these people, but I put an Aboriginal meaning onto what they say…’ (Hoskins 2009:9). This thesis changes the way official documents are understood by using an Indigenous methodology to analyse them. In many ways it would have been much easier to write about Aboriginal people during the early colony and explore how they reacted to the invasion and colonisation. However, in order to try to understand how Aboriginal people

26 were affected, it is important to try to understand the actions of those who had power over the colonised, the Governors of the colony of New South Wales.

In undertaking this research and in particular in the analysis of the documents, it was important to find an Indigenous methodology that fitted the task at hand. Much of what has been written on Indigenous methodologies focuses on protocols for working with Aboriginal individuals and communities (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2011). This approach was not relevant to working with documents written by ‘white’ men. However, the writings of Indigenous scholars, such as Tuhwai Smith (1999), Rigney (2001), Sherwood (2010), Batiste (2000), Chilisa (2012), Smith (2013), Yantio Yantio (2013), Hornung (2013), Herman Traore (2013) and Kositsiw (2013) outlined the importance of using Indigenous methodologies that are based on Indigenous knowledges and that aim to be decolonising. With this in mind I set about finding a methodology that was embedded in a decolonising framework. A critical Indigenous methodology emerged as the best approach and this is presented in Chapter Two.

1.5 Inverting the Gaze

As already noted much of the research and writing on Australian colonial history, Aboriginal people and Aboriginal history, has been conducted by non-Aboriginal people. Where Aboriginal people have written the history, in general it has focused upon Aboriginal people as the subjects. While this research by Aboriginal people is important and in fact essential in the process of reclaiming our histories (Aboriginal histories), this thesis presents an Aboriginal history that inverts the gaze from Aboriginal people onto the ‘British/Coloniser’ as subject. As outlined in the introduction of this chapter (see section 1.1), in order to understand how Aboriginal people have used welfare, it is essential to first understand how welfare for Aboriginal people was developed and used. This required examining how those in authority developed and implemented welfare for Aboriginal people in the early colony.

27 An essential part of any Indigenous methodology is the recognition of relationships. This thesis is based on the premise that Australian history and Aboriginal history are, not only, not separate, but that they exist in relationship with each other. In the same way, since at least 1788, colonised Aboriginal people and the British colonisers are not separate entities but exist in relationship to each other. Memmi (1974) argued that the coloniser and the colonised did not exist without each other and that both identities existed because of the relationship to the other. Fanon (1967) took this a step further and argued that the ‘other, the colonised’ comes to only know itself through the gaze of the dominant ‘coloniser’. Hence Aboriginal people’s identity is constructed by and through the gaze and ideology of the coloniser. The coloniser builds this knowledge through research on the Aboriginal ‘other’ and that research is framed and understood by ways of knowing that the coloniser has already pre-determined. Thus everything the coloniser finds and discovers, builds on the ideologies and beliefs that he already holds. In this case, the British had already developed solid ideas about who the Indigenous people were and despite constant observation, what they found only reinforced the ideas that they already had about both themselves and Aboriginal people. This process of already knowing the ‘other’ supported and helped justify colonisation.

1.6 Outline of the Thesis

Chapter Two (The Story of One Woman’s journey into the past: A Methodology) takes the reader into the story of my research journey during the research for and writing of this thesis. As an Indigenous person it is always important that I situate myself to the person who will join me on the journey. As Wilson (2008) explains, it is important to build the relationship between the reader and the storyteller (the researcher). It is important that you, the reader, know who I am, how I see the world and how that has influenced the way in which I undertook the research and my interpretation of the findings, as well as the manner in which I tell the stories contained within the research. The reasons I undertook this research and the way in which the research was conducted is just as important as the findings of the research and they cannot be separated. As well as telling you the story of who I am, I will also share with you my journey whilst doing the

28 research. That journey saw me travel to another part of the world, where I had never been and has shaped the very person I am now. That place, England, from where my, and my people’s colonisation began in the 18th century was a place that I needed to see in order to try to understand what came to my people. Further, this chapter examines what an Indigenous methodology is and its process in the role of knowledge production and of knowing the colonised. As this thesis illustrates it is equally important to understand and to come to know the coloniser as neither exist without the other. In order to decolonise it is important to know and understand how colonisation happened and what the impact was and continues to be.

This chapter also looks at the research method used for this thesis. The main method used was historical document analysis, using key documents from the British Government and their agents, such as Governors’ instructions, correspondence between the Governors and the British Government and also Government inquiries regarding Aboriginal peoples. This chapter considers the methods in which the documents were identified and collected, how they were analysed, the way in which the findings were interpreted, the validity and reliability of the findings as well as the limitations.

Chapter Three (Welfare History) explores the development of welfare within the colony of New South Wales. As the welfare system that was developed in the colony was imported from Britain and was part of the colonising process, it is essential to commence this exploration by considering the development of the welfare system in that country. At the time that the British colonised the land now known as Australia, the British welfare system was based on the British Poor Laws. The poor were seen as being morally corrupt and this corruption was criminalised through highly punitive laws. Whilst it does appear that the colony of New South Wales and hence Australia avoided the establishment of Poor Laws and that welfare provision was different, the system of welfare was still based upon the values, judgements and ideologies that underpinned the practices of welfare and charity that formed the British Poor Laws.

This chapter commences with the story of Maria, an Aboriginal child who was placed in

29 the care of the British in the Native Institute. Maria provides an example of how Aboriginal people were to become welfarised through the use of welfare as a tool of colonisation. Most welfare historians neglect the position of Aboriginal people within the early welfare systems of Australia, with very little written at all on this area. Much that is written about Aboriginal people and welfare does not appear until the period after the 1890s. This chapter seeks to address this lack of information and knowledge regarding the positioning and treatment of Aboriginal people within the welfare system during the early colonial period of Australian history.

In Chapter Four (A Colonial Relationship) the story of Bennelong is outlined, which then leads into a discussion on the foundations of the colonial relationship between the coloniser and the colonised. In considering the development of the relationship between the coloniser and the colonised in the colony of New South Wales, it was important to explore the manner in which the land was colonised. The debates around whether Australia was colonised under the concept of Terra Nullius are examined and this thesis argues that whilst Terra Nullius was not formally declared, the act under which the colony of New South Wales was established was indeed Terra Nullius. Furthermore Terra Nullius was not limited to the concept of an empty land, but included the idea that the people who populated the land were not in possession of it due to their limited state of advancement. This then justified not just the taking of the land but also the manner in which Aboriginal people were treated and how that treatment laid the foundations of the relationship between the British colonist and Aboriginal people.

Further issues explored in Chapter Four are debates about the nature of the colony:  was it only a convict colony or were there other factors at play?  what was the relationship of capitalism to colonisation?  how did the class system impact upon the colonial relationship?

Colonisation places the colonised into a social relationship with the coloniser and the relationship that was developed within the colony of New South Wales was based

30 upon colonial capitalism – which included factors such class, religion, patriarchy and race. Further to this, the story of Bennelong illustrates the relationship of the colonised to the coloniser and despite claims of a great friendship, the relationship is shown to be anything but that. The relationship between the coloniser and the colonised is one of dependency, where the colonised becomes dependent upon the coloniser not just for access to resources, but for their life.

Chapter Five (Colonial Governance), gives an overview of what governance is and Aboriginal governance prior to 1788. It also explores the governance of Aboriginal people after 1788 and up to 1856 looking at the policies and actions of the colonial government of New South Wales. In governing Aboriginal people, the colonial government never recognised the rights of Aboriginal people nor their system of governance. In fact the colonial government imposed its own system of governance onto Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people were not recognised as a sovereign people, instead they were considered to be British subjects under British law. However, whilst having the legal status of being British subjects, Aboriginal people the manner in which the colonial government treated Aboriginal people was markedly different to its other subjects.

The stories of Bennelong and Maria again illuminate the way in which Aboriginal people were treated quite differently from other British subjects. Bennelong’s story commences with him being kidnapped and forced into captivity whilst Maria is handed over by her father (in circumstances unknown), where she also becomes a captive and cannot leave and return to her people. Both are trained to become like and act as the coloniser but they never achieve the same status as the British. Bennelong’s story is told as one of his failure to become civilised, so he always remains the savage and an outsider. Maria’s story is told as one of success of the savage to rise above their state, but only if they are removed as a child from the influence of their family. In reality Aboriginal people became the problem that the colonial government had to manage and control.

Chapter Six (Imperial Governance) takes a journey through the words and actions of the

31 colonisers, focusing on documents and correspondence between the colonial governors and the British Government. The analysis of the governors’ instructions and correspondence produced four major themes: protection, conciliation, observing and civilising. Whilst much of what the governors did with and to Aboriginal people was supposed to be with the aim of civilising them, the governors were not instructed to do so until Governor Darling took up the governor’s role in 1832.

The examination of these documents reveals what the governors and the government were saying and compares this with what actually occurred. All of the governors (from 1788-1850) with the exception of the final three during covered in this thesis – Bourke, Gipps and Fitzroy - received instructions about how they were to deal with Aboriginal people. The majority of the governors wrote very little about Aboriginal people or their concerns and actions regarding them. There were two governors who were very active and who sought to interact and work with Aboriginal people - Governors Phillip and Macquarie. Interestingly there was one other governor who was more active than the rest and that was Governor Gipps, who did not receive any instructions regarding Aboriginal people during the period of his tenure. However, Gipps was the Governor during the period that the British Parliamentary Inquiry into Aborigines in British Settlements took place and this could explain why he was more active than many of the other governors.

Chapter Seven (Inquiring about the Colonised) examines the inquiries that were established by the government both in Britain and in the colony of New South Wales. In all there were five different inquiries established. The first inquiry was ordered by the British House of Commons in 1835 and was carried out by a Select Committee that produced its report in 1837. The New South Wales Legislative Council ordered 5 different inquiries in 1838, 1843, 1845 and 1849. Not all of the committees produced reports, with most reporting that they were unable to do the job for various reasons. However, it was still possible to analyse the little that was contained within the New South Wales reports. What those reports provided was information regarding what they did not do or say rather than what they did.

32 The analysis of the reports identified four themes: impact of colonisation, protection, civilisation, values and ideologies. Within each of these major themes a number of sub-themes were identified. Under the theme of Protection there were sub-themes of protection of British settlers, the rights of Aborigines to exist under the protection of British Law and Protectorates. The theme of ideologies and values is made up of a number of identified sub-themes that included character (which was broken down into further sub-themes of character of Indigenous peoples and character of British people); duty of the British (broken into further sub-themes of duty to Indigenous peoples and duty to Britain) and a final sub-them objects of curiosity. What these themes were able to show was that Aboriginal people were secondary to the aims and purposes of British colonisation.

Chapter Eight (Talking Back) brings together the stories and the analyses discussed in the previous chapters allowing for a discussion regarding what occurred, how and why it occurred and the impact upon Aboriginal people. In considering the findings of the research undertaken for this thesis reported in Chapters Six and Seven, three new areas are identified that have not been articulated in previous research about Aboriginal people and colonisation; implementation of instructions, symbolic inquiries and welfarisation of Aboriginal people. The chapter also revisits the stories of Bennelong and Maria as their stories are exemplars of the ways in which Aboriginal people were colonised and how welfare was used as a tool of colonisation. The provision of welfare to Aboriginal people was not just about providing material goods and services to Aboriginal people, but it was also used as a method of control. Further to this, welfare was used to position Aboriginal people in the social hierarchy of the colony; it classified Aboriginal people as a problem that required remediation, and in so doing began the process of welfarising them.

The manner in which both Bennelong and Maria were treated and forced to live created their dependency upon the British and both were welfarised through the process of colonisation. By the end of their lives Bennelong remained dependent upon the British whilst Maria as a land owner could claim that she was no longer dependent and welfarised. However, Maria was still dependent upon the good will of the British and

33 remained in a subservient position to the colonisers. However, it was not just their lives that were colonised but also their stories. Bennelong was to remain forever the story of the inability of Aboriginal people to deal with and survive the encroachment of civilisation. Maria could be considered a success story of colonisation, however she all but disappears from the pages of Australian history. The stories of these two people only exist in relation to the stories of the coloniser and the histories of the colonised only exist due to their usefulness to the coloniser. In order to decolonise, it is important to retell these stories and for these histories to exist within their own right and to be understood through the eyes of Aboriginal people and told through the words of Aboriginal people. In doing this, we (Aboriginal people) are reclaiming our past, our stories and the knowing of ourselves. We are not just decolonising the past but also decolonising our present and the future for those who will come after us.

Chapter Nine (Conclusion – a new beginning) concludes this thesis. It outlines the lessons learned and the next steps needed in the process of decolonising and de-welfarising. This chapter finishes the thesis in the same manner as it was begun: by discussing where I (the researcher) am now; what my personal journey has been; and the impact of the research upon me as an Aboriginal person and as someone who is on a journey to decolonise and de-welfarise myself. What I have found whilst undertaking this research for this thesis has raised many questions and issues for consideration in my own quest to become decolonised.

1.7 Conclusion

This thesis has been a journey, from seeking to understand how Aboriginal people used welfare to uncovering the stories of how the British colonised Aboriginal people through the use of welfare and by welfarising them. The stories of Bennelong and Maria have been used as exemplars to illustrate the ways in which Aboriginal people were forced into dependency upon the British and how the British used this dependency in order to control Aboriginal people. The British governors and other key government agents recorded their words and actions regarding Aboriginal people. These records including

34 government inquiries have been analysed to expose the intentions and actions of a colonising government.

This thesis seeks to decolonise not only Australian welfare history and the stories of those who were welfarised, but also the researcher undertaking this research. I (the researcher) am a colonised person. I am a descendant of the people who were here at the time of colonisation. Whilst my family and community were not directly affected by the first years of invasion and colonisation because we did not live around Sydney cove, we were affected very quickly afterwards. The British colonisers arrived on our lands (the lands of the Wiradjuri) in 1813 and the struggle for survival was to begin, a struggle that has not ended to this day. This thesis is the result of part of my journey to decolonise myself and to find a way to decolonise the country we now call Australia. I acknowledge the Indigenous peoples and land on which you the reader are on whilst you are reading this part of my journey. I also welcome you, the reader, to share this story with me.

35 Chapter Two The Story of One Woman’s Journey into the Past: A Methodology

2.1 Introduction

Methodology is the conceptual framing of the approach taken to a piece of research or study. As has become obvious over the past decade or so, research into Indigenous issues must be Indigenised, or in other words come from an Indigenous perspective and be embedded within Indigenous knowledge systems. For Indigenous people knowledge is not separate from peoples’ relationships with each other, with the environment and also with time, past, present and future. A foundational approach to Indigenous research is the doing or the experience of the research, in which the relationship between the research and the experience of doing the research becomes central. An Indigenous way of knowing is to understand the person, thus whilst this chapter is about the methodology it is also as the title suggests the story of my journey of doing research into this topic. It is important for the reader to understand why the research question, (In what ways was welfare used by the British in the process of colonisation of Aboriginal peoples in the colony of New South Wales?), is important to me (the researcher). This chapter will still cover all the things that are traditionally in the methodology section of a doctoral thesis, but it will do something that is just as important, or from an Indigenous point of view, more important; that is it will let you (the reader) know something about my experience and how that has affected the way in which I have seen and interpreted what I have seen.

This chapter is divided into the following sections:  The Journey  Critical Indigenous Research  Historical Documentary Research  Methods of Analysis  Limitations of Research

36  Significance of Research

2.2 The Journey

Before telling you the story of the journey (that links to my earlier discussion in Chapter One), it is important to explain how the journey is part of the methodology of this thesis. The methodology of this thesis is based on the oldest cultures in the world, the cultures of Indigenous peoples. Research (and as such knowledge) is not something new to Indigenous people or something that sits outside of Indigenous experience. It is certainly not only a part of the experience of Indigenous people being researched (Arbon 2008, Meyer 2008, Wilson 2008, Tuhiwai Smith 1999, Battiste 2002) or more simply in the words of Foley ‘Indigenous approaches to knowledge is not a new area of ‘modern’ science, it is as ancient as Indigenous culture… ‘(2008:113-114)

More than just being about the science of developing knowledge, research and the process of research is about relationships. Wilson (2008:80-96) talks about Indigenous research being a ceremony that is about our relationship between the self (the researcher), to others, to the environment (or land), to the cosmos and to ideas. Hart (2010:154) supports Wilson in discussing how ‘relational concepts are often reflected in Indigenous authors’ discussions of research’. This idea of relationship is expanded upon by Meyer (2008:221) who argues: ‘…relationship triggers everything: with people, with ideas, with the natural world’. Meyer (2008:221) also points out that research itself does not exist ‘in a vacuum’ but grows out of our relationships with others, with the land and with ideas. This is illustrated by Martin (2001:1) who argues that by setting out, in particular, one’s ancestry, one is ‘identifying, defining and describing the elements of Indigenist research’. Furthermore, the importance of identifying who one is and what one’s relationship to kin and to land is, is highlighted by Cannella and Manuelito (2008:51-56). Thus it is essential that in outlining the methodology and method that frame this research, the researcher be known and her journey in doing the research be set out.

In addition to this Wilson (2008) sees the role of the researcher as the storyteller and that

37 the building of the relationship between the storyteller and the reader is essential to the process of sharing the ideas that are presented within the story. It is essential that the storyteller sets out something of who they are and how they see the world. This practice is illustrated by Tuhiwai Smith (1999:10-14) who in the introductory chapter of her book Decolonising Methodologies gives an overview of her genealogy and her experiences, both as a researcher and as an Indigenous person. Equally Hart (2010:162) states, ‘I also recognized that my life experiences prior to taking on this research project have likely influenced it’. For an Indigenous person undertaking what is termed ‘Indigenous Research’, it is an essential part of the methodology to identify who you are and your experiences, as well as other factors that influence the way in which you see and understand the world and in particular, the findings of your research.

The identifying and sharing of oneself I have done within the introductory chapter, admittedly in a very brief way, to give the reader some idea of who I am and how who I am has affected my engagement with the material, which has become an important part of this research journey. It is also an essential part of an Indigenous Research Methodology. The next step is to tell you the story of my journey in doing the research and how the methodology and the method have developed during and through the journey itself.

The journey started with what appeared to be a definite topic and conclusion. I began with the idea that I would research the experiences of Aboriginal peoples regarding welfare provision and that the focus and indeed the story was about Aboriginal peoples. However, that is not what happened along the way. In conducting the research the journey of the researcher was integral to what was found. Seeing through Aboriginal eyes, provided a radically different picture – the focus had to change. The focus became a group of elite ‘white’ British men, who governed and influenced the way in which Aboriginal peoples were controlled and colonised. Whilst the stories of these men have been recorded and told and the meaning of their actions interpreted many times since the early colony, this thesis takes a different approach. These men’s individual lives are not of importance here, but their thoughts and actions towards Aboriginal peoples are what

38 this thesis examines and seeks to understand. This examination is done through the eyes of an Indigenous person and thus develops an Indigenous perspective.

What does this Indigenous perspective look like? Well the Indigenous perspective presented here is only one of many Indigenous perspectives. Later in this chapter I will discuss Indigenous methodologies, which certainly inform and influence this perspective, but also the person doing the examination influences that perspective. Thus it is important to outline some experiences I have had along this research journey and to discuss how these have influenced my interpretation and understanding of what I found.

As mentioned previously, I started this journey having been galvanised by the contemporary ‘Aboriginal welfare dependency’ debate thinking I was looking at the experiences of Aboriginal peoples and how a British welfare system had been imposed upon them. I also thought I would be able to look at the entire period from 1788 to the current day. I started my journey reading up on Aboriginal peoples and different policy (welfare) periods. There were numerous texts that set out the different policy periods. These texts broke the policies down into different times and policy types in much the same manner (Armitage 1995:16-22; Reynolds 1996:100-102; HREOC 2005:33-35). One example of this is Eckermann et al., who breaks these policies into the following periods: 1788-1890s European Settlement 1890s-1950s Segregation 1950s-1960s Assimilation 1967-1972 Integration 1972-1975 Self-determination 1975-1988 Self-management Stage 1 1988-1996 Self-management Stage 2 1996-present Reconciliation or Economic Rationalism? (2006:22-24)

Some scholars suggest minor variations in terms (such as ‘contact’ or ‘invasion’, rather than ‘settlement’; ‘protection’ rather than ‘segregation’). What I discovered was that

39 whilst there was much information from the 1890s to the contemporary period (2014), there was limited consideration of anything other than the arrival of the British and their invasion of the country. This left a sizable gap in knowledge between the period of settlement (from approximately 1780) up to the 1880s. However, during the time I spent in the archives, I found many documents recording the counting of Aboriginal peoples and the provisions they were given. I was intrigued by the apparent obsession with accounting that the British government, via the New South Wales colonial administration, appeared to have.

While I was reading about the welfare history of Australia, I also began to see parallels between the rationale for the provision of welfare to non-Aboriginal peoples (such as poor English people and convicts) and to Aboriginal peoples. In attempting to understand from where these ideologies had come, I started exploring Britain’s welfare history and the development of the Poor Laws. This took me back to 16th Century Britain. What I discovered there is discussed in more detail in Chapter Three, Welfare History. During this period of my study, on a trip to Adelaide for an unrelated purpose, I came across a report titled British Select Committee Inquiry into the Conditions of the Natives in British Settlements, a report which whilst appearing very interesting and of some value to my research at the time, did not become significant until later. I did not realise it would become a key document in my research.

My next step in this journey was to look at how and why Australia was colonised. Again what I found is discussed in more detail in Chapter Three. However, there was a significant issue that took me overseas in 2006. During my reading I came across Connor (2005:7) who argued that Australia was never claimed under the legal doctrine of Terra Nullius. I was taken aback and started looking for evidence that would either prove or disprove the claim. If Terra Nullius was not proven, the question was on what basis was Australia claimed for the British crown and on what basis was Australia colonised by the British. I had great difficulty in locating official documentation regarding the legality under which Australia was claimed as a British colony, other than Captain Cook’s declaration of British sovereignty over a section of the Australian

40 continent (predominately the East Coast) along which he sailed the Endeavour. During this search I was fortunate to travel to London, as I had received a teaching award in 2004 that provided funding for my academic development. One of my supervisors was also travelling to London for a period of study leave. I decided that this would be an excellent opportunity to search further for the documents that established Australia as a colony.

I never imagined I would travel to England, and indeed it was not something I had ever wanted to do. For me England represented everything damaging that had been done to Aboriginal peoples and therefore to me. England as far as I was concerned had invaded, murdered and oppressed Aboriginal peoples and was responsible for all that had happened and continued to happen. Our rights as the sovereign people of this land had been stolen from us and it was England that was responsible. When this was coupled with stories I had heard of England being cold, grey, damp and with a very low dark sky and dreadful food I imagined a horrible time ahead of me. In reality it was nothing at all like this. England was not (at least whilst I was there) cold, grey or damp and the sky was not low. I found myself in a city that was separated from my own country and my experiences not just by distance but also by time. In fact I found at a number of speaking engagements (to which I was invited after my arrival) that people were horrified by what they were hearing and had previously not heard about the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in Australia. I was puzzled and confused that they did not appear to have any realisation of the connection between British colonisation and the actions that took place in the British colonies or indeed their relationship to the colonisation of Australia. What for me was a real and present event, for them was something completely outside of their reality.

As I tried to comprehend how the English people today had no knowledge of their relationship to my Indigenous and colonised reality, on my last day in London, I came across a book, The Absent-Minded Imperialists: Empire, Society and Culture in Britain (Porter 2004). Porter explained that the British populous during the 18th and 19th Centuries was so far removed from the policies and acts of their government, that they had no connection to or collective memory of what had occurred, and in particular of the

41 genocide and colonisation of Australian Aboriginal peoples over two hundred years of white settlement (Porter 2004).

From London I travelled to Paris for a four day conference and was able to experience how another group of people (the French) experienced in contemporary life, the resentments of their past relationship with Britain. This was expressed in numerous ways but most obviously in the French resistance to the English language. Anyone who did not attempt to speak French was rebutted. I was dismissed numerous times as I did not speak French. This resulted in my being refused entry into a university where I was to present an invited paper on Australian history. At the end of my four days in Paris, I was very glad to rush back to the relative security of Britain. I could not have imagined I would ever have felt this about England and would have scoffed at the very thought less than a month previously. I was learning to open my mind to new understandings.

Whilst in London, I searched for documents on the formation of the colony of New South Wales and about Indigenous people within the colony. I went to England thinking that I would find mountains of material that would answer all my questions. However, the reality again was something quite different. I started my search at The British Library in London. My first hurdle before I could even look for documents was to get a reader’s card. After a very long wait in a queue I was informed that I needed to have documentation with my home address on it. Passports do not include the holder’s address, I did not possess a driver’s license at the time and I did not even consider taking a household bill overseas with me, thus I was without the one thing that I needed. I organised a faxed copy of one of my household bills and returned to the library the next day, joined the long queue again only to be told that I needed to have an original document and that the fax would not be sufficient. I decided that I had not come all this way and gone to all this trouble to be turned away from the wealth of information I was certain the library held. I argued with the person behind the counter and pointed out that I had come all the way from Australia and that it would take considerable time to get an original copy of a household bill with my address on it. Eventually I was passed up the line several times, until someone with sufficient power waved the rules and granted me a

42 reader’s card. This was a small triumph for an Australian Aboriginal person and an Aboriginal woman in particular, in resisting and overcoming English bureaucracy.

I’d finally made it inside the library, and I could now access all the documents I needed, or so I thought. I searched and searched category after category. I tried different phrases and terms but could find nothing I wanted. I then asked for assistance and the librarian seemed very positive that she could locate what I needed, only to find nothing. The librarian advised me to try the British Museum. I set off full of hope that I was tracking down the documents I needed. I again encountered very enthusiastic and helpful staff, but again our lengthy searches led to nothing. This time I was advised to try my luck with the Colonial Office records and was given an address, so off I went. However, on my arrival I was informed that the records were no longer held at that address and I would have to go to the National Archives.

The next day saw me board a train to Kew to make my way into the National Archives, where I completed the necessary paperwork for a reader’s card. I was ready to have the fight all over again about my lack of original paperwork. However, as I handed over the forms, my passport, my British Library reader’s card and the faxed copy of my home address, I did not get the refusal I was expecting. I was told I would have to wait five minute for my card to be processed. I took a seat, expecting any minute to be called over to the counter to be told I could not have a reader’s card because they needed some original documentation I did not have. I was eventually called to the counter and handed my reader’s card. I thought ‘this is it, I am in the right place’ and that I would get everything I needed. After two days of searching I came away with Governor Phillip’s instructions when he was appointed governor to the Colony of New South Wales and some other documents that eventually were not used in this thesis. Whilst a disappointing outcome, it was still a good start as these documents would later become the lead or ‘paper trail’ to other important documents I would finally track down.

However, these documents were not the only important documentary findings or the only important experience during my stay in London. I was able to visit many places of

43 significance for my research. I walked beside and travelled by boat on the Thames River, the place where many convicts who were transported to Australia were kept in hulks (prison boats). I visited important buildings and sites such as the British Houses of Parliament, the old Colonial Offices, Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London. I was able to walk on cobble-stone roads and visit heritage buildings where I could touch and feel structures that existed during the colonial period I was researching. I went on historical tours and listened to tales of events during the 17th and 18th Centuries. The sights I was seeing and the stories I was hearing together with all I had previously read, began to give me a sense of what it might have been like to have lived in the 18th Century. That experience of London opened up for me so many possibilities and new ways of doing this research.

On returning home I went again to the New South Wales State Library, (where I had been many times before, but not knowing quite what I was looking for). This time I was clearer about what I needed. Whilst I still did not find any official documentation declaring Australia Terra Nullius, I did find some important documentation providing leads towards this research. This visit started much like all the other visits to Libraries, Archives and Museums in Australia and Britain. Helpful library and archival staff thought the material I wanted would be easily and readily locatable but then we found that it was not readily available – if available at all. However, this time one state librarian who was assisting me was not so easily put off. When we could not find anything on-line, he went to the old card catalogues. There he found reference to the Historical Records of New South Wales and the Historical Records of Australia, which cover the period from 1788 to 1856. These two published collections are the bound records of orders and communications between the governors of New South Wales and the various officials based in Britain. Within a week I happened across a complete set of the Historical Records of New South Wales in a second hand book shop in Sydney which I was able to purchase, again because of the teaching award I had received in 2004. I then was able to use these two collections as the first set of records that I would analyse in depth. Whilst I was reading the communication between the governors and Britain, the British Parliamentary Select Committee Report on the Conditions of the Natives in

44 the British Settlements, which I had chanced upon some years previously in the library in Adelaide, was mentioned, as were a number of Inquiries into the Conditions of Aborigines by the New South Wales Legislative Council. I had not come across some of these other Inquiries previously. I was able to obtain copies of the inquiry reports from the Mitchell Library (NSW) and these Inquiry reports became the second set of official documents I would analyse. Suddenly the documents I needed seemed to fall into my lap. This however, as I have explained, took years of searching over two continents. It was easy once I had the documents, but the journey to this point had been anything but easy.

At this time one of my supervisors gave me a recently published book titled Searching for The Secret River (Grenville 2005). The author Kate Grenville, had previously written a book of fiction titled The Secret River (Grenville 2005) about colonial New South Wales. She had based the book on historical fact and had used one of her ancestors as the main character. Searching for The Secret River outlined Grenville’s journey in researching the history of events on which she would base the story for her book. Despite the fact that Grenville had written a fictional account, her historical research was meticulous and she was faced with trying to unearth information long buried, as I was doing. Her method of research and her experiences closely resembled my own methods and experiences. It was affirming and exciting to know that someone else was doing something similar in their search for historical information on early colonial Sydney and had had similar experiences. I felt I was on the right track and that the hurdles and the dead ends were all part of my journey, despite the frustrations they caused.

As I started to read the records of orders and communications between the colonial governors and Britain, I tried to think about why these men (the governors) did and said what they did. I needed to have some idea of what it was like from their point of view. I had some idea of what the experience of colonisation was like for Aboriginal peoples, as I had grown up hearing the stories of my ancestors, and by having firsthand experience of the legacy of colonisation. Reading official records and documents can only provide what information the writer thinks is important to record and only provides the perspectives of those who wrote them. However, I needed my imagination to go further.

45 I needed to think about what it was like for someone in that period. I went back to Grenville’s book, The Secret River, in an attempt to assist me to imagine what it would be like to see this country through a non-Aboriginal person’s eyes. Whilst I recognise fully that Grenville’s writing is fiction, she nevertheless used historical records, paintings and sketches, diaries, her family’s handed down stories and historical imagination to arrive at a way of seeing and knowing that early period. I do not think it is ever possible to know exactly how another person feels or sees the world and especially in the case of someone who physically is not present and therefore cannot communicate this with you. But it is possible to imagine what it might be like if you yourself were there, in that place and time and how you yourself might feel. All historical writing according to many historiography theorists, includes historical imagination (White 1973, Collingwood 1935, Koditschek 2011).

Following this another friend gave me a book about the First Fleet that sailed to Australia, and landed in 1788; The Brutal Truth of the First Fleet (Hill 2009). This gave me some (limited) insight into Governor Phillip as a person. I then read Grenville’s next book, The Lieutenant (2008). Grenville’s story and my journey had both moved from being about Aboriginal peoples to one about this group of ‘white men’, who were no longer faceless instruments of oppression. They were people who whilst carrying out some of the most destructive actions against Aboriginal peoples, were also men about whom I needed a deeper knowledge. I needed insight into their governance methods and their attitudes towards Aboriginals. As well as understanding myself as ‘the Indigenous’ I needed to understand them as ‘the colonisers’.

Tuhiwai Smith (2008:115) draws on the works of Fanon and Memmi to point out that in order to know about the ‘native’ one must know about the ‘coloniser’ or ‘settler’. Even though they are often seen as oppositional identities, one identity constitutes the other. So to understand what happened to Indigenous people, one needs to understand the actions and ideologies of those who created and implemented the actions of colonisation and who the colonisers were. However, it is important to note that Indigenous people existed prior to and outside of colonisation. Chow (cited in Tuhiwai Smith 2008:115)

46 argues ‘that the native did exist before the (White) “gaze” of the settler and before the image of “native” came to be constituted by imperialism, and that the native does have an existence outside and predating the settler/native identity’. But from the point in time that the colony of New South Wales came into existence Indigenous identity and being became entwined with that of the coloniser and the colonising process.

From this point, the point at which I started to read the archival documents, the reports and the letters written by the colonisers, the journey became very difficult and emotional for me. I had to read document after document, which indicated attitudes ranging from indifference to murderous and genocidal. I read statements that denigrated Aboriginal peoples, sometimes Aboriginal peoples from the country I come from, people who are directly related to me through kin and ancestors. I read orders that were given to torture and/or kill Aboriginal peoples. I read stories of kidnapping and enslavement, the taking of children and the debates about whether Aboriginal peoples were human or not. I read admissions of wrong doing that were then justified on various spurious grounds, such as the distance and time it took to report back to England and/or the uncivilised nature of Aboriginal peoples and their supposed inferior position to ‘white’ men. I read proposals and plans regarding how to subjugate and control Aboriginal peoples and then read the reports on the success or lack of success of these plans. All the while I kept coming back to the essential question: how could one human being do this to another? I examined all the governors’ instructions and compared them to their reports to England. I examined the governor’s questions and requests and the responses they received. I wrestled with the contradictions between what the governors wrote, what the authorities in Britain said and what was written in each of the Inquiry Reports.

I also greatly admired the resilience and strength of my people’s resistance and survival — in short their active agency against oppression and imperialism. In addition I can see how the process of colonisation was not just visited upon Aboriginal peoples but also on others who were brought or arrived here by various means and how social and policy structures can be used to control people. It has given me an insight into the development of welfare in Australia and how the current welfare system operates (something that is

47 not addressed in this thesis, but something I hope to develop at a later stage). This journey has also allowed me to develop an insight into how colonisation operates; it has germinated ideas on how to decolonise on both an individual and collective level. Finally, this research journey has developed my identity as an Indigenous researcher as well as adding to the methodology that informs my research.

2.3 Indigenous Methodology

As pointed out earlier in this chapter, Indigenous knowledge systems and the research out of which these knowledge systems were developed have always existed. However, the current focus on what is termed Indigenous Methodology or Indigenous Research or Indigenous Knowledges, can be seen as following on from Feminist Research (or theory) which emerged during the 1970s and 80s to address the lack of female voices in theory (Nakata 2007:213). Rigney (2001:7) also states that what he terms ‘Indigenism’ is ‘another successive wave of epistemology theorising in social sciences, like feminism, post-modernism and post-colonialism’. Rigney (2001:1) gives an account of attending a forum in 1999, where the focus was to develop an Indigenous research methodology, which was inclusive of Indigenous experiences. Rigney (2001:7) names Australian Indigenous researchers who have contributed to what he terms a ‘quiet methodology revolution’ as being ‘Rigney’, ‘Nakata’, ‘Moreton-Robinson’, ‘Brady’, ‘Williams and Stewart’ and ‘Arbon’. Since Rigney wrote this list, a growing number of Indigenous Australians such as Sherwood (2010), Bessarab and Ng’audu (2010), Martin (2001), Gilbert (2012) and Hornung (2013) have been contributing to this ‘revolution’.

The development of Indigenous research methodology in Australia is happening in conjunction with similar developments elsewhere in the world, where Indigenous researchers are developing their own methodologies as well as feeding each other’s research development. The work of some of these international Indigenous researchers has been used and referred to in this chapter. The current wave of Indigenous research, whilst based on the traditional knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples, is based in

48 academia, has only recently come into being and is still being defined. This thesis, as well as being Indigenous research, has been part of this process of refining and developing an Indigenous Australian research methodology in concert with other Indigenous researchers already noted.

In terms of what constitutes Indigenous Research, Rigney (1997:637) argues that Indigenous research ‘focuses on the lived, historical experiences, ideas, traditions, dreams, interests, aspirations and struggles of Indigenous Australians’. Whilst Rigney’s statement could be argued to be claiming that Indigenous Research is anything an Indigenous researcher wants it to be, there are further elements that define what makes something Indigenous research. Martin (2001:3-6) furthers this idea and states that ‘the core element of Indigenous research is Indigenous worldviews, incorporating ways of being, doing and knowing’. Rigney takes this argument even further by stating:

More recently, however indigenous researchers have been active in seeking ways to disrupt the “history of exploitation, suspicion, misunderstanding, and prejudice’ of indigenous people in order to develop methodologies and approaches that privilege indigenous knowledges, voices, experiences, reflections, and analyses of their social, material, and spiritual connections. (1999:117)

As pointed out by Hart (2010:155) an increasing number of Indigenous doctoral researchers are turning to Indigenous research methodologies. These are based on Indigenous worldviews, are connected to the specific cultural ways of Indigenous nations, are holistic in their approach, are decolonising and incorporate multiple ways of knowing. Indigenous methodologies address what is lacking in Western research and theories about Indigenous people. This includes ‘the passion from within and the authority to ask new and different questions based on histories and experiences as indigenous people’ (Swisher cited in Bishop 2008:150)

In this thesis, I have sought to understand Australian history in relation to the

49 colonisation and the welfarisation of Indigenous people and in doing that I have sought to use (and in the process develop further) an Indigenous methodology. I seek to understand the process of colonisation and to decolonise the ways in which we, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous interact with and understand our history. It is intended that the findings of this research will contribute to the growing body of knowledge that will assist Indigenous Australians in their quest to become decolonised. The essential underpinning of this thesis is decolonisation requiring that the methodology is situated in a decolonising framework.

Whilst Indigenous methodologies have emerged alongside post-colonial methodologies, there is a marked difference between the two. The term ‘post-colonial’ suggests that colonisation is something of the past. Swadener and Mutua (2008:37-38) explain that the difference between decolonisation and post-colonisation is that decolonisation shifts the view from that of ‘defining colonialism solely in terms of spatial or temporal dimensions’, which then often ignores the devastating consequences of colonisation. Furthermore, as argued by Fine et al.,:

Those of us who are Indigenous have experienced the everyday realities of continued colonisation, which has shaped the ways in which we think of ourselves, one another, ‘the whitestream’ (Grande 2004) and the ways in which we write, speak and come to research. (2008:159)

Thus part of the decolonising process for Indigenous research is also freeing us from our own colonisation which impacts the way in which we do research and generate knowledge and in the way knowledge is then transmitted. Tuhiwai Smith articulates this by stating:

The reach of imperialism into ‘our heads’ challenges those who belong to colonised communities to understand how this occurred, partly because we perceive a need to decolonise our minds, to recover ourselves, to claim a space in which to develop a sense of authentic humanity. (1999:23)

50

Further to this Tuhiwai Smith (1999:23-24) argues that is essential that Indigenous people continuously analyse and refine their understandings of how ‘we’ were colonised and the impact of imperialism and colonisation upon our past, present and our future. This is not only true for research into colonisation and its ongoing impacts, but also for the decolonisation of research. Research has been used as a tool in the colonisation of Indigenous peoples and in the creation of hierarchies of knowledge, dividing them into categories of inferior and superior (Jaramillo & McLaren 2008:196). Saavedra and Nymark cite others such as Demas (2004) and Tuwahia Smith (1999) in arguing:

Research, concerned with generating and legitimizing knowledge, is crucial to the colonization process as it creates power and privilege for some over others (e.g. situated superiority of Western knowledge, “expert” researcher, and objectification of the Other… (2008:263)

They also explain the importance of understanding how the Other is created as the ‘subject’ of research and in turn how research then ‘legitimizes colonial practices such as surveillance, observations, policing and xenophobic policies’ (Saavedra & Nymark 2008:263). In attempting to understand the colonial processes and the role of research in colonisation, researchers can also seek to find processes that assist the colonised to decolonise. So research has been used to colonise, it in turn can also be used to decolonise. This is explained by Swadener and Mutua who argue:

… decolonizing research recognizes the role of colonization in the scripting and encrypting of a silent inarticulate and inconsequential indigenous subject and how such encryptions legitimize oppression. (2008:33-34).

Dunbar (2008:96) points out that colonisers invented and defined Indigenous people and this in turn has reaffirmed their view of themselves as superior. It also confirmed their belief that they (the creators) were the holders and the ‘creators of knowledge’. Walters and Moreton-Robinson (2010:2) declare that Indigenous research methodologies

51 recognise that ‘all knowledge [is] socially situated, partial and grounded in subjectivities and experiences of everyday life’. Hence, as Pino (2002:142) argues, the struggle to control and direct one’s own knowledge and intellectual production is essential for Indigenous people and ‘one of the most important struggles for Indigenous people is the one to control and direct their own intellectual production’.

Decolonising research starts with the recognition of the role of colonisation and its agents in developing and controlling ‘knowledge’ about Indigenous people. This includes how knowledge was used to justify the colonisation of Indigenous people. So knowledge and hence knowledge creation (research) must itself be decolonised. In order for Indigenous Australians to decolonise ourselves, we have to first understand how we were colonised and before we can do that we have to decolonise the tools of colonising knowledge production.

The process of decolonisation will be different for each colonised Indigenous peoples, depending upon the place and time it occurred and so Indigenous research methodologies will vary. In fact as Indigenous research methodologies are about Indigenous groups and individuals it is not possible to have a single, fixed definition of Indigenous research methodology. The one constant is that Indigenous research methodology is grounded in the process of decolonisation.

Decolonisation is not only about emancipation but is also about reclaiming our (Indigenous) ways of being, doing and knowing. This also includes the manner in which ‘I’ view and understand the approach to and method of historical inquiry. What is different about my approach to Australian colonial history from the many other non-Aboriginal historians is that I situate myself both within the research but also within the historical events. Non-Aboriginal historians tend to see the past as a separate entity to the present and do not situate themselves in connection with the past or as a product of the past. I view myself as being a product of the events and the impacts of those events. Futhermore, I do not see history being lineal. My understanding of time is that the past, the present and the future are not only circular but also connected and each forms and

52 informs the other. For example whilst I can not shape or change the events of the past, I am first a produce of what occurred and second I shape the meaning and understanding of what occurred which in turns shapes and influences future generations as well as knowledges not only about the past but also about the present. Non-Aboriginal historians are able to present their role in producing meaning and understanding of the past as being neutral and without judgement of the acts or the actors. I, as an Aboriginal person can never claim neutrality, as I position myself as a product of what has come before and see myself as linked to past and future as well as situated in the present.

2.3.1 Historical Documentary Research

This research was conducted through the reading and analysis of a series of historical documents. The documents were selected due to their relevance to the colonisation and governance of Indigenous people in the colony of New South Wales. The first series of documents are the orders given to the governors of New South Wales on receiving their commissions and the correspondence between the governors and their superiors in Britain. The second set of documents refers to inquiries regarding Indigenous people in the colony of New South Wales. These documents were written between 1788 and 1849; 1788 was the year of the appointment of the first governor to the colony of New South Wales and the commencement of direct governance by the British over the Indigenous peoples of the country that the British invaded. The end date is the report of the NSW Legislative Council Inquiry into the Conditions of the Aborigines, which was ordered by Governor Fitzroy, who was the last British appointed governor.

Atkinson and Coffey (2011:78) discuss the important role of documentary research in understanding organisations and how people work within them. Bryman (2008:521) points out how government documents such as legislation, debates, letters and government inquiries can provide interesting and valuable sources of information for researchers. In order to understand a government and its agents (and in the case of this research a colonial government), the documents they produced are important in providing insight into not only their actions but also their reasons for undertaking them.

53 Given that what is being examined here occurred over two centuries ago, I am dependent upon information in various forms that has been left behind. These documents were produced by the colonial administration in New South Wales and the British parliament and colonial office.

This thesis relies on these key documents from primary and secondary sources. The documents that were the major focus of analysis were from primary sources, that is government orders and correspondence and reports from government inquiries. The secondary sources discussed in the literature review provided the context in which to examine and understand the primary sources. As pointed out by McCulloch (2004:6) documents are social and historical texts and need to be considered within their context. Prior (2011:98) suggests that it is not just the text (or document) that we need to focus upon, but we also need to look at the contemporary ‘political and social infrastructure’ as well. This is further illustrated by Atkinson and Coffey (2011:79) who state that ‘documents are “social facts” in that they are socially produced, shared and used in socially organised ways.’ The secondary sources assisted in part to provide these social contexts in which to understand the primary sources (government documents).

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not clear-cut. McCulloch (2004:29-32) argues that it is difficult to define exactly what is a primary document and what is a secondary document. He thinks that it depends upon the context, time period and manner in which a document is being used or studied, and acknowledges that there are some documents such as government reports that are clearly primary sources. Sarantakos (1998:275) takes a more straight forward approach and describes primary documents as being ‘sources compiled by the eye witnesses’ and secondary documents as being ‘sources derived from primary documents’. McCulloch (2004:31-32) presents an argument that it might be difficult to determine whether letters are primary or secondary as there can be some questions as to their accuracy. However, if the question of possible inaccuracy is used to determine whether a source is a primary or secondary document then the positioning of all documents can be called into question, including government documents. In fact Bryman (2008:521) cautions on an unquestioning

54 acceptance of government documents as factual, arguing that these sources might be highly biased.

However, Bryman (2008:21) points out that despite possible bias, these documents can still be highly valuable and interesting precisely because of the biases they might reveal. Sometimes it is the biases contained within the document that provide clues as to what was happening at the time. But it is not just the biases evident in government documents that can add to or indeed influence the focus of research there are other important aspects to documents that can reveal much more information than just the account they are providing. Rapley (2007:111-113) directs us not just to consider what is being said, but also to what is not said and to look for the rhetoric and how it presents its authority on what is being said.

Prior (2011:101-104) points out that documents as well as being produced, in turn produce; they produce information or knowledge and is used, such as in structuring human interaction. This thesis has looked at the documents that were produced by the British Government and its agents. Those documents are not just the product of human interaction, but also produced ‘knowledge’ about Indigenous people which in turn produced and was used to justify the actions and interactions between colonists and Indigenous peoples. That ‘knowledge’ was produced through the observations and research of government agents and colonists; this Foucault explained as constituting ‘both their objects of study and the experts who may speak about those objects’ (Packer 2011:345). Further to constituting authority to speak about those who are deemed ‘objects of study’, these documents were produced by those in authority, based on knowledge developed at the direction of those in authority. At the same time they gave authority to act in certain ways, including to colonise and subjugate Indigenous people and their lands.

Atkinson and Coffey (2011:88) discuss the importance of authority present in documents, which they claim includes authorship of the document as well as what they call ‘recipient designed’, which in short means the person/s for whom the document was written and by

55 whom it is meant to be read. Government documents can be seen as credible sources of information, as they rely on already existing views and further strengthen their credibility through the use of ‘scientific’ research. As illustrated by Tuhiwai Smith (1992:32) ‘views of the Other had existed for centuries in Europe, but during the time of the Enlightenment these views became more formalized through science, philosophy and imperialism, developing into explicit systems of classification and ‘regimes of truth’.

So a decolonisation methodology is essential in the reading and interpreting of such documents. As Tuhiawai Smith (1999:29-30) points out ‘ …indigenous groups have argued that history is important for understanding the present and that reclaiming history is a critical and essential aspect of decolonization’. Further to this I have attempted to, in the words of Arbon (2008:135) ‘experience, engage and interpret’ these documents from my own cultural knowledge systems as an Aboriginal person. To that end the method that has been used in this research has been informed by Indigenous knowledges and worldviews.

2.3.2 Qualitative Research Method

This research could have used a quantitative method by counting the number of times Indigenous people appeared in the documents under analysis. This would have resulted in a number of interesting findings, such as how prominent Indigenous matters were in comparison to other matters within the colony at the time and the priority they held for the governors. But my journey took me on a different path and lead me to attempt to understand the reasons behind the actions the governors and the imperial and colonial governments took in relation to the Indigenous population in the colony of New South Wales. Quantitative research could not have provided the depth and quality of analyses required to arrive at such an understanding. Thus qualitative research was the appropriate method given the aims of this study. Quantitative research allows the researcher to consider social phenomena through statistics (or the number of times something occurs or appears, its statistical significance and so on), whereas qualitative research focuses on the social meaning of phenomena (Walters 2010: 24-26). Qualitative research uses

56 inductive reasoning, which promotes the generation of theory and uses an interpretative or constructionist approach to do so (Bryman 2008:21-23). This thesis has operated within the framework that Bryman suggests, in that it has generated new theoretical approaches in both the area of concern (Aboriginal welfare history) and in the methodological approach taken that is a critical Indigenous approach.

Qualitative research often uses multiple methods to seek to develop indepth understandings of the phenomena under investigation (Denzin & Lincoln 2008:6). This thesis has used a number of different methods in order to develop an understanding of the actions of those in power in the early colony and of the social relations between those in positions of power and Aboriginal peoples.

It must be noted that one of the criticisms of qualitative research has been its role in the colonisation of Indigenous people around the world and the ways its different methods have served as the basis for ‘colonial knowledge, power and truth’ about the Indigenous other (Denzin and Lincoln 2008:1). Further to this (Western) research has represented its findings as being universal and as the truth and the reality (Semali & Kinchelue 1999:29). It is essential that the ‘Indigenous other’ claims a space in the research realm and works to decolonise both the method and the knowledges that have been and continue to be developed about Indigenous peoples.

Sarantakos identifies a four stage process for undertaking documentary research which has been utilised in this study:

 Identification of relevant documents  Data collection  Data analysis  Interpretation of findings. (1998:276)

These stages are discussed in more detail below.

57

2.3.3 Identification of Relevant Documents:

The documents identified as fundamentally important to the exploration of the relationship between the colonists and colonised in New South Wales were the official documents of the colonial government either written by those within the government (such as the colonial secretary); agents of the government (Governors) or by those who were commissioned or requested by the government to produce the documents (those writing inquiries, letters, reports). The documents all needed to have direct reference to Aboriginal peoples or events regarding Aboriginal peoples. The documents were located either through public libraries or archives both in Australia and England. It was intended that these documents, after analysis, would provide an insight into the operations and thinking of those in positions of power and of those providing advice and information to those in positions of power on matters regarding Aboriginal peoples. I planned to use these insights to understand the actions of those involved in governance of the colony of New South Wales at that time.

Sarantakos (1998:276) points out that the identification of documents is often the result of the researcher’s interest along with the ‘…availability, accessibility, relevance …’ of the documents. This was the case in this study. Any form of document regarding Aboriginal peoples available and accessible and that was relevant to the welfare of Aboriginal peoples during the colonial period was collected. As time went on and the pile of documents began to grow, it was necessary to cull and focus on those most relevant to the research. Whilst many of the documents that were not selected presented interesting information, it was those documents that related to the governing of Aboriginal peoples directly and that told a particular story that captured my attention and interest. The data deemed relevant narrowed considerably to just official documents that pertained to the debates, ideologies and actions of the government rather than the procedural documents (distribution of blankets, rations and counting of people), which were included in the original documents collected.

58 The method of identifying the data was inductive. Observation preceded analysis of themes and theorisation of the phenomena that arose from the themes that were identified in the documents that came under examination. The starting point was official government records of the day. These were found in two bound series, The History of New South Wales (1762-1811) and the History of Australia (1788-1848). I described in Chapter One how I finally came across each of these series. They contained the instructions, letters, reports and other official documentation between the colony’s governors and key people in the British Government, such as the Colonial Secretary. Only documents that referred to Aboriginal peoples using a variety of terms (Aboriginal, Aborigines, natives and so on) were selected. This allowed for the identification of key documents that highlighted how Aboriginal peoples were dealt with and/or how they were positioned with the colony.

2.4 Data Collection

The manner in which data are collected very much depends upon the purpose of the data as well as the manner in which they are to be analysed (Sarantakos 1998:276). The purpose of collecting the data was to analyse what the official actions were with regard to the Aboriginal peoples, both what was instructed and then what actually occurred, and also what the ideologies and thoughts that underpinned those actions were. This required that the data be organised into categories, which allowed for the emergence of themes and also for those themes to be crossed checked. This cross-checking is known as ‘triangulation’. Denzin (208:7-8) outlines that data for use in triangulation should be collected from different times, locations and persons/collections in order to check the data’s validity (which is discussed in more detail below). Data triangulation was achieved in this study by the collection of three different types of documents; (1) governors’ instructions, (2) government correspondence and (3) records and official reports from government inquiries. The data were analysed using thematic analysis of each of the three types of documents and those themes were then crossed checked against each other to ascertain the similarities and differences across each document type. This allowed for checking whether the themes were valid or if there were any issues that

59 required further investigation.

2.5 Data Analysis

2.5.1 Thematic Analysis

A thematic analysis of the documents was undertaken. Bryman (2008:700) defines thematic analysis as being ‘the analysis of qualitative data to refer to the extraction of key themes in one’s data.’ In undertaking a thematic analysis Miles and Huberman (1984:215-30) outline the principles of practice as being:

1. Count – look for repetition, recurring events/experiences/topics 2. Note themes, patterns and look for underlying similarities between experiences 3. Make metaphors, analogies or symbols for what is happening 4. Check to see if single variables/events/experiences are really several 5. Connect particular events to general ones 6. Note differences and similarities 7. Note triggering, connecting or mediating variables 8. Note if patterns in the data resemble theories/concepts. (1984:215-30)

I used these principles in my categorisation and development of themes. Walters (2010:422) describes how ‘the generation of themes requires moving beyond a description of a range of categories. It involves shifting to an explanation, or even better, an interpretation of the issue under investigation’. Thus when considering how the British approached the welfare of Aboriginal peoples within the colony a number of key themes (concepts) emerged, such as civilisation, Christianising, protection, amongst others. These provided some explanations as to the thinking of the British in regard to their conceptualisation of the needs of Aboriginal peoples and also how the British positioned Aboriginal peoples in relation to themselves. Those explanations were developed through interpretation, which was framed by the experiences of the researcher

60 and Critical Indigenous Methodology, as discussed earlier in this chapter.

An issue that needs to be considered is how do you know if you have interpreted the data correctly. Kellehear (1993:41-42) discusses a concern as to whether a text (or in the case of this research, document) has only one true interpretation or whether it is possible for a text to have multiple interpretations. Kellehear also highlights how the hermeneutics school of thought believe that it is possible for interpretation to differ based upon the time, location, culture of the reader and the reader’s own understandings. Thus it is possible to have more than one interpretation of a text without there being one that is correct or more correct than another or others. So it is important to know the viewpoint or positioning of the interpreter. Interpretations presented in this thesis are strongly founded in the ideas of my own time and culture as well as my own positioning and beliefs as an Indigenous person. As discussed in the methodology section, the framework of interpretation is Critical Indigenous theory, which includes decolonisation.

2.5.2 Analysis

The documents used in this study were divided into three major categories:

 Governors’ orders  Governors’ correspondence (to and from governors), reports and proclamations  Reports from Inquiries.

Each set of documents was analysed, beginning with the governors’ orders, moving on to the correspondence and finally the reports. Starting with the governor’s orders, each document was read a number of times to allow for the identification of themes. At first reading a summary of the key points of each document was made. The documents were re-read and key points as they were identified were added to the summary. This continued until the identification of key points was exhausted. From the summaries of

61 key points the next step was to identify themes contained within the summaries. Again this step was repeated until the identification of new themes was exhausted. Following the identification of the themes, the next step was to group the themes based upon their similarities. From these grouping, the themes were then divided into key themes and sub-themes. For example, when examining the governors’ instructions (see attachment one), it was seen that the governors were instructed to undertake particular activities in relation to Aboriginal peoples.

The process outlined above was repeated with the second set of documents. However, each governor’s correspondence and records was analysed individually. Each governor’s set of themes and sub-themes was grouped, compared and grouped again into a set of themes and sub-themes covering all the governors’ correspondence and records. Following the identification of key themes and sub-themes, a comparison of the themes and sub-themes from the two sets of documents was undertaken. The separate analysis of the collection of documents from each of the governors and then the comparison of the themes being identified across the different governors is another example of triangulation, which is used to check the validity of the themes being identified.

The process of identifying key themes and sub-themes continued with the third set of documents – the Inquiries. Each inquiry was analysed separately and then the themes and sub-themes were collapsed into one set of themes and sub-themes for all of the inquiries.

2.6 Interpretation of Findings

Using the themes, a number of interpretations could be explored as to the underlying reasoning and ideologies affecting the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in the colony of New South Wales. To assist in trying to make sense of what was occurring, it was important to gain some understanding of the world at the time. To do this a number of both historical fiction and non-fiction texts were read as a way of imagining what it was like to be a part of that time. In addition to this it was important to gain an understanding

62 of key concepts of the era. Despite this attempt, a limitation of this thesis is that the actions and recordings of that period have been analysed and interpreted from the standpoint of an individual who actually lives over two centuries later.

As I have outlined earlier I am analysing and interpreting the documents in this study from the position of an Indigenous woman looking back at events and actions that have impacted upon who Indigenous people today are, and who she herself is. Thus this thesis is a Critical Indigenous interpretation of what have been recorded as historical events and facts. It adds to the body of knowledge and understanding of that history. It provides a new understanding of what has occurred in order to assist in understanding what is.

Of particular importance is the insight provided through the documents into the Colonial administration’s pre-existing views of Aboriginal peoples. The second set of documents allowed for an overview of and insight into the actions that were taken by the governors and others (including Aboriginal peoples) within the colony. The Inquiries were official government inquiries that provide insight into how the governments of the day viewed Aboriginal peoples and how they positioned them within the colony of NSW.

2.7 Validity

Sarantakos (1998:78) discusses how ‘the validity of a measure is checked by the degree to which predictions made by the results of the measure are supported by findings that appear later’. Bryman (2008:152) also discusses what he calls ‘predictive validity’ and outlines how validity is tested by the ‘level of absenteeism as the criterion’. Hence, the absence of new categories or themes being identified indicates the validity of the measures being used. The validity of the themes that were identified were tested by using triangulation, where the findings (themes) from documents were firstly compared against other documents within the same category of documents and then the themes from one group of documents were compared against the themes from the other two categories of documents. Hence after themes were identified within the first category of documents, the researcher was able to test the validity of the measures through the

63 predictability of the themes that arose in the subsequence documents.

2.8 Reliability To establish reliability regarding documentary research, McCulloch sets out several considerations:

 Authenticity: are the documents genuine and of unquestionable origin  Reliability: considerations about how truthful the documents are, the level of bias that might exist, representativeness of the issue/s being investigated  Meaning: what is the meaning of the documents and in what context were they produced?  Theorising: what is the theoretical framework being used to interpret the documents? (2004:42-46)

Macdonald and Tipton (1993:195-198) use the same process for determining reliability, with a small variation on the terms for each step: authenticity, credibility (reliability), representation (meaning) and meaning (theorising). Further Macdonald and Tipton (1993:198) developed the process of meaning (or in McCulloch’s model theorising) to include the surface meaning and the deeper meaning. The surface meaning is what the author of the document is claiming, whereas the deeper meaning is what is not being said or stated by the author but what the underlying message is. Sometimes the surface meaning and the deeper meaning are the same, but there are times where the deeper meaning is not stated or the surface meaning is based upon the ideologies and assumptions of the writer.

The authenticity of the documents used in this study was not an issue as the documents used were official government records that had been archived, collated and/or published by government departments. The records were already accepted as official and credible historical documents from the colonial government. On the other hand the reliability of the documents was contestable. As discussed in the above section on historical

64 documentary research (see section 5.3.1), any records or documents must be examined in the light of the purpose for which they were written. The purpose will impact upon the truthfulness and bias in the documents. Consideration of the truthfulness and bias of the documents was included. Both the surface meaning of the documents as well as the deeper meanings were explored and compared along with the actions (or events) that took place.

The documents were seen as representative of the issues that were being investigated, that is the treatment of and views about Aboriginal peoples held by the colonial government. Hence, whilst the documents were written to produce a certain view or to justify the actions of the colonial government and its agencies, the views and justifications along with the actions were being analysed.

A Critical Indigenous framework was used to analyse and interpret the documents. The purpose of using this framework was to allow the researcher to bring a new understanding from an Indigenous perspective to what happened in the early colony. To do this I have written extensively throughout this thesis about the perspective I bring in my interpretation and understanding of the documents under analysis.

2.9 Limitations As with any research there are limitations. First, the documents being analysed were written two or more centuries ago and none of the authors is still alive. It is impossible to check with them if the interpretation of their written words are what they intended. As Walters (2010:71) argues, ‘meanings and interpretations are often complex and historically and socially located.’ Indeed the documents themselves were written for a specific purpose and in a manner necessary to fulfil the purposes of the documents. The documents were produced as part of a colonising process to justify the actions and outcomes of that process. They were written by a certain group of people, white men in positions of power who were actors within the process of colonisation. The documents are now being analysed by an Indigenous woman in a completely different location in terms of time and positioning within society who wants to understand what occurred in

65 order to be part of the process of decolonisation. Bryman (2008:561) discusses the limitations of someone who is an outsider understanding the ‘social context in which the data’ were produced. Whilst I am an Aboriginal person living in the same country as those Aboriginal people being written about, I am in a relatively powerful position compared to the Aboriginal people who were subjected to the actions and ideologies evident in the documents that were analysed. However, my positioning in current Australian society is also a direct result of the ideologies and actions evident in the early colonial documents. My ancestors who were living between 1788 and 1856 were directly affected by those actions and ideologies.

There are also limitations caused by the bias of the authors of the documents analysed. Bryman (2008:521) raises a concern regarding whether the ‘documentary source is biased’. McCulloch (2004:42-43) discusses how it is possible that the authors of the documents may have written in a certain way that produced a bias within the documents. This bias might be the result of the need to ‘rationalise one’s own actions, and to discredit those of others; to support a case or to undermine it; to understate a problem or to exaggerate it’ (McCulloch 2004:42). However, as noted earlier, understanding the biases in the documents was central to the analysis.

Also as noted earlier, there is a question regarding numerous interpretations. This research is based on the premise that a text has many different possible interpretations and that the findings reported in this thesis are just one of those possible interpretations. Importantly it is acknowledged that the interpretation presented in this thesis derives from a critical Indigenous approach. The fact that the documents used could have many different interpretations due in part to the impact of the positioning and location of the researcher upon the results, makes the repeatability of the research difficult and might result in the questioning of the credibility of the findings. However, it must be noted that any understanding of historical events or in fact any events at all, is dependent upon the worldviews of the researcher, writer or the interpreter of those events. I have aimed to overcome this problem by making it clear at all stages what my worldview is and how that worldview is shaping and forming the interpretations being made. Hence, the

66 interpretations of the events and ideologies presented in this research are only one possible understanding and interpretation of many that could be made.

2.10 Conclusion

This research journey has followed two lines of investigation: first it has investigated the place of welfare for Aboriginal peoples in the early colony and second it has investigated how to undertake research that is Indigenous using an Indigenous methodology but not within a contemporary Indigenous community. The question of what Indigenous research is, kept arising for me. Just because an Indigenous person is doing research, does not automatically make that research Indigenous. So what makes it Indigenous? As argued earlier in this chapter, it is relational: my relationship to the topic (as a colonised person), my relationship to family and community (as a Wiradjuri woman) and the intentions in doing the research (to find ways to decolonise and de-welfarise Aboriginal peoples, starting with myself). The rest of this research journey will use the methodology developed above, a Critical Indigenous methodology, to analyse and interpret Colonial records in a new way. The findings of these analyses of the records along with a consideration of the stories of Bennelong and Maria, provide an understanding of how Aboriginal peoples were colonised and welfarised.

67

Chapter Three

The Development of Welfare in the colony of New South Wales in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

Maria was daughter of Yarramundi from the Durak people of the Hawkesbury river. We do not know Maria’s real name just that she was born in 1814, and that her father admitted her to the Native Institute after attending the inaugural feast day held by Governor Macquarie. Maria was the first child admitted to the institute. We also know that several years after she was admitted Maria won first prize in the school examinations ahead of 20 Aboriginal children and approximately 100 British children. Maria went on to marry Dickie (also known as Thomas Coke), a fellow student at the Native Institute. Dickie died shortly after the marriage. Maria went on to marry John Locke, a convict and that was the first marriage of an Aboriginal person officially sanctioned within the Colony of NSW. Upon Maria’s and John’s marriage, John as a convict was assigned to Maria and the Governor granted Maria and John land and a cow. They received the cow but not the land. Following the death of Maria’s brother Coley (also known as Colbee), Maria petitioned the then Governor, Darling to request that she been given her brother’s land. Maria was originally told to select land and she did so, choosing land in Liverpool, near her then employer and friend Rev Cartwright. Cartwright opposed the granting of the land to her but eventually Maria (in her husband’s name) was granted the land as long as she lived on the land for a period not less than seven years Maria was also eventually granted her brother’s land in Blacktown and by the time of her death in 1878 she and John had also acquired more land in the Blacktown area. (Brook & Kohen 1991:248-267).

3.1 Introduction

68

In 1788 the continent called New Holland by the British and later named Australia was invaded and occupied by people who brought with them and installed their own ideas of society and how it should operate. These invaders transported those social systems from 18th Century Britain and eventually imposed them across the continent. From the late 18th Century a number of phases of welfare provision in the colony can be identified. There is debate regarding the extent to which British welfare provision of the 18th and 19th Centuries influenced the welfare regimes that developed in the colony of New South Wales. Nevertheless, whether by duplication or by responding to those who opposed the Poor Laws both within the colony and in Britain, the colony was deeply influenced by the British welfare system. This chapter will explore how the British imported their own welfare system and implemented it within the colony of New South Wales. Aboriginal people were seen as different to the British arrivals and as such a new social category or class was developed to incorporate them into the new society. This new society was guided by the ideologies that underpinned the British Poor Law system of the time. Aboriginal people were seen as poor and hence morally deficient and in need of correction. However, they were seen as being more deficient than the British poor in that Aboriginal people were considered to be uncivilised and savage as well as poor, and hence a problem that the British had a moral duty to deal with. Once Aboriginal people were deemed to be moral paupers, the British set out to correct them through the process of welfarisation. The story of Maria, summarised above is one of the few stories that the British claimed as a success in correcting the moral poverty of Aboriginal people. However, Maria’s story is also an example of the way in which Aboriginal people became dependent upon the British and thus welfarised.

There has been much debate about the origins of the Australian welfare state and what influence the British Poor Laws had upon the development of welfare provision. Berreen (1994:6-7) and Garton (1994:25) both argue that within the British colonies there was an abhorrence of the Poor Laws and that it was hoped that by providing help through voluntary organisations there would be no need for a similar system, thus avoiding the Poor Laws. For example, Kennedy (1982:3) outlines how the Victorians

69 ‘execrated the very idea of a poor law’ and agreed that there was no need for them for two reasons. First, the Poor Laws were a symbol of the misery and oppression of the poor from the old country and second, for the bourgeoisie the Poor Laws meant social obligations including ‘rates, cumbersome and expensive administrations, and possibly unpleasant social duties’ (Kennedy 1982:61). This is further teased out by Garton (1994:25-26) who states that due to the values of a liberal political economy and evangelicalism in the colony, officials and the colonists were anxious not to repeat the mistakes of the old country whilst the poor were anxious to avoid a repeat of the harsh conditions of the Poor Laws.

However, there are others such as Inglis (1984) who argued that the Australian welfare state from its very beginnings has been a legacy of the British Poor Laws. This appears to be supported by Jamrozik who states:

Attitudes in Australia towards poverty still show that Australia has retained some of the vestiges of the English Poor Laws as part of its ‘colonial inheritance’. (2005:31)

It does appear that while Australia avoided a formal Poor Law and that welfare provision was different in its processes, Australian welfare from its beginnings was underpinned by the values, judgments and ideologies that drove the British Poor Laws. As Berreen (1994:6) articulates: ‘A poor law system was avoided by the practice of charity [that] spoke the language of the principles and moral theory which was to characterise the 1834 English Poor Law Amendment Act’. It must be noted that the colonisation of Australia occurred as part of the British solution to deal with the social problems it was facing in Britain during the 18th and 19th Centuries. These social problems were seen as not only arising from poverty but also from the ‘morals and habits’ of the poor (Garton 1990:8). Therefore any attempt to understand the Australian welfare system during that same period must consider British welfare of the time.

70

3.2 The British Poor Laws

The system of welfare provision and the Poor Laws in Britain developed over a period of centuries in which concern about the control and correction of pauperism was the main focus. In Britain, there had been two systems of welfare or poor relief (Garton 1990:9). The first system was a charitable one, which was based upon churches and private organisations meeting their Christian duty by providing food and shelter for the poor and destitute. The second system was that of parish assistance, which was designed to keep workers within their own villages and to impede them from looking for work elsewhere. It was also intended to prevent a shortage of labour within a specific area, which, were it allowed to happen, would see wages rise. This system of Parish Assistance, implemented since the 16th Century (the period of Elizabethan England) was also known as the Poor Laws.

The beginnings of the Poor Laws can be seen between the 1570s and1600 when the English developed a system of communal welfare that was legislated in 1601. By 1790 this had resulted in a complex system of laws and regulations that governed welfare provision (Garton 1990:7-15) and by 1850 this amounted to 264 general acts and more than 100 local acts (King 2000:18-210). These laws included the Tudor Poor Law Statute of 1572 with the parishes having responsibility for the poor and for putting them to work (Checkland & Checkland 1974:12); the Century Act of Settlement of 1662 which legislated that the poor could only receive assistance in the parish of their birth (Garton 1990:7-15); Knatchbull’s Act of 1722 which set up workhouses and Gilbert’s Act of 1782 which made workhouses a place for only the aged and infirmed and that the able-bodied had to find work out-doors (Checkland & Checkland 1974:14-15). These acts varied from place to place, as did the form in which the assistance was provided. However, they all served to ensure that only the poor were assisted and that those who were able to provide for themselves did so.

The responsibility for providing for the poor though changed over time. The 1662 Act

71 placed that responsibility with each parish through the provision of outdoor relief and the resources to do this were provided through a local tax on property. This was known as the principal of ‘local poverty-local relief’ (King 2000:20). It was accepted at this time that those who were poor and unable to provide for themselves had a moral and a legal claim upon their parishes for support (Checkland & Checkland 1974:12). Following many expressions of concern from different groups about the effects of providing relief for the poor and the changes to the economic basis of British society, the government under the Poor Law Reform Act 1832, introduced changes to welfare provision and changed responsibility for that provision (O’Brien & Penna 1998:24-25). This changed in 1834 under the New Poor Laws, which moved the responsibility from the parishes to the state, introducing formal testing of the needs of the poor (Kewley 1969:1). The underlying principal was not that poor relief was a moral and legal right of the poor but was rather about dealing with the economic structure of society (King 2000:68). This is further explored by O’Brien (1988) and Penna who both claim that the government had:

…accepted poverty as the source of labour and labour as the source of wealth: if no one is poor…no one will work; if no one worked no one else will get rich. (Penna 1998:24-25)

If alleviating poverty was seen as the source of labour when there was a shortage, then there had to be measures to ensure that the poor would work. There were concerns that welfare provision could prevent the poor from wanting to work so there was a need to ensure that the poor were not better off or more comfortable on welfare than working. This gave rise to two principles – one being that of ‘lesser eligibility’, which meant that ‘the level of welfare support needed to be less in value than the value of the lowest wage rates available’ (Beilharz, Considine & Watts 1992:60), and the second being the need to ensure that those who were able to provide for themselves did so and that welfare provisions did not encourage people to become dependent upon the state (Garton 1990:12). The poor were divided into two categories: (1) the deserving and (2) the undeserving; there was a concern that the undeserving would lapse into pauperism, which is when the undeserving became dependent upon charity (Garton 1990:26). Thus

72 pauperism was much more than just being poor, it was also about being poor due to a lack of morals that lead to people being dependent upon charity or the assistance of others.

The concerns about dependency of the poor were not particular to the 19th Century and the new Poor Laws. Throughout the 16th and 17th Century, there was growing concern about the provision of welfare to the poor and the moral implications of welfare upon the recipients. Poverty was seen as a vice (Archer 1985) or a crime that was in need of correction through punishment (Digby 1982:31). This also saw the development of distinct categories of the poor, in particular around the constructs of ‘deserving and undeserving’ pauperism. The deserving poor were the elderly, the sick, the widowed and deserted families, whilst the undeserving poor were those who were able-bodied and lacked thrift and the habits of industry (Garton 1990:12). It was believed that assistance should be given to the deserving poor whilst the undeserving needed to be deterred from remaining poor and being dependent upon assistance (Garton 1990:12-13). Added to this were concerns regarding the financial cost of welfare provision to the poor and how this impacted upon the prosperity of others (King 2000:26). All of this resulted in a view that the poor were a threat:

Not only their immorality, but also their inadequate performance as workers and consumers justified harsher treatment. (King 2000:26)

3.2.1 Workhouses

By 1575 the principal of setting the poor to work had appeared along with the provision of work for the able-bodied within workhouses (Checkland & Checkland 1974:12). From 1722 under the Kntachbull Act, parishes were able to demand that relief only be given within workhouses and that the able-bodied only be given relief in return for labour (King 2000:24). Workhouses were given the duty to ‘correct’ the idle by providing materials with which they could be put to work, and thus became ‘houses of

73 correction’ (Checkland & Checkland 1974:13). Furthermore, the workhouses did not just provide the materials by which a person could work, but also provided moral correction. The morals referred to were in particular, those of the undeserving poor who were characterized as having a ‘lack of industry, thrift, abstemiousness and self-help’ (Garton 1990:12). The workhouses on the other hand, were characterised as training centres for moral reform and provided ‘education, industrial training and religious instruction’ (Garton 1990:12).

Workhouses did not just target able-bodied men, but also the children of the poor as they were seen to embody the same morals as their parents (Garton 1990:12). King (2000:206) writes that the workhouses often concentrated upon children rather than adults and that a large proportion of these children were in fact orphans with another large group being those children of widow mothers. Another group of children who were likely to end up in workhouses were children whose mothers were in prison. This group of children would have otherwise accompanied their mothers into prison (Holden 1999:68). Workhouses were seen as an alternative for children whose parents were not seen as fit and moral people. There were though concerns about allowing children to mingle with adult paupers, particularly those seen as having idle habits (Rose 1972:37). In particular children were separated from their parents in the workhouses to limit the possible threat to them of moral contamination that their parents were assumed to pose (Digby 1982:32). Any contact with adult paupers was seen as being morally harmful with this contact thought to encourage children into a state of pauperism (Duke 1976:69). Windschuttle declared the child institutions to be ‘an ambitious movement to destroy the cultural values of disorder, irreverence and promiscuity, and replace them with those of discipline, obedience and submission’ (1982:27). Therefore, the workhouses were seeking to control and limit the development of pauperism as well as to punish those who were poor.

Women did not escape the workhouses, despite in many cases being ‘deserving poor’. This is illustrated by Windschuttle who states:

74 Whatever ill fate befell a poor woman, here was a prison, a hospital, an asylum or a workhouse ready to receive her. (1982:10)

An example of those women who were ‘deserving’ but still found themselves in a workhouse was that of widowed mothers whose children were also instituionalised in workhouses (King 2000:206-7). However, not all women who found themselves and their children in workhouses were seen as ‘deserving’, and one group in particular was seen to be in need of moral correction. These were women with illegitimate children (King 2000:208).

Workhouses, whilst houses for correction of the idle also became the only place where welfare was provided for many other groups who were dependent upon support regardless of their circumstances. Whilst originally the needs of the poor were provided for by outdoor relief there was a growing tendency to provide relief within workhouses. However, there were concerns that workhouses could encourage people to become idle. The answer to poverty was said by such critics to be the abolition of assistance to the poor (Garton1990:12). This was done by ensuring that workhouses were places to be dreaded. A critic of the Poor Laws and later a Poor Law Commissioner, George Nicholls stated:

I wish to see the Poor House looked to with dread by our labouring class, and the reproach for being an inmate of it extend downwards from Father to Son…for without this where is the needful stimulus to industry? (Garton 1990:12)

Workhouses became prisons and places to be avoided (King 2000:208), where persons viewed as morally poor were receiving correction and punishment for crimes of immorality. The lives of those people within the workhouses were totally regulated and the workhouses were designed to ensure that their lives would be less comfortable than the lives of those who remained outside (Rose 1972:8).

By the late 18th and early 19th Centuries many in Britain were dissatisfied with the Poor

75 Laws and were demanding reforms (Garton 1990:10). There were three major groups of critics of the Poor Laws. One group was the poor. Being forced to enter a poor house was seen as the worst thing that could happen and to be avoided at all cost. This was understandable as the workhouses were designed to be an undesirable option, an aim that was certainly achieved. A second group of critics were those who were worried that the workhouses were preferred by many instead of working. There were concerns about the effects that this would have on the economy. Economic theorists such as Adam Smith, Frederick Eden and Rev. T. R. Malthus thought that market forces of supply and demand would ensure that everyone who wanted employment would be employed and wages would settle at a reasonable level, thus poverty would be eradicated (Garton 1990:10). As well there were concerns that providing relief, whether in workhouses or in other forms would encourage dependency. This is illustrated in a statement, cited by Checkland and Checkland, made by Mr Hall, the overseer of St Botolph during the Poor Law inquiry:

… the workhouse appears to be a place in which the aged and impotent are maintained in comfort, and the able-bodied supported, but under such restrictions as to induce them to prefer it to a life of independent labour. But in by far the greater number of cases, it is a large almshouse, in which the young are trained in idleness, ignorance, and vice; the able-bodied maintained in sluggish sensual indolence; the aged and more respectable exposed to all the misery that is incident to dwelling in such a society, without government or classification; and the whole body of inmates subsisted on food far exceeding both in kind and in amount, not merely the diet of the independent labourer, but that of the majority of the persons who contribute to their support. (Checkland & Checkland 1974:46-7)

The final group of critics could be best characterised as humanitarians who thought that the Poor Law and the workhouses were inhumane and unjust. For example a group of Poor Law overseers and officials gathered in 1795 to draft a new policy that would waive workhouse tests and give payments to the unemployed and the working poor and their

76 families. Such critics did not believe that unemployment and poor wages were the fault of the individual and argued that the poor had a right to relief (Garton 1990:10). Eventually all this disquiet led to the government appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the Poor Laws. Its brief was to:

make a diligent and full inquiry into the practical operation of the laws for the relief of the poor in England and Wales…To report whether any, and what, alternations, amendments, or improvements may be beneficially made in the said laws,…and how the same may be best carried into effect. (Checkland& Checkland 1974:29)

The reforms initiated by the Poor Law Inquiry instituted a number of key changes. First the administration of the poor laws was centralized where previously they had been organized at the local level; second deliberate testing of eligibility for relief was introduced making it compulsory that relief would only be given to those deemed to be able-bodied upon them entering a workhouse; and third the workhouse was linked to the principal of less eligibility which ensured that welfare payments would be less than the lowest paying job. (King 2000:27-8, Evans 1987:61-69) However, if the aim of the Poor Law reforms was to usher in an improvement in poor relief then this aim was not realized. In the words of Alfred Marshall, an economist writing in 1895 and cited by Checkland and Checkland:

It seems to me that whenever I read the Poor Law literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the century…You can trace the economic dogmas of present Poor Law literature direct from those times. (Checkland & Checkland 1974:46-7)

It cannot go without comment that these 18th and 19th Century debates and discussions about how to manage the poor and unemployed resonate deeply with debates in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries about unemployed, poor and Indigenous Australians.

77

3.3 Australian welfare in the 18th and 19th Centuries

The British invaded, colonised and formed the colony of New South Wales at the same time that debates about and reforms of the British Poor Laws were occurring. Those settling in Australia were not suddenly divorced from the experiences and ideas of the Poor Laws. A large number of the convicts had been poor and had been transported for crimes of poverty, such as stealing food. At the same time some of the colonial officials responsible for the welfare of the occupants of the new colony had also been officials in Britain and were deeply influenced by the poor law reforms. Importantly, the colony was still under the direct responsibility of the British Government and it can be reasonably assumed that the ideologies that formed and shaped the policies of that government would also impact upon the new colony. Garton (1990:15) points out that in 1788 when the First Fleet arrived, it brought with it not only a thousand people but also ‘a culture attuned to producing and controlling poverty’. This provided the very structure upon which the colony was built and administered.

In 1788 the British invaded and colonised the continent of New Holland, now called Australia. The continent was claimed under the guise of Terra Nullius, which in effect ignored the existence of the Indigenous population who already inhabited the continent. The first arrivals were heavily dependent upon Britain for their subsistence and this continued until the 1840s (Dickey 1987:6). During the early stages of the colony there was a need for Britain to provide support until voluntary and locally sustainable production developed (Kewley 1969:1-2). As the colony grew with free settlers and children being born, the transport of convicts decreased and by 1840 (Garton 1990:24) ceased. At the same time British economic support of the Australian colonies ceased and a system of assistance to those who could not provide for themselves and their families was instituted. This resulted in the colony developing its own welfare system. Over time, a myth grew that Australia was different from other places, and in particular from Britain, and that Australia was a worker’s paradise (Jones 1990:9). In fact, there was blindness to the existence of poverty; it has even been claimed:

78

by the standards of the old world, Australians were well fed, well clothed and well housed. (Fisher 1982:32-33)

However the reality of the situation in the early colony was quite different. By 1813 the colony of New South Wales had a population of 12,000, of which approximately one quarter, was receiving relief in the form of rations from the colonial government (Dickey 1987:12). By the 1830s there were schemes to encourage migration from Britain to Australia with the aim of increasing the working class and the British government hoped that this would empty the workhouses in England of paupers (Garton 1999:29-30). However, many of these people arrived into an environment that was just as harsh and unforgiving as the one they had left. It was not a worker’s paradise but rather a struggling outpost that was experiencing economic difficulties, low wages and high unemployment. These new colonists discovered a place that was different only in environment not in thought.

In this climate the unemployed only received help if they were prepared to work on government gangs. Governments provided food or meagre wages for labourers prepared to work building roads, bridges, jetties, clearing land or, if there was no useful work available, breaking stones. (Garton 1990:31)

The similarities between the provision of relief in the new colony and the old country can be seen clearly. Concerns regarding the poor not being encouraged into pauperism, the need to ensure that the poor accepted any form of labour and that relief would be denied to those who had refused offers of work (Godden 1982:88) were upmost. The government of the colony provided food or low wages in return for work whilst in Britain the same regime pertained in which paupers had been required to work in return for the relief provided either within the parish in which they lived and in the later years within workhouses. The colonial systems of government and administration in relation to welfare were identical to that of Britain. As argued by Windschuttle the colonial administration had:

79

…transported British concepts and institutions whole – in law, forms of government, religion and prevailing ideas in economics, politics, education and culture. (Windschuttle 1982:12).

Berreen (1994:18-19) argues that whilst the colony did not introduce a ‘Poor Law’ through statute it did so in practice and that colonial charity ‘spoke the language of the principles and moral theory which was to characterize the 1834 English Poor Law Amendment Act’ (Berreen 1994:18-19). One example of this is the supposed absence of so-called workhouses within the colony. As stated by Castles:

…in many other countries of Western Europe, although never in Australia, the Poor Laws locked away the unfortunate in ‘Work houses’, where they undertook menial tasks for the pittance handed out by the Poor Law authorities. (Castles 2001:30)

However, in fact the colony did have asylums. O’Brien points out that there appeared to be similarities between the colony’s asylums and the British workhouses (O’Brien 1988:52).

By the early 1800s the development of Asylums in the colony of New South Wales had begun. The Asylums were a result of the growing concerns about the well-being and moral development of children being born in the colony, particularly children of convicts. In addition there was an increasing concern about the situation of orphaned children and in particular of orphaned girls who were seen at risk of turning to prostitution and how this would in turn undermine the morality of the colony (Garton 1990:18-19). In 1801 Governor King opened the Female Orphans’ Asylum in Sydney and in 1819 Governor Macquarie followed by opening the Male Orphans’ Asylum (Garton 1990:19). The asylums grew in number and type throughout the 19th Century and included asylums for the sick, the insane, orphaned children and the poor (Garton 1990:54-61). The government’s response to the poor was to house them in asylums that were often unused

80 government buildings; aged and invalid women were sent to the old barracks in Hyde Park whilst the men were sent to institutions in Parramatta and Liverpool (Conley1982:284-285). Lunatics were housed at the Tarban Creek Asylum and children sent to various orphanages, reformatories and schools (Garton 1990:58-59).

Whilst the asylums were not meant to be workhouses in the sense of the British workhouses, the inmates were expected to work, just as in the workhouses and to perform all the work around the asylum. Unless an inmate was bed-ridden, they were required to work (O’Brien 1988:52). Garton further points to the parallels between the colony’s asylums and the British workhouses by stating that, ‘Conditions in asylums such as these paralleled those in prisons and English workhouses’ (Garton 1990:57). In addition it has been claimed that Australia explicitly rejected Poor Laws and that there was no welfare legislation until 1901 (Castles 2001:31). However, whilst there have been many claims that workhouses did not exist at all within the colonies, an institution that was known as a workhouse existed at Port Macquarie and a short-lived Workhouse Act of 1866-1868 under the Martin-Parks Government was proclaimed (Conely 1982:284-285). The Workhouse at Port Macquarie was established after the act was repealed, but the new institution was established to provide discipline for the ‘undeserving unemployed’. These unemployed could be held for up to two years and be forced to work. In addition to the Workhouse Act, the undeserving poor could be charged under the Police Offences Act and the Vagrancy Act if they were found to be without ‘recognized forms of respectable employment and shelter’ (Conley 1982:284-285) and thus these individuals could be either jailed or sent to an asylum. These asylums and industrial factories and schools (discussed below) for women and children within the colony were based on moral reform (Garton 1990:60-61). For many in the colony the asylums (also known as poorhouses) were treated with fear, as illustrated by one man stating to the media that he would ‘…rather take a long dose and go to sleep’ than go to ‘the Asylum’ (Conley 1982:52). What occurred within the general society of the colony of New South Wales happened concurrently to Aboriginal people at that time, and directly influenced the attitudes and actions of the colonial governors. Aboriginal people were also impacted by the imposition of these categories of deserving

81 and undeserving and the concerns about becoming pauper; policies, laws and institutions were developed to deal with these issues.

It was not only the government that took on the responsibility of dealing with poverty or assisting the poor in the early 19th century. In fact the government was rather reluctant to take on direct responsibility for providing poor relief (Kewley 1969:1). In 1813 the New South Wales Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and Benevolence in these Territories and the Neighbouring Islands was established in Sydney (Dickey 1987:12-14). The society was established by seven men all except one of whom were evangelical Christians, and who saw their primary duty as preaching the gospel but who also realized that it was just as important to alleviate distress caused by poverty. In an attempt to gain funding from the colonial government the society abandoned its missionary activities and focused on morality and benevolence within Sydney by setting up an outdoor relief dispensary to the poor of Sydney. By 1818 this society had become the Benevolent Society of New South Wales.

A number of women were involved in the provision of poor relief throughout the early colony. Anna King (wife of Governor King) for example worked with the colony’s orphans and assisted her husband with the Female Orphan Asylum. There was also Eliza Darling (wife of Governor Darling) who set up a program to provide domestic training to prisoners at the Female Factory, established by Governor Macquarie in 1818 in Parramatta initially as a workhouse for unassigned convict women (Windschuttle 1982:12-15). The work of these woman and many other wives of officials within the colony saw the development of a large number of philanthropic organisations, including but not limited to:

 Female School of Industry  Female Friendly Society  Female Factory  Sydney Dorcas Society

82  Sydney Strangers Friend Society  Ladies Dorcas Society for Distressed Jewish Mothers  Emigrants Home  Sydney Female Refuge  House of the Good Shepherd

In addition to these organisations, women were also involved in evangelical and church work such as:

 Sunday Schools  Wesleyan Missionary Society  Native Institution  Aborigines Protection Society  Temperance movement

Windschuttle has characterised women’s charitable work in three ways:

 Subscribing to societies and institutions via donations  Active involvement in running societies or institutions via membership on ladies committees  The initiation and running of women’s own charities such as the Female School of Industry established in 1826

However, over time many women moved away from focusing on charity work to working on social reform. It was thought that through social reform, the root causes of poverty, such as alcohol and other vices could be addressed and thus poverty would be alleviated (Garton 1994:30). Godden (1982:124-125) sees the role of women in philanthropy as being ‘restricted to upholding the values, and promoting the ideological hegemony, of the bourgeois family’. This is further illustrated by Connell and Irving (1980:124-125) who claimed that the voluntary work of bourgeois women within private

83 organisations was evidence of a commitment to being ‘God’s police’ or rather being responsible for the moral good of society. Further to this Swain (1996:430) argues that philanthropy within the colony of New South Wales was one of the few public and highly visible activities that women could be involved in.

During the first hundred years of colonisation there developed two methods of poor relief: that provided by the state (via the colonial government) and that provided by private organisations. Private organisations were funded through either government funding or private donors and subscriptions or a mixture of both. As the economic and social conditions continued to develop and change during the 1800s, the government found that it needed to take a more active interest in the provision of relief for the poor (Kewley 1969:2). By the late 1840s there were growing public concerns about the problems of pauperism within the slum areas of Sydney (Ramsland 1986:55-56). In addition to this there was a growing public awareness and concern regarding the conditions within the asylums (Ramsland 1986:56). The government increasingly became involved in the lives of poor people and by the mid to late 1800s was seeking to limit the numbers of people entering asylums, which were being largely funded by the government (O’Brien 1988:185). In 1862 the government decided to limit the activities of organisations such as the Benevolent Asylum and took over the provision of care for the destitute aged and the infirm, but left the care of the ‘sick poor, neglected children and a mixed group called the poor’ to charitable groups (Kewley 1969:2).

Due to the government’s continuing and growing role in the provision of poor relief and the establishment of organisations to address the issues of poverty and the needs of the poor, the questions of what were the best methods by which to deal with the issues of poverty and the provision of relief were raised. Just as in England, concerns about people being dependent upon the state and an ‘erosion of manly virtue’, began early in the 1800s (Beilharz et al 1992:19) and these concerns did not cease or lessen over time. These concerns underpinned much of the debate that continued over the provision of relief to the poor. One of the major questions asked was whether to model relief on the Poor Laws or whether the Poor Laws as suggested by their critics, ‘promote vagrancy,

84 dependency and dissoluteness’ (Garton 1990:20-21). One example of this questioning of how to provide relief was the government discussion of a system of outdoor relief (cash payments) to address the growing numbers of poor people and the concerns about conditions within asylums. Many though considered that cash payments would encourage pauperism (Conley 1982:285).

Eventually the government did move to a system of cash payments (Garton 1990:85) but this did not occur until the early 20th century. The Age Pension was first benefit introduced in Victoria in 1901, followed by New South Wales in the same year, then by Queensland in 1908 with a national pension being established in 1909 by the Federal Government (Jones 1990:21). The government saw pensions as a way to deal with issues within the asylums of ‘ill-treatment and impoverishment amongst the aged and invalid’ (Garton 1990:98). There were arguments that the pension should be an entitlement to all men based upon their citizenship (Garton 1990:85). At the time, however, the pension was seen more as a gift:

The old age pension is a gift by the state to citizens, who, during the prime of life, have helped to bear the public burdens of the State by payment of taxes, and by opening up its resources by labour and skill. (Jones 1990:21)

Despite the government’s language of the pension being a gift, the preamble to the New South Wales Old Age Pension Act of 1901 suggests otherwise:

…it is equitable that deserving persons who during the prime of life have helped to bear the public burdens of the Colony by the payment of taxes and by opening up its resources by their labour and skill, should receive from the Colony pensions in their old age…(O’Brien1988:57)

Furthermore the pension was means tested and could only be received by those determined to be of ‘good moral character’ and who were leading ‘a sober and reputable life’, with the immoral not eligible (O’Brien 1988:57). In addition, the government saw

85 pensions (or cash payments) as a way for dealing with other problems and this saw the introduction of payments such as a maternity allowance (Garton 1990:101). This was the beginning of a variety of various payments that were made by the government to other groups of individuals during the early 20th Century.

This development of entitlement to benefits was a hallmark of the developing welfare policy and provision that was still occurring well into the late 20th Century in Australia, but this not the focus of this thesis. It does though provide a sense of the evolving welfare provision through the colonial era into the 20th Century. But now I return to the analysis of welfare during the 18th and 19th Centuries.

3.4 Aboriginal People and 18th and 19th Century Welfare

There is very limited consideration of the position and treatment of Aboriginal people in Australian welfare history. Three of the major Australian welfare historians have limited or no information regarding Aboriginal people. Dickey (1987:165-166) does not mention Aboriginal people in his overview of Australian Welfare history until he mentions their exclusion from the Melbourne survey on poverty in the 1960s. Kennedy (1982:55) sees Aboriginal people as having a ‘primitive communism’ that was destroyed by the genocide. Subsequently in his edited book, Australian Welfare History, Kennedy notes that he regretted the absence of a chapter on Aboriginal people and white history (Kennedy 1982:1). Garton’s (1990) book Out of Luck: Poor Australians and Social Welfare, although limited, does include significantly more analysis, when compared to other similar titles, in terms of Aboriginal people and welfare in the time period covered by this thesis. Garton refers to the belief of most colonists that Aboriginal people were ‘savages’. There was though a small group of missionaries and officials who considered that Aboriginal people were ‘part of the family of man and capable of moral improvement’ and that that ‘Aboriginal culture was primitive but the child-like Aborigines were capable of becoming Christians’ (Garton 1990:19). Garton also recognised that Governor Macquarie established a Native School for the civilisation and education of the natives (Garton 1990:19-20). He goes on to talk about Aboriginal

86 people being dispossessed and coming into the care of either missionaries or government officials and of the existence of Aboriginal camps in Sydney until 1870 when Aboriginal people were forced to move to distant settlements (Garton 1990:37). The only other discussion in Garton about Aboriginal people is their position within the colony as cheap labour. He does not mention Aboriginal people again until he begins his later discussion of 20th century welfare provision. As Garton’s work suggests, despite the lack of information regarding Aboriginal people and welfare during the 18th and 19th centuries by welfare historians, Aboriginal people were not being ignored by those in the colony who were responsible for the provision of relief to the poor and for their moral good. Indeed, Aboriginal people were directly affected by what was happening, both through their dispossession and the actions of the colonists, including those with the responsibility for welfare and moral reform. However, what happened to and for Aboriginal people differed in intent and in action from what happened to non-Aboriginal people.

There are some clues nonetheless as to how Aboriginal people were treated during the early colonial period through the writings of the early colonists. Governor Phillip when describing the Eora people commented upon the ‘simplicity of their minds’ (Flannery 1999:56). When Phillip set sail for Australia the instructions he received were:

To endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoying all our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of our subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our will and pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment. (Egan 1999:27)

Despite Phillip’s instructions to live in amity and kindness with them, he interpreted the instructions of opening an intercourse with the natives as forcing them to develop the relationship. Trench describes an early attempt to establish such a relationship:

87 The boat proceeded to Manly Cove, where several Indians were seen standing on the beach, who were enticed by courteous behaviour and a few presents, our people rushed in among them and seized two men. The rest fled, but the cries of the captives soon brought them back, with many others, to their rescue, and so desperate were their struggles that in spite of their rescue, and so desperate were their struggles that in spite of every effort on our side only one of them was secured. The other effected his escape…The prisoner was now fastened by ropes to the thwarts of the boat and when he saw himself irretrievably separated from his countrymen, set up the most piercing and lamentable cries of distress…To prevent his escape, a handcuff with a rope attached to it was fastened around his left wrist, which at first delighted him; he called it bengadee (or ornament), but his delight changed to rage and hatred when he discovered its use. (Egan 1999:98)

This event occurred on 30th December 1788 and the person who was kidnapped in this manner was called Manly by his captures. Trench’s narrative gives some insight into the attitudes of the colonists regarding Aboriginal people. They were treating Aboriginal people as if they were animals that could be captured and domesticated. This is further illustrated by Macquarie several years later in 1816 when he declared that he was ‘determined to domesticate and civilise these wild rude people’ (Inglis 1974:160). This attitude was widespread within the colony with many people considering the culture of Aboriginal people as being ‘of no more interest or significance than the antics of animals’ (Reece 1974:10). Aboriginal people were increasingly being defined as animals or as being animal like. This likening of Aboriginal people to animals went even further with a colonist making a statement in 1847 regarding the disappearance of Aboriginal people:

To regret their disappearance, was hardly more reasonable than it would be to complain of the drainage of marshes or of the disappearance of wild animals. (Inglis 1974:163)

These comments were not an isolated or rare incidence. Oldfield described Aboriginal

88 people as being ‘notorious for their apparent physical and moral degeneracy’ (Reece 1974:7). The colonial press also expressed these opinions. Fidelis wrote in the Gazette that Aboriginal people had a ‘natural and incontrovertible predilection for barbarism’ (Yarwood 1977:239). David Symes, of The Age newspaper in 1858 stated that ‘the aborigines of the colony were destined for extermination and that his readers could do no more than smooth the pillow of a dying race’ (Inglis 1974:166). Daniel Wheeler, a Quaker missionary who arrived in Sydney in 1834 declared his views that Aboriginal people were beyond help when he stated:

Their debased condition is greater than can well be conceived, and such as to render any attempt to assist them fruitless; if the money is handed to them, it is immediately exchanged for rum; or if clothes, they are forthwith sold or exchanged for whatever will procure strong drink. (Reece 1974:8)

Other missionaries, such as Tyerman and Bennet of the London Missionary Society who were sent to examine Aboriginal people who had been exposed to the civilising process of Sydney expressed the view:

… surely, there never trod on the face of this earth more abject creatures. Both men and women were in a state of absolute and shameless nudity, and several of them were stupidly intoxicated. One woman had an infant at her back, swung in a bag of kangaroo-skin. They were all of low stature, with meager limbs; their hair black, but not curly; in their complexions as dark almost as Guinea Negros, and their persons loathsome with filth. Doth no men care for their souls? Have they souls? it may be superciliously asked. We answer… ‘The Lord knows that they have!’ (Yarwood 1977:238)

These attitudes and perceptions were also carried over and held by those responsible for the welfare of the colony. The Rev. Samuel Marsden arrived in the colony in 1794 and was instrumental in the provision of welfare to Aboriginal people. However, his beliefs were no different to many within the colony. Marsden saw Aboriginal people as having

89 an innate depravity that excluded them from being civilised (Yarwood 1977:102). He further thought that that the problems with Aboriginal people was that they:

had no wants, they lived free and independent and thought little of tomorrow than the fowls of the air or the beasts of the fields, and put no value upon the comforts of civil life; further it had been found impossible to attach them, either to places or to individuals in the Colony who wished to benefit them. (Yarwood 1977:160

Marsden thus concluded that there could never be any good done until Aboriginal people were gone and expressed to Macquarie his view that: ‘the Aborigines were virtually beyond human help’ (Yarwood 1977:102-106). This is further illustrated by Marsden when he wrote to advise the Church Missionary Society that it had received a 10 000 acre grant for an Aboriginal mission. He expressed his views on the usefulness of the mission:

Whether anything can be done with these degraded Tribes I have my doubts. It is our duty to try what we can. The time may come when they may feel more wants than they do at present. They seem to have all they wish for, Idleness and Independence. (Yarwood 1977:241)

It must have been Mardsen’s sense of duty that he should try to do whatever he could when he offered to assist Governor Macquarie in setting up the Native Institute at Parramatta. However, it is reported that Macquarie was less than impressed with Marsden’s attitude towards Aboriginal people and declined his assistance (Yarwood 1977:160). Macquarie was not by himself in setting up the Native Institute, nor was it his idea. William Shelley, an ex-missionary had written to Macquarie in 1814 with his idea of what he saw as the best way to civilise Aboriginal people and offered to set up the rules for an institute, which would train Aboriginal children to ‘occupy respectable and useful places in society’ (Yarwood 1977:158). In his letter to Macquarie, Shelley demonstrated his beliefs:

…Notwithstanding the prejudices that many have against the probability of

90 success in civilizing the Natives of New South Wales, yet, if we consider that human nature is the same in every Clime, allowing for the difference of manners and Customs and variety of Circumstances in which they are placed, I think this opinion supported neither by theory or experience. I know it has been alleged that men have been Carried to England, lived in civilized Society during a long space, and on their return relapsed into their former habits and Society; but it must be acknowledged that they learned no means of supporting themselves in their improved habits, nor Could they make themselves respectable in their new Society. (Brook & Kohen 1991:55-56)

Within six months of this letter Macquarie had appointed Shelley as the manager of the Native Institution in Parramatta. Shelley believed that there was hope in the separation of Aboriginal children from their parents, their training in manual and domestic labour, by marrying them early and finding them employment with religious people (Yarwood 1977:158-189). Thus the Native Institution was established by Macquarie in 1814 as a school for Aboriginal children (Brooke & Kohen 1991:54). The school was designed to separate Aboriginal children from their parents and it was written in the rules and regulations:

… That no Child after having been admitted into the Institution, shall be permitted to leave it, or be taken away by an Person whatever, (whatever Parents or other relatives) until such time as the Boys shall have attained the age of sixteen years, and the Girls fourteen years, at which ages they shall be respectively discharged’. (Brook & Kohen 1991:62)

Macquarie’s orders that parents must not take their children away, were quickly ignored by Aboriginal people and parents encouraged their children to leave (Brook & Kohen 1991:67). The school experienced problems in gaining new children and keeping the children that were already there. To assist in increasing the number of children admitted into the Native Institute, Macquarie began the annual Native conference, (known as the Annual fest day) and invited the local Aboriginal groups to attend. At these conferences,

91 people were fed and given blankets and encouraged to give their children to the Native Institute.

The aims and practices of Macquarie and Shelley regarding removing Aboriginal children from their parents and families were no different to the aims of those who were removing children from the poor in Britain. In short, the aims were to improve and control the morals of the next generation of the poor. Macquarie thought that by ‘rescuing these children from the apparently comfortless, wandering lives with their families and settling them in a school (it would be) the best turn he could do them’ (Brooks & Kohen 1991:31). This is further illustrated by the Rev. Cartwright who, in 1819 suggested to Macquarie that the children of the Native Institution should also be kept separated from ‘whites’ until:

the work of civilisation was sufficiently advanced as to be proof against the evil practices of our depraved country. (Reece 1974:64)

The first child to be admitted to the Native Institute was Maria, whose story is summarised at the beginning of this chapter. In fact Maria can be seen as a success in terms of what Governor Macquarie was attempting to achieve.

Continued success throughout her life confirmed Maria’s capacity to live and perform as an equal in European Society. (Brook & Kohen 1991:251-252)

Whilst the focus on rescuing Aboriginal children was said to be based on civilising them, it appears little different to the rescuing of children from the poor in the colony or in England who were being ‘liberated’ from moral decay, although this practice will be examined further in Chapters Six and Seven. Similarly, concerns about the morals of Aboriginal adults do not appear greatly different from that of concerns about the morals of the poor. There was much focus upon preventing Aboriginal people from becoming dependent upon the colonial government and thus ensuring the development of a work ethic. For example, Captain George Gray complained that Aboriginal labour had never

92 been civilised and that payments in kind for labour had resulted in the prevention of Aboriginal people developing skills. He recommended a system of indentured labour be introduced on stations and in unsettled districts (Reece 1974:72). In addition to this Macquarie offered Aboriginal people who were able to conduct themselves in a suitable manner and become like regular settlers, ‘land grants, tools, seeds and food for six months’ (Reece 1974:71). Thus it was believed that Aboriginal people had to work and be fully self-supportive in the same way as British people, with no regret for how they had lived before British arrival. However, whilst the ideology of work and being fully self-supportive was a main goal of the early colonial administration, Aboriginal labour was rarely used (Drakakis-Smith 2006:38-39). Thus whilst there was much discussion and proclaiming of Aboriginal people needing to become employable, it was just another area where Aboriginal people would be deemed to be failures and hence another illustration of the lack of Aboriginal development.

3.5 Conclusion The welfare of Aboriginal people in the early stages of the colony of New South Wales appeared to be of concern to governors and to a number of other individuals. This concern was tied directly to religious duty and also to the thinking of the day in Britain. Thus the welfare system that was developed in the colony of New South Wales for both the new arrivals and also for Aboriginal people was based, at least in part, on the ideologies that underpinned the practices in Britain. The British welfare system was about moral reform that is reforming those who through their own immorality were poor and dependent upon others for support. Some individuals, such as the elderly, the sick and widowed women were seen as deserving as their predicament was no fault of their own. However, even this group still needed to ensure that they did not become corrupted by the assistance that was given to them. Thus whilst not being morally at fault, they could find themselves in places such as workhouses and being required to do what they could in turn for the assistance afforded them.

Children were seen as particularly vulnerable to the moral corruption of pauperism and also as been particularly amendable to prevention of such moral corruption. The way to

93 protect children from moral corruption was to remove them from the influences of those who were morally corrupt and in many cases this meant from their pauper parents. In the earliest times of the colony of New South Wales, it was easy to identify those who were morally corrupt: they were the convicts. As convicts completed their sentences the majority remained in the colony, and were joined by various groups who arrived as free people, meaning that the numbers of those who were not convicts but were poor increased. Systems, processes and rules needed to be developed to deal with the poor and to discourage people from requesting assistance. These systems, processes and rules reflected those being implemented in Britain. Furthermore, frequently the administration of welfare to the poor was given to religious societies. The ideologies of these societies influenced to a great degree the way in which the poor were viewed and the way in which the problems of pauperism were dealt with.

However, the government of the day not only had the responsibility to ensure the welfare of those arriving from Britain, but also the welfare of the Indigenous inhabitants who already lived in the country. Those responsible for the colony did not appear to be able to begin to understand the Aboriginal way of life. Instead they defined and described Aboriginal people in similar ways to which they defined and described the ‘poor’ within their own society and in many cases they likened Aboriginal people to animals. Aboriginal people were seen as being morally wanting and in need of moral correction. There was a drive to make Aboriginal people part of the colonial society, which meant that they had to live as the British, to work the land and become industrious. As with the children of the poor, Aboriginal children were seen as being amendable to moral correction and for this to occur they needed to be removed from the immoral environment of their parents. In addition missionaries and Christian societies were often given the responsibility to ‘look after’ Aboriginal people and their welfare.

To some extent the colony of New South Wales can be seen as one large welfare system. The majority of the early arrivals were convicts, who were all dependent upon the government with the governors having responsibility for their entire welfare. In addition the governors were also responsible for the welfare of the military and the settlers who

94 had also been arriving from Britain. Britain needed to provide supplies to ensure the survival of the new colony, including those who were sent to establish the colony, hence everyone during the early stages of the new colony was dependent upon Britain Upon arrival in the colony of New South Wales, the British not only brought people but also brought with them a new social system and structure. Included within that structure were ideas about the poor, who was poor and how they should be treated. Aboriginal people very quickly became a group who were classified as poor and the British started to develop ways and institutions to deal with Aboriginal people. Whilst these processes and institutions were similar to how the British dealt with their own poor both back in Britain and also in the colony, they were quite separate both in terms of physical locations and also in terms of positioning of the person. Whilst the poor in the new colony were seen in the same way as the poor in Britain and were deemed to be morally corrupt and to exist on the lowest rungs of society, the Aboriginal people were seen as even lower, as savages or worse and were therefore viewed as lower than the lowest poor in the colony. Whilst the British did attempt to save Aboriginal people from their immorality, they often expressed the view that Aboriginal people were beyond redemption and had become a burden upon the British. For the British, being poor was seen as an individual character failure, but for Aboriginal people it was a failure based on race therefore making the individual Aboriginal beyond help, but in need of being contained and controlled all the same. The moral failure of Aboriginal people as a race saw them identified as a problem that needed correction. Even when Aboriginal people such as Maria, appeared to successfully assimilate into European society, they were still dependent upon the welfare and good will of others. This welfarisation of Aboriginal people will be explored in more depth in Chapter Eight.

This chapter has raised a number of questions that will be addressed within the discussion in Chapter Eight including:

 Was the welfare system that was developed the same for Aboriginal people as it was for non-Aboriginal people during the early stages of colonisation?

95  What did the welfare system for Aboriginal people look like?  What factors influenced the welfare system that was developed for Aboriginal people?

96

Chapter Four

Social Relationship – Capitalism, Empire and Colonisation

The story of Bennelong and Governor Phillip is told as a story of a great friendship. However, there are many aspects of the story that make such a friendship highly questionable. Bennelong was captured along with another Aboriginal man (Colbee – but not the same person as the Colbee in Maria’s story) from the place on the northern side of Sydney Harbour called Manly. Phillip had order his capture after the death of Arabanno (the first person who was captured) and who died from smallpox. Colbee escaped very quickly but Bennelong remained for a period of time before he too escaped. Before his escape , he was initially tied up in a barn, then after Phillip decided he had settled enough he was taken (and locked) in Phillip’s house. Phillip would dress him up as an Englishman. He taught him to eat with cutlery at the table and how to toast the King. As soon as the opportunity presented itself Bennelong escaped. There were several interactions between Bennelong and Phillip after Bennelong escaped. Mostly these interactions were Bennelong attempting to negotiate with Phillip regarding access to land and food. Bennelong and Phillip did develop a relationship culminating with Bennelong travelling to England with Phillip. Bennelong returned to the Colony of NSW, and was given food and a house that was built for him by the British. Whilst Bennelong continued to live between the colonisers and his own people he became an object of ridicule and it is reported died a lonely and sad death. (Vincent Smith 2001)

97 4.1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the importance of understanding the role of relationships (created by capitalism and colonialism) in the development of the Colony of NSW and the relationship that was to develop between Aboriginal people and the British arrivals. In addition, this chapter draws on the works of Marx who offered an understanding of the role of capital in relationships between different groups of people. As colonialism is a part of capitalist expansion, it is important to consider how capitalism impacted upon the colonial relationship. It can be argued that capitalism played a major role in the colonisation of Australia both as the underlying principal and in the process. Furthermore, the relationships that developed between colonisers and the colonised (Indigenous people) were bound up in capitalism. To understand the processes of colonisation and the relationships that were developed it is important to explore why Australia was colonised and the manner in which this occurred. The development of the early Australian economy occurred through its relationship with the British Empire and between the different groups of colonisers and the Indigenous peoples of the land. The relationship between the colonisers and the colonised was based not only on what occurred following first contact but also on the pre-existing and developing thinking and beliefs about Indigenous peoples, and in particular, about the Indigenous people of the continent being colonised. The dominant beliefs about Indigenous peoples in what was to become Australia were that they were an uncivilised people without the ability or capacities to govern or manage their own affairs. In addition to the massive social and economic changes and upheavals occurring in Britain at the time, due to the Industrial Revolution, the values and ideologies that emerged from the Enlightenment underpinned Britain’s pervasive colonising beliefs and values. The political and economic elites believed in the superior rights of Empire and in the rightness and benefit of capitalistic economic processes and development. Capitalism, empire and colonisation provide the framework for an understanding of what was to become the social (colonial) relationship between the coloniser and the colonised. This colonial relationship incorporated economic relations of knowledge and power between the two parties. The British invasion not only took control of the land, but also of every aspect of Aboriginal people’s

98 lives. The British also controlled the knowledge or what was known about Aboriginal people and the relationship with them. The story of Bennelong gives some insight into the relationship between the British and Aboriginal people at the time and also of the way in which that relationship was used to assist in the process of the welfarisation of Aboriginal people.

4.2 Capitalism

A society is not just the sum of its individuals but rather the sum of the relationships between these individuals (Bottomore & Ruble 1961:110) and this sum is more than the sum of its parts. In Europe and Britain from the time of the industrial revolution, that relationship has been determined by production. Marxism, in its analysis and theorising regarding capitalism in Britain and Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, maintains that all economic activities are socially based and created (Foley in O’Brien & Penna 1998:54). Marx argued that within capitalist societies there were two major classes, the bourgeoisie (or ruling class) who owned the means of production and the proletariat (working class) who owned only their labour and thus had to hire themselves out in return for wages (Van Krieken et al 2006:218-219). As one group owns production and the other has only its labour as a means of survival, this results in both groups being tied together in a relationship based on production (Lavalette & Pratt 2006:49-50). The goal of the bourgeoisie is to increase its capital and the goal of the proletariat is to survive and to gain better conditions. This results, according to Marx and Engels, in the two groups being locked into a struggle against each other (1906:14-21). Another aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase the amount of profit being made from the goods that are produced and one way of ensuring increased profits is to reduce the cost of production, which includes reducing the wages and conditions of its labour force. This creates a struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as both sides seek to increase their share of the profit (Marx & Engels 1906:17-19).

According to some theorists the result of the struggle was that the bourgeoisie provided societal order and the proletariat became the class that was disciplined and had to work

99 within ‘the rhythm’ of the mode of production (O’Brien & Penna 1998:57). It is also in the bourgeoisie’s interest to ensure that the system survives and is stable and for that to occur there need to be workers who are healthy, appropriately educated and trained. Thus the proletariats’ welfare cannot be left entirely to market forces (Lavalette & Pratt 2006:51). By the same account a capitalist society needs systems of laws and services that ensure the society continues to function and that capitalist interests are protected. These needs give rise to the provision of welfare for the workers, for those who support the workers and for the next generation of workers. There is no better illustration of this than the social legislation called the British Poor Laws (discussed in-depth in Chapter Three). The British Poor Laws sought to create a national labour market by enforcing the ‘moral code’ and the acceptance of wage labour by the poor (Lavalette & Pratt 2006:52). So it has been argued by a number of theorists that welfare became a tool of the bourgeoisie in ensuring that production was maintained, through ensuring the health and basic education of workers. This analysis is relevant to understanding the establishment and development of the colony in New South Wales notably in relation to hierarchies of social class, gender, culture, race and power within the colony.

The development of the economic system in the colony of New South Wales was not only affected by what was occurring in Britain at the time, but was also based upon the values and principles of the economic transformation that Britain was undergoing. As Fieldhouse (1981:53-54) points out ‘…the imperial power was bound to lay down the rules within which colonial economic life operated’. Given that the colony was established at the beginning of the Industrial revolution in Britain, it was only to be expected that the systems developed within the colony would reflect this (McMichael 1984:53, McQueen 1998:13). The British imported a capitalist economic system which in part underpinned the social structures of the colony and the relationships between all the inhabitants. The values of the British capitalist system were not only based on economics but also patriarchy and Christianity. All three systems, economics, patriarchy and Christianity were interwoven and informed and formed each other. Gender relationships within the capitalist societies of the British and various European Empires were based on the means of production and also the control of reproduction. Lerner

100 (1986:215) argued that in class based societies, such as 18th century England, class for men was based upon their relationship to the means of production, whilst for women class was based upon their sexual ties to a man. Thus the positioning of a woman within society was directly related to her relationship to the man to whom she belonged, generally either her father or her husband. Men appropriated women’s bodies through their economic labour, their labour within the home and also their means of human reproduction (Lerner 1986:216). Equally men who were low on the means of production ladder, those who were poor or slaves or colonised men were subordinate to elite men. Patriarchy, Christianity and capitalism provided an excellent ideological and social framework for the success of colonialism.

The form of Protestant Christianity in Britain in the late 18th century included the idea that labour was essential and that it was a religious duty (Weber 2003:155-160). During the process of invasion and early colonisation the British imported this class system. Although it is argued that the primary purpose of colonisation was capitalist expansion (Wolfe 1999:167) it can also be seen in the colonisers’ treatment of Indigenous peoples and the land that imposition of culture and beliefs went hand in hand with this expansion. The new colony’s development was strongly shaped by those who were sent to establish it such as military personnel, convicts, free migrants and the people already living in Australia, the Indigenous peoples of the land. The colony was a colonial military bureaucratic state for at least the first two and half decades following the arrival of the first fleet (McMichael 1984:36-40). The colonists, the British government and the entrepreneurs had to adapt to the conditions of this unique mix that formed the basis for the society of this new colony (Fieldhouse 1981:70). The economic system that developed was the product of an iterative process. The rapid industrial capitalist growth in Britain, the unique conditions in the colony, the social and governance structures of the colony all interacted to shape the nature of the colony. Therefore, it is essential to understand how the colony was established.

The establishment of the colony of New South Wales was based on the transfer of capital. In many of the other colonies, the transfer of capital was one in which money and

101 resources flowed from the colony to that state (Fieldhouse 1969:18). However, in New South Wales the economic transfer did not occur in a manner advantageous to the state, but one that cost the state. At least in the formative years, capital transfer was that of human capital in the form of convicts, money and goods needed to establish and feed the colony (Butlin 1994:54). Following the landing of the first fleet, Governor Phillip estimated that the new colony would be dependent upon Britain for supplies for at least four to five years (Gascoigne 2002:71). However, the colony was seen as having some advantages in that it provided a service in the removal of the most troublesome segments of the British population, the convicts (Goodwin 1974:6). During the establishment of the colony there had been a hope that it would provide raw materials to Britain (Fieldhouse 1969:28). Not only was the first fleet directed to develop a convict colony but was also directed to develop a self-sufficient colony (Wells 1989:19). However, the colony did not become self-supporting for some time and Britain was not able to exploit the resources available in the colony for decades. As Wells (1989:1-2) points out, it was not until the 1850s that the production and transportation of goods to the British and world markets were realised. Hartwell (1969:31) suggests that this can be explained by the experiences and the values the colonists brought with them and that they found the environment of the new country not only strange but also hostile. Dr White, the surgeon with the first fleet recorded:

…the sun was hot and the ground was hard. The familiar English trees and shrubs were absent; in their place were plants of a different nature – trees of harsher timber, with sparse, dull-toned foliage, and grass that had been seared by a long dry summer. (Younger 1970:66)

The new arrivals were also influenced by their value systems, which were grounded in the philosophies of the enlightenment and the idea of progress. As Gascoigne (2002:69) explains, ‘the most tangible manifestation of progress was what that age termed ‘improvement’ of the land’. Anderson points out:

So unquestioned was the link between cultivation of the land, the concentration

102 of settlement, and the improvement of human society in all its economic, social and moral capacities, that British settlers measured their own adjustment to the new land in terms of the progress of agriculture and increasingly, pastoralism. (2007:92)

With the ideology that linked the cultivation of land to the improvement of human society, the new arrivals found ways of living and working within their new environment. Eventually, with the arrival of free settlers, the colony began to develop an economy that was not only about the sustenance of a growing population but also was able to produce goods for the British and world markets. The 1820s saw the wool industry beginning to take hold in the colony bringing with it economic benefits, it was also viewed as an effective means by which to utilise convict labour (Gascoigne 2002:82). By the 1850s wool (along with gold) was Australia’s dominate produce (Wells 1989:2). The wool industry in New South Wales became the main provider of raw material for Britain’s clothing industries (Wells 1989:23, Goodwin 1974:8). Britain recognised that the colony’s environment was suitable to large scale pastoralism and that through the production of wool within the colony, Britain could reduce its dependency on foreign supply (Fletcher 1976:66). Further to this as the number of free settlers and indentured labour arrived the colony was also providing another valuable service for Britain: a haven for Britain’s surplus labour (Goodwin 1974:5).

The colonisation of Australia and the development of the pastoral industry all occurred within a period of British imperial expansion. Imperialism is the ‘formal or informal control over local economic resources in a manner advantageous to the metropolitan power, and at the expense of the local economy’ (O’Connor 1970:118). Whilst the beginning of the colonisation of Australia was at the expense of Britain, the advantages were the establishment of a penal colony. After some decades, Britain also benefitted through the development of the pastoral industry, which was to provide raw material for British industry. Returning to the discussion of Marxist analysis of the relationship between capitalism and colonisation, it should be remembered that ownership of land is foundational to capitalism. Whoever owns the land owns the means of production in

103 relation to agriculture, mining, factories and rental properties. The British stole Indigenous Australian peoples’ land and thereby gained Australia’s most valuable asset. Kautsky points out that ‘imperialism is not a “phase” of capitalist economic development but a “special policy” of capital which “consists in the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex ever bigger areas of agrarian territory, irrespective of what nations inhabit them”’ (Lenin 1999:8).

For Aboriginal people, imperialism was characterised by dispossession and destruction. As many now rightly stress though, invasion, despoliation and annihilation does not constitute the whole story.

As people became familiar with one another, they found ways to live together. They established customary rules, they entered into reciprocal work arrangements, they created niches for themselves, - Aborigines, working for cattle herders,... (Morgan 1999:52-3).

Thus these customary rules and reciprocal work arrangements that were developed in the process of expanding the British Empire on Aboriginal Australian soil, were based on the special policy of capital that underpins imperial capitalism. Britain gained control over the territories of Australia and soon an economy was built that supported British industry.

4.3 Colonisation

It is important to articulate the reasons behind and the ways in which Australia was colonised as working assumptions in this thesis. The relationship between Indigenous people and the British was one of coloniser/colonised. This influenced the way in which the colonial government viewed and treated Indigenous peoples. Australia, Canada and New Zealand started out as settler colonies, which as argued by Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis (1995:3) are societies, … in which Europeans have settled, where their descendants have remained

104 politically dominant over indigenous peoples, and where a heterogeneous society has developed in class, ethnic and racial terms, ….

Settler-colonies were concerned with the land itself rather than the value of it when mixed with the labour of the Indigenous populations, which is more characteristic of exploitative colonies (Wolfe 1999:183). However, there is one very important difference between Australia and other settler colonies, such as Canada and New Zealand: there has never been a treaty between the colonial powers and the Indigenous people (Green & Baldry 2008). McGlade (2003:123) suggests that Australia may be one of the only countries in the world where the Indigenous people were not afforded any socio-cultural recognition. This is because the land was claimed as Terra Nullius at a time when it was accepted practice in international law that possession of land should only be taken from Indigenous people with their consent (although in practice more often coerced) via a treaty. In other British colonies such as Canada, New Zealand and South Africa there was some recognition of the rights of the Indigenous population. Even though this recognition was inadequate it did exist and treaties were made (Day 2005:76). Further to this as pointed out by Clinton (1989:329) the purpose of the proclamation was to set out governmental structures in newly acquired colonial territories, which colonial governments failed to recognise or implement. Whilst acknowledging the difficulties that still existed despite there being treaties made, the lack of a treaty or treaties in regard to the Colony of NSW means that Indigenous Australians have never been accorded rights in the way that other Indigenous people in other settler colonies have been. So the colonial relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Australia began without recognition of Indigenous people as owners of the land. Whilst there does not seem to be any analysis of the impact of not having a treaty or similar documents of agreement on the treatment of Indigenous people at the time of colonisation, it is argued that the impact on the relationship between the state and Indigenous people today is evident (Langton 2001). However, this is beyond the scope of this thesis and will not be explored further.

Britain colonised Australia during the late 18th Century, however, the how and why of

105 this is open to interpretation. It is a commonly held belief that Australia was claimed as a colony by Britain under the International Law of Terra Nullius and that the colony was established as a convict settlement. However, there is some contention as to whether the claiming of the colony did in fact occur under Terra Nullius.

4.3.1 Terra Nullius

It has been argued by academics such as Connor (2005) that Australia was not claimed under the legal doctrine of Terra Nullius. Connors (2005:7) argues that the idea of Terra Nullius just supports the ‘…the history, the politics, and the careers of middle class, careerist, intellectual elite’. Connor not only claims that it was a political and career option for the careerist intellectual elite, but also maintains there was no the claim of Terra Nullius. However, Connors’ work appear to be heavily influenced by his political position with the last few paragraphs of his book making several claims that indicate the depths of his ideological position. Connor (2005:329-330) argues that Australia is a good country, that historians have exaggerated the violence against Aboriginal Australians, and that forgetting is necessary to allow people to get along and live with each other. Further to this Connor claims:

Australia is a good country, it is also fragile. Terra Nullius locked Australians into a false view of our past. ... The old history was never our past, is not our present, and its shadow will not darken our future. Terra Nullius turned our present into a nullius. Get rid of it and the past is a new land. (Connor 2005:329-330).

In the acknowledgements Connor thanks his publisher and Keith Windschuttle (already cited in Chapter Three) who argues that the settlement was peaceful and that Aboriginal people were uncivilised in their understanding of property and therefore did not own the land (Windschuttle 2002). This acknowledgement of Windschuttle reveals to some extent Connor’s ideological position and suggests he may have his own reasons for wanting to discredit the argument that Australia was claimed under Terra Nullius. He

106 believes that by denying Terra Nullius and using goodwill the problems that have arisen due to the denial that Aboriginal people owned and belonged to the land will disappear. Wolfe (1999:213) in speaking about Australian history gives a more critical assessment stating ‘…terra nullius was, after all, a discourse on rationality. Good intentions cannot absolve me from this legacy. The road to oppression has consistently been paved with good intentions…’. To understand what occurred in Australia requires examining all the information and possible interpretations. This meant that I had to look deeper to examine the practices, beliefs and justifications that underpinned the actions that occurred. In this case I needed to examine whether Terra Nullius occurred not just through an official declaration but also through the actions of those colonising and overseeing the colonisation.

In considering any argument about whether Australia was declared or even considered Terra Nullius (or territorium nullius), it is important to consider what it means and when the term came into use. Keal (2003:51) draws on the definition from Lindly who notes: ‘a tract of territory…not subject to any sovereignty – either because it has never been so subject, or, having once been in that condition, has been abandoned – [in which case] the sovereignty over it is open to acquisition by a process analogous to that by which property can be acquired...’. Reynolds states that Terra Nullius has two different meanings, which are usually conflated:

It means both a country without a sovereign recognised by European authorities and a territory where nobody owns any land at all, where no tenure of any sort existed. (1992:12)

Reynolds goes on to quote Grotius (1992:12) who declared that there were ‘two things that are occupiable; the lordship and the ownership’. Therefore the definition of Terra Nullius appears to be: a land which no-one owns or a country which does not have a sovereign or rather a sovereign that is recognised by European authorities. This does raise an interesting point. If the European authorities did not recognise a sovereign then regardless of the system of governance over which a country or state was occupied, that

107 country or state would become sovereign-less and therefore could be declared or taken to be Terra Nullius. As the British had already decided that Aboriginal Australians were uncivilised and incapable of any form of political or religious structures, it seems clear that Australia, in their eyes, was without sovereign and therefore Terra Nullius.

Keal (2003:52) points out that it is hard to say exactly when the term Terra Nullius first became part of diplomatic and legal language. However, he points out that the concept could be found in other terms such as ‘vacuum domicillium’ or uninhabited land and gives the example of William Blackstone who ‘spoke of “desert uninhabited countries” ’ in his work in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol II, Of the Rights of Things in 1766. Keal also argues that Terra Nullius was used as a way of avoiding disputes between European states in the race to lay claim to territories. As it was necessary to prevent counter-claims of ownership between European states, it was necessary to prove that the claimant had ‘effectively occupied’ the territory in question within a reasonable time’ (Keal 2003:52). Further to this Reynolds provides an example of the concept ‘of terra nullius’, in the writing of Heineccius in 1734 who believed that anything that did not belong to someone would ‘fall to the share and right of the first occupants’ (Reynolds 1992:13). Therefore, whilst it is difficult to state exactly when the term Terra Nullius was first used, the concept was in use prior to the colonisation of Australia.

Further evidence of the concept of Terra Nullius in the claiming of Australia is present in the 1837 Report from the Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements) stating:

Such, indeed, is the barbarous state of these people, and so entirely destitute are they even of the rudest forms of civil polity, that their claims, whether as sovereigns or proprietors of the soul, have been utterly disregarded. The land has been taken from them without the assertion of any other title than that of superior force and by the commissions under which the Australian Colonies are governed by her Majesty’s sovereignty over the whole of New Holland is asserted without reserve. (quoted in Evans et al 2003:33)

108 Evans et al (2003;33) claim that the report recognised that the land was taken without any legal title thereby disregarding the ownership by Aboriginal people of the land. It did not recommend though the withdrawal of the British claim, even though the land had not been ‘formally acquired, by conquest, treaty or sale, from its Aboriginal owners’. So it could be concluded that Australia was not colonised under the legal claim of Terra Nullius. However, if one considers the beginning of the above quote that any claims to sovereignty or to ownership of the land are disregarded due to what is seen as Aboriginal people’s lack of civilisation, it could be suggested that an ideology of Terra Nullius underpinned the taking of the land. This is illustrated in a letter written by Lord Stanley in 1844 about the colonisation of New Zealand. Lord Stanley stated that the Committee of the House of Commons inquiry into the state of New Zealand made the assumption that:

…the uncivilized inhabitants of any country have but a qualified dominion over it, or a right of occupancy only, and that until they establish amongst themselves a settled form of Government, and subjugate the ground to their own uses by the cultivation of it, they cannot grant to individuals, not of their own tribe, any portion of it, for the simple reason that they have not themselves any individual property on it:…(Bell & Morrell 1928:571-2)

Thus if what was stated in the case of New Zealand was also the underlying ideology regarding Aboriginal people in Australia, then it is possible to revisit the possibility that Terra Nullius underpinned the declaring of Australia as a British colony. This is further evident in the report titled The Question of Aborigines in the Law and Practice of Nations 1919 written at the request of the Department of State, which states:

The view held by Great Britain and France in 1763 are evidenced by the fact that in the peace treaty they disposed of the territory inhabited by Indian tribes without any reference to them; thus assuming that aboriginal tribes had neither a title to the soil nor sovereignty. (Snow 1921:19)

109 There is even further evidence that a land without sovereign may well have been the foundation upon which Britain claimed Australia. Armitage purports that from the 1680s into the 19th Century:

Vacancy (vacuum domicilium) or absence of ownership (terra nullius) became a standard foundation for the English and, later, the British dispossession of indigenous peoples. (2000:97)

It was claimed that Aboriginal people were not advanced enough and did not have governments or political states and therefore had no form of sovereignty. The question remains whether Terra Nullius needed to be formally claimed or if just the act of claiming the land with the claim that it had no sovereign was enough to confirm that the country was claimed under the doctrine of Terra Nullius.

Views that Aboriginal people were uncivilised, were the lowest on the scale of human advancement, had no governments and therefore no sovereignty are well documented. Perhaps one of the earliest and certainly most well-known is in the writings of William Dampier who in 1688 wrote:

The inhabitants of this country are the miserablest people in the world. The Hodmadods or Monmatapa, though a nasty people, yet for the wealth are gentlemen to these; who have no houses and skin garments, sheep, poultry, and fruits of the earth, ostrich-eggs, &c., as the Hodmadods have; and setting aside their human shape, they differ but little from brutes.

and

I did not perceive that they did worship anything. These poor creatures have a sort of weapon to defend their ware, or fight with their enemies, if they have any that will interfere with their poor fishery. They did at first endeavour with their weapons to frighten us, who, lying ashore, deterred them from one of their

110 fishing-places. Some of them had wooden swords, others had a sort of lances. The sword is a piece of wood shaped somewhat like a cutlass. The lance is a long straight pole, sharp at one end, and hardened afterwards by heat. I saw no iron or any other sort of metal; therefore it is probable they use stone hatchets, as some Indians in America do. (quoted in Richards 1883:10-11).

Dampier’s views on Aboriginal people continued over time to influence and be repeated by others, such as Bennett who stated:

What Dampier wrote of the aborigines of that part of Australia, nearly two hundred years since, is as true now as it was then. (1805:37) . Lord Stanley to Captain Fitzroy in 1844 wrote:

The aborigines of New Holland generally are broken into feeble and perfectly savage migratory tribes, roaming over boundless extents of the country, subsisting from day to day on the precarious produce of the chase, wholly ignorant of or averse to the cultivation of the soil, with no principles of civil government, or recognition of private property, and little, if any knowledge of the simplest forms of religion, or even of the existence of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to admit, on the part of a population thus situated, any rights in the soil which should be permitted to interfere with the subjugation by Europeans of the vast wilderness over which they are scattered; and all that can be required by justice, sanctioned by policy or recommended by humanity, is to endeavour, as civilization and cultivation extend, to embrace the aborigines within their pale, to diffuse religious knowledge among them, to induce them, if possible, to adopt more settled modes of providing for their subsistence, and to afford them the means of doing so, if so disposed, by an adequate reservation of the lands within the limits of cultivation. (Bell & Morrell 1928:572-3)

Porter (2004:185) in his discussion on how early British text conceptualised Aboriginal

111 people quoted from The Chamber’s Geographical Readers of the Continents: Australia (1902) noting:

On the whole, the Australian natives are an ugly, unprepossessing people, with degrading and filthy habits.

Milford in his writings on the early settlement of New South Wales, went further claiming:

The Australian aborigine cannot, with fairness to the European races, be said to rank on a level with the more developed members of humanity. Physically the average native is of small stature, which of itself may not be a disadvantage, but his weakness is to be traced to the mentality, which he possesses. This latter is of a poor order, and, in consequence, his conceptions are crude, which no doubt is the outcome of the animal life (it was hardly anything better), which he was accustomed to live. He may, indeed, be regarded as merely a younger member (owing to his lack of mental development) of the great class of beings, which are known collectively as homo sapiens. Yet, he may not be the youngest in time (that is, the class of Australian aborigines possibly may have been in existence quite as many centuries as any class of individuals comprising the human race), but he is childish and ranks among the youngest as far as mental development is concerned. (1933:52)

These statements were all used in varying degrees to justify and excuse processes of colonisation on the basis that Aboriginal Australians collectively were not civilised enough to form governments. Buchan read these attitudes and views as being valuable to the colonisers because:

By representing the Indigenous inhabitants of Australia as lacking effective government, the British did not simply mistakenly or perfidiously fail to acknowledge pre-existing Indigenous forms of government. Rather, the very

112 structure of their thought, and the language used to articulate it, led them to deny the possibility (at an official level) that Indigenous people could indeed possess their own legitimate forms of government. (2005:12)

Further to this Governor King claims that people such as Banks and Matra appeared to be influenced by the political theories of Vattel and Locke. Locke argued that ‘occupation without labour gave no title’ and that untilled land should be transferred to someone who would improve it and use it for the benefit of others (Shaw 1992:267, Bennett 1999:15). Vattel believed that European settlement and occupation was justified in territories that were inhabited by people ‘who lived by hunting, fishing and gathering wild fruit’ (King 1986:77). As Locke was considered one of the primary philosophers and political thinkers of the British Empire, his work heavily influenced the views of those who colonised Australia (Buchan 2005:4). The views of Vattel and Locke justified the British claim over the new colony on the basis that Aboriginal people had no rights to ownership of land because they did not cultivate or make improvements to it for the benefit of others. What is really being spoken about here is the exploitation of land for economic gain (as a means of production) and thus to the benefit of capitalists.

The statements about Aboriginal people just quoted illustrate that over time the idea that Aboriginal people were not civilised developed and was maintained. When all the evidence and arguments just presented are considered, I agree with the proposition that even if not formally stated, by disregarding Aboriginal people because they were believed to be savages and to have had no civil government or governance were not making ‘proper’ use of the land and therefore had no sovereignty over or right to the land, Terra Nullius was invoked by the British. Therefore, regardless of whether Terra Nullius was officially declared, the political and economic ideologies underpinning the colonisation of Australia are the same as those underpinning Terra Nullius.

4.3.2 A Convict Colony?

It has been noted that early capitalism was a key feature of the founding of the British

113 colonies. Though New South Wales was founded as a convict settlement it was also expected that the new colony would become a productive part of the British Empire. Australia was different from many other colonies in that the Indigenous population did not appear to be part of the colonial government’s considerations of a future work-force. In fact as the Indigenous population was deemed to be too small to be a problem in the process of colonisation, they also appear to have not been considered as economic labour in the production of capital either. Furthermore, there was no need to look for a potential workforce within the new colony, as the convicts were ready made labourers that came almost free of charge.

The colony of New South Wales was established by an Act of British Parliament (Act 27, Geo. III c. 2), which was passed in 1787 to establish a Criminal Judicature (Barton 1889:453). The Act itself does not deal with any other matters than those dealing with the transportation of convicts to and their management in the colony of New South Wales and allied matters. Furthermore, the King of England was authorised under the statute of 1783 to transport convicts to any fixed place within or outside the British Dominions (or colonies) (Egerton 1897:226-7). Currey (1916:51) suggests that if the need for some distant place to send the convicts was not so urgent then it was possible that New South Wales would not have been formally settled in 1788. Based on this Act alone it could be assumed that the colony was established only as a penal colony and for no other reason.

However, it is clear from other documents that there were other reasons for the establishment of the colony at New South Wales. In 1784 the Home Office had moved Colonial Business into the Plantations Branch, bringing the business of the colonies under the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and Plantations (Egerton 1897:221). This strongly suggests a link between the colonies and trade. In fact early proposals for colonising New South Wales, whilst mentioning the use of the colony as a penal settlement, outlined much more. Sir George Young offered a proposal in 1785 much the same as Matra’s, which included the benefits of the geographical position for trade and for a naval base (Barton 1889:7-8).

114

Further to the proposals by Marta and Young, when asked if the motherland would reap any benefit from the establishment of a penal colony at New South Wales, Joseph Banks responded:

…if the people formed among themselves a Civil Government, they would necessarily increase, and find occasion for many European commodities; and it was not to be doubted, that a tract of land such as New Holland, which was larger than the whole of Europe, would furnish matter of advantageous return. (Harlow & Madden 1953:427-8).

Captain Arthur Phillip’s letter to Lord Sydney in February 1787 outlines his concerns about the convicts being the foundation of the new colony as he points out that convicts may not be the best basis on which to form a new society (Harlow & Madden 1953:436).

Actions that followed the arrival of the First Fleet also point to other motives driving the invasion of Sydney Cove. Day (2005:29-30) points out that the first fleet sailed to China and filled their holds with tea for their return voyage to England. As a result of the Industrial Revolution in Britain there was a huge demand for whale and seal oil, which meant that the whaling ships had to travel further south. Wells (1989:25) points out that British interest in whaling, sealing and general trade was growing and that the search for a profitable export industry was concentrated on the exploitation of the seas near Australia.

Other matters such as trade and the advantages of a naval base continued to be articulated in regard to the decision to found the colony of New South Wales. Despite the fact that the colony was established as a penal settlement under a Parliamentary Act, the intentions of colonisation and settlement were based on more pressing and longer term economic and political needs of the British Empire and its economy. Governor Phillip indicates that there were intentions that the colony would be more than a penal colony, that it would a settlement of immigrants as well. All this evidence suggests that the new

115 colony was part of the growing capitalistic process under a mode of capital accumulation through colonisation, property rights and trading markets to sustain the Empire.

4.3.3 The Establishment of the Colony

So far I have argued that the colony of New South Wales was established using the concept of Terra Nullius and this was justified on the basis that the Indigenous population was uncivilised and had failed to make good use of the land. At the time of colonisation there was no recognition of the rights of Aboriginal people (Fry 1936:33). This would influence the relationships between the coloniser and the Indigenous people. The British believed in the civilizing mission, that is, that the British had ‘the moral obligation of Christians from more advanced civilization to improve backward people’ (Fieldhouse 1981:23, also see Fry 1936:34, Bell 1959:345). Therefore it was the responsibility of Christian nations to provide welfare to uncivilised peoples. However, it was argued time and again, that Aboriginal people were not capable of being civilised (Anderson 2002:186). Despite this supposed incapability of being civilised it was still seen as the responsibility and thus the burden of civilised men to try or at the very least to look after these people.

The fact that the colony was established as a penal colony created another dimension to its establishment and governance. The British Government had responsibility for all people within the colony and was responsible for their well-being. When making decisions regarding the policies of the new colony those in power had to take into account the economic and political ramifications, not just for the people within the colony but also for other groups within Britain (Shaw 1992:266). However, the primary influence for policy making in the early stages of the colony was the establishment and running of a penal colony (Bell 1959:345). This further impacted upon the developing relationship between the Indigenous inhabitants and the new arrivals primarily because the rights and needs of Aboriginal people always came after the interests of the British in the creation and maintenance of the new colony.

116 4.4 Colonial Relationships.

It has been argued that colonisation created two groups, that of the colonised and that of the coloniser (MGrath 1995:3). However within the coloniser group at least during the first stage, there were two further groups, the convicts and the military (the jailers). The coloniser group grew into further subgroups as the colony developed, to include the emancipated, the free settlers and the indentured labourers. However, whilst the relationship between the coloniser and the colonised differed a little between the subgroups of the colonisers, it was based on the initial act of colonisation and the ideology that the Indigenous population was ‘inferior’ and ‘uncivilised’. All interactions that occurred did so within the framework of colonisation.

4.4.1 The Relationship Between Colonialism and Capitalism

As already discussed Marxists and historical materialists claim that colonialism and capitalism cannot be separated, as colonialism is a particular form of capitalism. Fanon (1967:31) believed that it is essential that a Marxist analysis is used whenever the effects of colonialism are considered because colonisation is part of capitalist expansion. Whilst Marx did not directly address the issues of colonisation, he did write about the British Empire and capitalism in Ireland, India and China (Brewer 1980:51). Further, Marxist theorists extended his work to include the British Empire and the role of capitalism within its colonising activities. Lenin (1966) argued that capitalism aimed to accumulate surplus through imperialism. In particular the growth of the market within Britain required new sources of materials, sources of labour and access to new markets, and this requirement underpinned the British imperialistic drive (Meiksins Wood 1999). It was argued that as capitalism went through periods of crises, which were created by the very structures of capitalism, nations such as Britain had to establish spaces outside of their immediate territorial borders in order to avoid the negative impact of these crises (Szeman 2001:294).

As was the case with capitalism, where social relations were developed and reinforced

117 by class, so too colonialism developed its own social relations. Barrera defines colonialism as:

… a structured relationship of domination and subordination, where the dominant and subordinate groups are defined along ethnic and/or racial lines, and where the relationship is established and maintained to serve the interest of all or part of the dominant group. (quoted in Davis Del Piccolo 1992:4-5).

In colonial societies there are two groups, the coloniser and the colonised with the coloniser in the role of the ruling class and the colonised taking the position of the subservient class. As stated by Memmi (1965:74) ‘the coloniser-colonised, people-to-people relationship within nations can, in fact, remind one of the bourgeoisie proletariat relationship’. Further to this Meisksin Wood (1999) claims that the subjugation of colonial territories also involves the oppression of colonised peoples. Cesaire goes a step further in claiming that in the relationship between the coloniser and the colonised there is:

room only for forced labor, intimidation, pressure, the police, taxation, theft, rape, compulsory crops, contempt, mistrust, arrogance, self compliancy, swinishness, brainless elites, degraded masses. (1994:177).

For Memmi (1965:64) the nature of the relationship between coloniser and colonised was based upon their economic and social relationships. Ashcroft (2001:21) points out that the colonial discourse of colonised/coloniser worked to ‘perpetuate a cultural distinction which is essential to the ‘business’ of economic and political exploitation. Therefore as the relationship was one that was based upon economics between two groups of people, the colonised and the coloniser (replacing the bourgeois and the proletariat), the relationship is based in capitalism. Whilst Davis Del Piccolo (1999:13) declares that the colonist relationship is capitalist he also states ‘it is a type of capitalism which incorporates a racial dimension’. Capitalism and colonial expansion take on another dimension when the concept of race is taken into account. This is further

118 illustrated by Said who states:

Neither imperialism nor colonialism is a simple act of accumulation and acquisition. Both are supported and perhaps even impelled by impressive ideological formations that include notions that certain territories and people require and beseech domination, as well as forms of knowledge affiliated with domination: the vocabulary of classic nineteenth-century imperial culture is plentiful with such words and concepts as ‘inferior’ or ‘subject races’, ‘subordinate peoples’, ‘dependency’, ‘expansion’, and ‘authority’. (1994:8)

Memmi (1965:74) suggests that racism is not an incidental part of colonisation but rather a consubstantial part of it. Lavalette and Pratt (2006:90) link the beginnings of racism with the expansion of colonial conquest at the end of the 19th Century, and Cox argued that racism commenced with the emergence of capitalism and colonialism (cited in Van Krieken 2006:290). The argument linking colonialism and racism is well grounded and documented in the arguments justifying the colonisation of Indigenous peoples. Del Piccolo (1992:8) argues that within the colonial relationship it is race that becomes the organising principle. Thus the focus becomes race rather than capital and this makes capitalism invisible. However, whilst capitalism might have become invisible in the early colony of New South Wales, it did not cease to be. Any analysis of the process of colonisation and its structures, including the development of welfare provision, need to be considered within a framework that looks at the role of capitalism and imperialism.

4.5 The Colonial Relationship – Bennelong and Phillip The relationship between Bennelong and Phillip is indeed one that is based upon the coloniser and colonised, a relationship of unequals, one dominant and one subordinate right from the very beginning. The relationship commences in December 1788. Phillip had sent out marines to capture an Aboriginal man ‘Arabanoo’, who was tied up, accompanied everywhere by a convict and locked up in a small hut at night (Willey 1979:105-106, Vincent Smith 2001:31-38). Following the death of Arabanoo from

119 smallpox, two Aboriginal men, Bennelong and Colby were captured, shackled and watched by a convict guard (Willey 1979:108). All of this was supposed to allow Phillip to learn from the Aboriginal people and to develop in Aboriginal people the desire to live amongst the ‘whites’. Colby escaped by chewing through his ropes but Bennelong remained (Willey 1979:109-127); Bennelong’s story is discussed in at summarised at the beginning of this chapter. Despite Phillip’s methods of developing relationships with Aboriginal people he has been recognised as the most humane of all the governors who were to follow him, even to the extent that there were occasions when Phillip chose to risk his own life rather than take the life of an Aboriginal person (Willey 1979:39-40). On the other hand it does not appear that Phillip or anyone else at the time considered it to be problematic that kidnapping was a way of developing friendships. In fact it appears to be justified as demonstrated by Bennett’s (1865:162) writings: ‘The Governor, in his endeavours to conciliate the aborigines, had about six months previously captured by stratagem two young men, intending to treat them kindly…’. Even in more recent writings it is still justified, as illustrated by Vincent Smith who states: Kidnapping a person seems a strange way to begin a relationship, but it is true to say that, in time, a close friendship did develop (Vincent Smith 2009:7) This suggests that the original criminal act of kidnapping is in hindsight rationalised and justified because the men involved supposedly became friends. However, even the claim of friendship must be questioned. It must be noted that this is about a relationship between equals or a relationship based on mutual respect. Rather Phillip’s actions were more about one man entrapping the other. This idea of an Aboriginal person becoming part of a relationship was not just claimed in the case of Bennelong, it was also claimed that Arabanoo, who was captured before Bennelong and Colby, lived with the Europeans through choice in the last four weeks of his life (Frost 1987:188). However, the concept that what developed between Phillip and the three men that he kidnapped was a friendship must be seriously questioned. Each of the three men captured were in a subjugated relationship and were dominated by the colonists and in particular by Phillip. Therefore, it is highly naive to suggest that a friendship could be developed in these circumstances.

120 Girault describes colonisation as ‘… the double culture of soil and its inhabitants’ (Egerton 1903:5). Thus when the land was claimed in the name of the British crown so were the people and they automatically became British subjects. In becoming British subjects Aboriginal people were entitled to the same rights and protections under law as British citizens (Reece 1974:105, Reynolds 1987:4, Rowley 1970:29, Hogg 2001:358). It was claimed that Aboriginal people within the colony ‘would learn by precept and example to live in equality with the lowest orders of the colonial society, and all the protections of the law’ (Rowley 1972:19). In fact in 1837 the Secretary of State for the Colonies pointed out to Governor Bourke that war could not be made against Aboriginal people as they were protected by the law and could not be regarded as ‘aliens’ (Reynolds 1987:4).

4.6 Conclusion The social relationships that developed in the colony of New South Wales were based on capitalism, colonialism, class and race. Whilst distinctions can be made between capitalism, colonialism, class and race, they co-exist, interact and build upon each other. Colonisation was an act of capitalism and did not exist separately from the capitalist enterprise of the day. Whilst class and race are two separate categories, they were used in much the same manner, to separate out different groups of people, to assign them to a role and to assign worth and value. Hence, when the categories of class and race met in the colony on New South Wales, another level was created in the social hierarchy. At the lowest level of the hierarchy, race was added, creating a new underclass. Whilst the convicts were originally the lowest category or class, Aboriginal people were placed even lower in the hierarchy. In the colony of New South Wales the ruling class (upper/bourgeois) comprised the governors, senior military officers and the wealthy freeman who within a short period of time started arriving in the colony. The workers (proletariats) were the ordinary military men, those who arrived as freeman and labourers, and as the colony developed and grew, many of the emancipated convicts moved into this category. The lower class was the convicts (who provided the labour to establish the colony as part of their punishment) and the underclass (Aboriginal people) was surplus to the needs and development of the colony and its economy. When a

121 gendered analysis is considered it can be seen that women form yet another level below men, within each of the classes with Aboriginal women being the lowest and therefore the most vulnerable to exploitation.

However, despite Aboriginal people being surplus to the needs and development of the colony they existed and just by their very presence played a role in what occurred. The relationship between the coloniser and the colonised within the colony of New South Wales was to see a unique set of societal arrangements and governance develop. These relations are visible in a number of forms from the early colony – mainly through written documents such as government documents and private journals and art such as sketches and paintings. None of these has been examined through an Indigenous critical lens. The heart of this thesis is the examination of a set of these documents, governors’ orders and letters and inquiry reports, to try to unravel and understand these unique relations. The Governors’ instructions and documents will be examined in detail in Chapter Six and discussed in Chapter Eight. The next chapter continues considering the relationship between Aboriginal people and the British arrivals by examining the way in which the British governed the colony of NSW.

122 Chapter Five

Colonial Governance

5.1 Introduction

This chapter will explore how the colony of NSW was established; the system of governance that was developed; the legal status of Aboriginal people within the colony and how the Governors dealt with Aboriginal people and the issues that arose due to colonisation. The exploration of the above topics provides the foundations for understanding the relationship that developed between the British colonisers and Aboriginal people. The colony of New South Wales was developed under a unique set of circumstances and was very different to any other British colony due to the events and concerns in Britain at the time. Britain was undergoing changes brought about by upheavals in its North American colonies and the Industrial Revolution including significant shifts in population and social arrangements. One matter of concern in this mix was the overcrowding of prisons. The prison population was increasing dramatically fundamentally due to the extreme punitiveness of the British criminal justice system, which imprisoned people for the most minor offences as well as for political insurgence (for example in Ireland) but in the immediate time frame, also due to the loss of the American colonies as the destination for transported convicts. To try to ensure that the new colony of New South Wales did not break away in the way the North American colonies had, the colony of New South Wales was a government enterprise rather than a private one. This in turn impacted the governance structures that were to be developed. The governance of the colony was invested in the governor appointed by Britain. Each governor was given instructions as to how to govern the colony and how to deal with various matters. However, how they implemented their instructions was left to their discretion for the most part. The first governor of New South Wales, Governor Captain Arthur Phillip was a marine officer and following his departure and until the appointment of the next governor, two more military men acted in the role over a period

123 of three years. In addition, a substantial part of the governance of the colony was military administration and was focused primarily on the control of convicts and on the settlement of the colony.

The British brought with them their own ideas of governance, which were completely different to those of the Aboriginal people who already existed in the country. The British showed no ability to recognise, let alone acknowledge the social structures and governance that existed within Aboriginal societies. These British governance arrangements together with a belief that the country was rightfully theirs to claim, resulted in a mindset that the British had a God given right and duty to govern and control Aboriginal people. As Aboriginal people became (in the eyes of the British at least) British subjects in 1770 when Captain Cook claimed the country in the name of the Monarch, they were viewed as not having any rights of their own and were under the jurisdiction of the crown. This meant that the governors were responsible for Aboriginal people as well as the convicts and settlers who arrived from 1788. The governors interpreted their responsibility in various ways but none took into account any Aboriginal ways of governing or social structures, as happened in other places such as New Zealand with the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 (Lashley 2000:1). Also in the United States and Canada numerous treaties were signed, such as the treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada in 1796, the Six Nations Treaty in Fort Harmar in 1789 and the Cherokee Treaty in Tellico in 1805 (Prucha 1994:447-500). The lack of any formal treaty resulted in a relationship that placed Aboriginal people in an even more invidious subjugated position to the British, than their counterparts in other colonies. In attempting to deal with Aboriginal people and the problems that were arising from British colonisation and Aboriginal resistance, the governors developed and implemented a number of policies and actions that would frame, for centuries, the relationship between Aboriginal people and British settlers.

5.2 What is Governance

How a society is organised and its structures, functions and rules are all based in its

124 governance. Governance is much larger than government, but how a government operates and the duties it carries out are all a part of its wider governance. Governments carry out the process of governing and one part of that process is administration (Finer 1970:6). Pierre offers two different views on the definition of governance:

 governance is a ‘conceptual or representation of co-ordination of social systems, and, for the most part, the role of the state in that process’.  governance can be understood in two categories, one category termed ‘old governance’ which is about how the state ‘steers society and the economy’ through politics and by setting goals and priorities. The second category covers the ‘co-ordination and various forms of formal and informal types of public-private interaction’. (Pierre 200:3)

Pierre’s views fit with Rhodes (1997:46-59) who believes that governance has several quite distinctive meanings. He used Finer’s definition which includes the activity of governing, ordered rule, the duty of governance and the people charged with this duty and the manner or system in which a society is governed. Finer’s definition is also mirrored by the definition given by Fenna (2004:21-22) who discusses governance in terms of business, personal and governmental functions stating that governance is ‘embodied in the rules of representation, decision-making, administration and accountability…’. Whilst governance carries a variety of meanings, different groups and societies understand, develop and implement governance according to their beliefs, needs and demands. The British and Aboriginal people had two utterly different systems of governance. The British system of governance can be seen as the state setting policies and laws through politics, whilst Aboriginal society was based upon the co-ordination of social systems governed by belief systems and relationships within and between groups of people. Once the British arrived they appeared to be unable to comprehend, let alone acknowledge the system of governance that Aboriginal people operated within and immediately imposed their own system of governance upon Aboriginal people and the land.

125

In governing their colonies, Britain tended to give power to the colonies or rather the officials within the colonies to govern themselves (Emerson 1970:70). However, Turner and Hulme (1997:221) claim that despite the power given to the officials, official policy was still the responsibility of the authorities in London, with the governors focusing on law and order. In the context of the colony of New South Wales, each governor was given his official orders from London and was left to implement those orders. The orders constitute the frame for governance with the British parliament still holding final responsibility. However, the governors were the people charged with the duty of governing the colony and they in turn developed and implemented policies. But, most importantly for this research is the fact that prior to the arrival of the British and the establishment of the colony of New South Wales, people existed in Australia and had their own forms of governance.

5.3 Aboriginal Governance Prior to 1788

Looking back from the 21st Century it is difficult to find reliable evidence of the social structures of Aboriginal communities prior to 1788 due to the contradictory nature of non-Aboriginal people’s records of the time. There is though enough evidence from the writings of non-Aboriginal people and from oral histories (many now recorded) of Aboriginal people, that Aboriginal social structures were significantly different to that of British society. These differences were used as the justification for the disregarding of the rights of Aboriginal people as sovereign people. Aboriginal people were deemed as being uncivilised, inferior and in need of protection and moral correction. As discussed it was seen as the duty of the civilised and superior British to do this. In 1836 Justice Burton found that Aboriginal people

… had not attained at first settlement to such a position in point of numbers and civilization, and to such a form or Government and laws, as to be entitled to be recognised as so many sovereign states governed by laws of their own (Reynolds 1996:10).

126

Further to this, ‘colonial writers such as Dawson speculated that institutional authority was quite absent from Indigenous societies’ (Buchan & Heath 2006:14). This is further illustrated by Windeyer who believed that the egalitarian society that Aboriginal people lived within had an ‘absence of governance’ (Buchan & Heath 2006:15). The claim that Aboriginal people were uncivilised and did not possess governments and laws that entitled them to ownership of their land, justified the events that had occurred as well as the British policies towards Aboriginal people. Burton based his conclusions upon the earlier views of others such as Joseph Banks, the botanist who sailed with Captain James Cook, who declared that ‘…their reason must be supposed to rank little superior to that of monkeys…’ (Willey 1979:33). In 1845 Edward Eyre, Governor of South Australia and Protector of Aborigines, stated that Aboriginal people were ‘without government’ (Hiatt 1984).

However, even during the pre-colonial and early colonial times within the colony of New South Wales, differing points of view were recorded. In fact even Banks stated that he himself did not have any ideas about the nature of government that Aboriginal people lived under (King 1986 in Buchan & Heath 2006:14). In addition to this some of the early colonial writers recognised some system of social structure and governance. Collins states:

They are distributed into families, the head of which is called Beanna (father), and extracts obedience from all the rest…displayed the same system of patriarchal government… (Leigh 1839 in Buchan & Heath 2006:12)

The above quote is an example of how some British perceived or understood Aboriginal societies using their own terms of reference. In general in Western society descent is traced through the father, and this is what early colonial observers saw, that is they interpreted what they saw in terms they understood. But in Aboriginal societies, some have descent through the father, whilst others follow descent through the mother (Bourke & Edwards 1994:90). Aboriginal people see their whole group as their family and it is

127 through the kinship system of family that Aboriginal people know what their relationship is to all others (Broome 2002:20).

Whilst Collins recognised that Aboriginal people had a social structure and governance, Willis in 1840 saw further observing, ‘Aboriginal people were living in self-governing tribes with their own laws’ (Buchan & Heath 2006:18). Ward (1969:26) points out that Aboriginal people’s lives were ‘governed by immemorial customs and individuals who transgressed it were severely punished’.

Perkins (2002:74-75) states that Aboriginal people did have a social structure that was based on an ‘ecological culture’ and a ‘kinship system’ that ‘defined behaviour and obligations between social groups, generations, sex and age’. This social structure covered every aspect of Aboriginal people’s lives, including land ownership. Goodall (1995:62) explains that Aboriginal land tenure was complex and that land was ‘inherited from both parents or by birthplace’. However, land was only one aspect of the social structure and this along with every other aspect of the social order was set in the time before creation, which has been called either ‘The Dreaming’ or “The Dreamtime” by non-Aboriginal people. The stories of the dreamtime shaped (and still shape) Aboriginal people’s lives and provide the explanation as to how the world came to be and how Aboriginal people live both socially and morally (Broome 2002:19, Edwards 1994:67). Bourke and Cox (1994:49) also confirm the importance of the dreaming in the establishment of the code of life for Aboriginal people and they state that the dreaming is also known as the law. They explain that Aboriginal law is:

…difficult to define in non-Aboriginal terms because it covers the rules for living and is backed by religious sanctions. It also prescribes daily behaviour. Though the Dreaming, the law is prescribed for the land and its inhabitants. (Bourke and Cox 1994:49-50)

This is reinforced by Bird Rose (1992:44) who states that the dreaming can ‘best be termed meta-rules; rules about relationships’. The dreaming provided the structure and

128 the pattern of life for individuals and for communities. This pattern included ‘economic, social, political, cultural and ritual activities’, ‘how people hunt and share food, make tools, punish offenders, draw designs and relate to each in certain ways’ as well as gender roles and ‘even the most mundane tasks’ (Edwards 1994:71-72). The patterns of life set under the dreaming are also explained by Bird Rose (1992:56), ‘Dreamings determined sets of moral relationships-country to country, country to plants and animal species, people to country, people to species, people to people’.

In short every aspect of Aboriginal life and society was ordered and controlled through the dreaming. Thus the laws that governed Aboriginal people were also part of the dreaming. Bourke and Cox (1994:50-51) point out that every law set down in the dreaming has its counterpart in the Christian bible used by the British. For example every law in the Ten Commandments is covered by Aboriginal Law with the addition of the following:

…offenses of omission towards other people, such as failure to share food, to avoid particular relations, perform rituals or ceremonies or to educate nominated group members. (Bourke and Cox 1994:50-51)

In addition the distinction between people, animals and plants was absent as Aboriginal people did not see themselves as being external to the natural environment but rather a part of it (Edwards 1994:69). This is further explained by The Australian Department of Territories that outlined how Aboriginal people:

… did not own the land in the sense that he could acquire or dispose of it. He belonged to his country. His spirit had lived there since the dreaming, and because of this he had the right to draw on the life-giving powers of the ancestors; in fact it was his duty to do so, for it was essential to the wellbeing of the country and his people. Aboriginal beliefs, economic, social and religious, thus bound each person to his country, united him with nature in a relationship of intimate dependence, and explained the origin of and reasons for his social organisation,

129 customs and laws. (1967:22-3)

This meant that the way in which Aboriginal people viewed the land and the other parts of the natural environment was different, in fact opposite to the way in which the British viewed the land. Equally, the British had a very different understanding of society and how life is or should be structured. Western society places a greater emphasis on the individual and the rights of the individual, whilst Aboriginal society focuses on ‘social identity, membership of a group and the obligations and responsibilities of individuals to conform to the expectations of others’ (Bourke & Edwards 1994:87). This is further illustrated by O’Malley (1988: 160) who states that ‘kinship, age, gender, sacred knowledge and status’ form the basis of Aboriginal governance. Governance within Aboriginal societies was based on a formal set of laws and customs that were underpinned by the Aboriginal belief system. Whilst varying from group to group these laws and customs had some fundamental similarities such as the connections to land and country, the belonging within the family and community group and the understanding of creation, through the dreaming, which also laid down the laws and structure of society and how people lived and interacted between themselves and the environment.

Aboriginal societies had rigid social orders that were underpinned by laws and customs that were strictly upheld. This fits in with a number of different theorists’ definitions of governance, such as Finer (2004) and Pierre (2000) who include the co-ordination of social systems, ordered rules and public-private interactions. But the way in which Aboriginal society was governed, detailed and highly organised as it was, did not fit into the frame of reference for governance that the British held at that time and this impacted upon the relationship that was to develop between the British and Aboriginal people and the colony that was being formed.

130 5.4 British Colonisation

A number of factors in the lead up to and at the time of the colonisation of Australia created a colony that was unique and different from that of previous British colonies. The colonisation of Australia occurred during a period in which Britain was re-evaluating the practice of colonisation following the loss of the American colonies, criticism of the practices of private companies in British colonies and humanitarian concerns regarding slavery (Kociumbas 1992:33). As noted earlier, traditionally British colonisation was the work of private individuals and groups, with British subjects voluntarily settling. Nevertheless the state controlled trade and production in the political and economic interest of the crown (Fieldhouse 1969). However, Australia was different in that it ‘…was initially a government enterprise’ (Fieldhouse 1969:27). Further to this the colonisation of Australia occurred during the period of Industrial capitalism and thus the expansion of new colonial territories can be linked directly with the growth of capitalism. Rowley (1972:24-25) argues that Australia was colonised during the period of Industrialisation, which was coupled with the development of religious thought in the form of the Protestant ethic. This ethic celebrated making a profit from work and the land, and was to have a particularly tragic consequence for Indigenous people. Hartwell (1969:31) points out that the Industrial Revolution was well and truly underway before Captain Cook set sail for Australia in 1768 and the British economy and population were both going through massive growth by the early 1780s.

Shaw summarises John Stuart Mills’ position regarding these developments in the following way:

…just as investment in machinery might initially reduce the demand for labour, the higher profits that would be earned would soon restore and probably increase it, so the export of capital would open up new territories, reduce the cost of producing food, improve Britain’s terms of trade, and so raise the rate of profit at home, thereby increasing domestic investment beyond its former level. (Shaw 1970:13)

131

Merivale (1861:187) saw colonisation as having two aims; first providing new sources of production and second the opening up of new markets. In addition to the colonisation of new lands opening up new opportunities for economic gain, it was claimed that colonisation could also assist in dealing with the problems of Britain, the mother country’s over-population. Kittrell (1970:56) saw colonisation ‘…as affording a relief to her surplus population as well as her superfluous capital’. This is further supported by Egerton (1903:7) who states that ‘…a nation, with a population rapidly increasing, would naturally desire colonies, where its redundant population might find new openings under the old flag’. This line of thought was further argued by Wakefield during the early 1830s who believed that colonisation was the best way to increase opportunities for production and employment and that it was essential to build an empire (Semmell 1970:80, Winch 1970:99).

In the case of the colonisation of Australia it has been argued that its primary aim was the removal of a particular section of Britain’s surplus population: convicts (Butlin 1994, Hughes 1988, Fletcher1976:25-32, Kociumbas 1992:32-62, Crowley 1955:1, Willey 1979:38). It must be noted at this point that Aboriginal people were seen as having little or no economic value within the new colony as convict labour was available until around 1840 and then via indentured labour, which comprised poor British people who were seen as surplus labour (Rowley 1972:16-17). Thus Aboriginal people were afforded no place of value within the structures of the new colony. There are also many authors who argue that there are many other reasons behind the colonisation of Australia, as discussed in the previous chapter. Despite the other reasons the establishment of the colony was as a destination for transported convicts.

In addition to this Rowley (1972:21) argues that colonisation presented colonial administration with two interrelated questions. First in the circumstances where the invaders took control over the land and the people, the question became how should the frontier be extended, and second, what role do the colonised people play in the circumstances that result from this invasion and colonisation. Whilst these two questions

132 were not articulated in this manner by the colonial government of New South Wales or the British government, the question of the welfare of the Aboriginal people was a matter of discussion between the colonial office and the governor of the day (Rowley 1972:23). Merivale (1861:492) believed that colonial governments had two duties toward its Indigenous subjects – that of protection and civilisation. It is pointed out by Gale and Brookman (1973:22) that the British government was heavily influenced by philanthropic ideals in regard to Aboriginal people but that philanthropic projects were impossible to implement given that the British were invading and taking over the land and this could only lead to conflict between the Aboriginal occupiers and the colonisers. The British colonial administration did not recognise the rights of Aboriginal people to their lands at any point (Broom & Lancaster Jones 1973:1). The reason for the colonisation of the colony, the type of colony, i.e. a settler colony and the government’s responsibility towards the people they brought with them and the people who were already in the colony, the Indigenous people, all determined the type of governance instituted in the early years of the colony.

5.5 Colonial Policy to 1860

Armitage defines the period up to 1860 as being ‘early institutionalised contact and domination’ and that this period is characterized by ‘cooperation and conquest: tentative humanitarian gestures alongside attempted genocide. (Havemann1999:22)

The colonial administration and governance of the colony of New South Wales was a military one whose primary responsibility was the control of convicts and the settlement of a new colony. Between 1788 and 1821 the responsibility of administration of the colony of New South Wales was successively passed to seven men who held the office of governor. Their powers were outlined in a number of commissions and instructions, which are the subject of detailed examination reported in Chapters Six and Seven of this thesis. Until 1823 the government of the colony was entirely invested in and subject to the final control of the minister in London (Crowley 1955:7). The first governor of the

133 colony, Governor Phillip, was a naval officer. A marine officer, David Collins was in charge of the legal system (Connors 2002:34). Following the departure of Phillip the colony was under an administrator rather than a governor for a period of three years (Gratton 1948:25). The administrator who replaced Phillip was Lieutenant-Governor Gross (1792-1974), who in turn was replaced by William Paterson (1794-1795) (Gratton 1948:25, Bennett 1865:193). The second governor was Governor Hunter who arrived in 1795 and was relieved in 1800 with the arrival of Captain King, who was replaced by Governor Bligh in 1806. Bligh was removed in 1808 under arrest and the administration of the colony was handed to the Officers of the Corps until, in 1810 Governor Macquarie, who remained in the position until 1821, took charge (Crowley 1955:8-9). Macquarie was replaced as Governor by Sir Thomas Brisbane in 1821, who was replaced in 1825 by Lieutenant-General, Sir Ralph Darling (Grattan 1948:33-37, Bennett 1865b:641-661). In 1832 Darling was replaced by Governor Richard Bourke (Grattan 1948:40-41). Governor Sir George Gipps arrived in New South Wales in February 1838 to take over from Governor Darling (Reece 1974:104). Following the departure of Gipps until the arrival of the new Governor, Sir Charles Augustus Fitzroy in 1846 the responsibility for the administration of the colony fell to Lieutenant-General Sir Maurice O’Connell (Thompson 2006:184). In 1850 Britain passed the Australian Colonies Government Act which allowed the colonies in Australia to prepare their own constitutions and to be self-governing (Gratten 1948:46-47), a change that was enacted in 1856.

Although Governor Phillip was the first governor of the new colony others were involved in the governance including:

…Major Robert Ross, Lieutenant Governor; Richard Johnson, chaplain; Andrew Miller, commissary; David Collins, Judge Advocate; John Long, adjutant; James Furzer, quartermaster; John White, surgeon; Thomas Arndell and William Balmain assistant-surgeons; John Hunter, Captain of the Sirius; Lieutenant H. L. Ball, in command of the Supply; Lieutenant John Shortland, agent for Transport. (Bennett 1865a:108)

134 In addition to this there was the garrison which consisted of 200 marines, including officers such as Captains Campbell, Shea, Meredith and Tench (Bennett 1865a:108) some of whom are known for their writings about colonial life. The colony operated under the laws of England, as stated by Blackstone, ‘If an uninhabited country be discovered and planted by English subjects, all the English laws then in being, which are the birthright of every subject, are immediately in force there’ (Willey 1979:157). During the period from 1788 until 1821 the governors did not have power to make laws but they were empowered to make orders for the ‘good government of the settlement’ and as such were exercising a legislative authority that was to be implemented under their discretion (Crowley 1955:11). Further to this a criminal court and a court of civil jurisdiction were set up by 1787 and by Act of the English Parliament a legislative council was established to advise the governor and to share responsibility for legislation (Crowley 1955:11). In addition there was the New South Wales Corps, whose commanding officer was Major Franic Grose, to support the development of the colony (Crowley 1955:7).

The governors had legislative power until 1823 when by an Act of British Parliament a legislative council was established to ‘advise the governor and to share the responsibility of legislation’ (Crawley 1955:12). Between 1823 and 1850, the governors were assisted in their duties by two different bodies, the executive, which assisted with administrative duties and the legislative council, which assisted with legislation (Hartwell 1955:52). The legislative council had full legislative power but it still needed approval from the British Secretary of state to ensure that its laws were compatible with English law (Hartwell 1955:53). An example of the control the British Legislature had over the colonial legislative council was that in 1839, when the New South Wales legislative council passed an act that ‘accepted Aborigines as competent witnesses in criminal trails’, the British Government overturned that act stating that to allow ‘heathens to give evidence’ would be ‘contrary to the principals of British Jurisprudence’ (Rowley 1790:127-128). But this legislative power changed in the 1850s when all colonies in what was to become Australia moved to responsible government and independence from Britain (McNaughtan 1955:98-102). By 1856 British colonial administration in all

135 Australian colonies with the exception of Western Australia ceased (Rowley 1970:23).

During the time of colonial administration the British Government had vested in the governors the power to act as trustees of ‘native rights’ (Rowley 1970:19). Elkin (1947:359) points out that ‘Australia’s responsibility for native peoples dates from the first British settlement at Port Jackson in 1788’. Furthermore the responsibility for all policies regarding Aboriginal people lay with the Governor and the Colonial Office in England until self-government was established in the 1850s (Elkin 1947:359). The instructions given to the colonial Governors were to treat Aboriginal people with ‘amity and conciliation’ and as ‘British subjects’ (The Australian Department of Territories 1967:31). However, the governance of the Indigenous population was a side issue, a necessary matter but only in terms of the development of the colony. As Rowley puts it:

In the economics of colonial development the Aboriginal seemed, to those who did not have some special urge or reason to consider his position, to have no economic value; having no economic value, he had no ‘value of his own’. (1972:17)

This is evident a number of times, including when Captain Cook, in 1768 was instructed to travel to Australia and ‘with the consent of the natives to take possession of Convenient Situations in the Country…or, if you find the Country uninhabited take possession of it’ (Reynolds1996:108). Cook declared that the land was empty but for a few ‘natives’ and claimed the land for the Crown (Reynolds 1988:9). Following this and the decision to send convicts to Australia, Phillip was instructed to ‘conciliate the inhabitants’ and to ‘avoid an unnecessary interruptions to their activities’ (Wood 1998:36, Reynolds 1996:60, Reynolds 1989:183, Stone 1974:19, Woolmington 1988:2, Reece 1974:104, Stone 1974:19, Elkin 1947:359, Egan 1999:27). Willey (1979:39) questions what was meant by unnecessary interruptions and decides that it was ‘to the interest of the colony, whose presence was to be the basic source of all the Aborigines’ problems’ and that necessary interruption was to cover ‘official punitive or dispersive measures’ as time went on. Further to this Willey argues:

136

…the very foundations of the Australian legal system are based on the appropriation of Aboriginal land without compensation, and on the denigration and destruction of their society. (1979:161)

In addition to this as argued by Lang in 1865, not one of the colonial governments ‘ever recognised any policy, authority, or property, tribal or personal, among the aborigines’ (Reynolds 1972:4). Thus it was not just the land that was being colonised but every aspect of Aboriginal society was swept aside and replaced by British law and governance. Hughes (2003:272-3) further points out that it is not realistic to expect a society that was based upon ‘slave labour, run by the threat of extreme violence and laced with rigid social divisions’ to have even contemplated treating Aboriginal people with compassion or fairness. Whilst Phillip’s instructions may appear to be humane in intent, they were so broad that they offered no protection to Aboriginal people or to their rights to freedom and dignity that should have been recognised. Phillip by way of opening intercourse and developing relationships with Aboriginal people kidnapped them and locked them up. This is illustrated through Phillip’s relationship with Bennelong, which was discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.

Girault describes colonisation as ‘… the double culture of soil and its inhabitants’ (Egerton 1903:5). Thus when the land was claimed in the name of the British crown so were the people and they automatically became British subjects. In becoming British subjects Aboriginal people were entitled to the same rights and protections under law as British citizens (Reece 1974:105, Reynolds 1987:4, Rowley 1970:29, Hogg 2001:358). It was claimed that Aboriginal people within the colony ‘would learn by precept and example to live in equality with the lowest orders of the colonial society, and all the protections of the law’ (Rowley 1972:19). In fact in 1837 the Secretary of State for the Colonies pointed out to Governor Bourke that war could not be made against Aboriginal people as they were protected by the law and could not be regarded as ‘aliens’ (Reynolds 1987:4).

137 However, being British subjects did not give Aboriginal people the same rights or recognition as non-Aboriginal people. Hollinsworth (1998:86) claims that Aboriginal people’s rights as British subjects were ignored. Peterson and Sanders (1998:6-7) claim that whilst both British settlers and Aboriginal people were British subjects, they were not equal subjects and that two categories of subject were developed, the British subject and the Indigenous subject whose rights were more restricted than those of the British subject. The lack of rights for Aboriginal people under British law was recognised by the 1812 Committee on Transportation and by Commissioner Briggs in his report on the State of Agriculture and Trade in New South Wales (Reece 1974:108). Willey (1979:157) points out that Aboriginal people were seen as being ‘outside the normal bounds of the law’. Whilst Aboriginal people were not afforded full protection against settler violence, they were punished by British law for any resistance or retaliation against colonial authority or the settlers (Hogg 21:358). Furthermore, the colonial government appeared to experience great difficulties in deciding whether Aboriginal people should be treated as British subjects or as foreign enemies who should be killed (Neal 2002:17).

Within a very short period of time the idea of developing friendly relationships with Aboriginal people and encouraging them to live amongst the new arrivals was abandoned. Governors made orders to force Aboriginal people away from farms and settled areas, for example, Governor Hunter in 1796 ordered settlers not to encourage Aboriginal people to ‘lurk’ around their farms, or to make friends with them or to give them shelter. In 1801 Governor King demanded that Aboriginal people be driven away from settlements in the areas of Parramatta, Georges River and Prospect Hill by firing their guns at them (Willey 1979:172-173). This is despite the Colonial Office stressing to Governor King:

I cannot help lamenting that the wise and humane instructions of my predecessors, relative to the necessity of cultivating the good-will of the natives, do not appear to have been observed in the earlier periods of the establishment of the colony with an attention corresponding to the importance of the object…any

138 instance of injustice or wanton cruelty towards the natives will be punished with the utmost severity of the law. (Woolmington 1988:4-5)

This contradiction between the government in Britain and its instructions and the actions of the colonial government regarding Aboriginal people within the colony would continue to inform the way in which Aboriginal people were treated throughout contact history.

There is though evidence suggesting that there were those in the colony who thought Aboriginal people might be of some value. The Sydney Gazette published an article in 1805 stating that: ‘We reflect with pleasure on the possibility of our Natives being gradually weaned from their indolent habits, and rendered useful to society’ (Willey 1979:184). In 1814 Governor Macquarie thought that if Aboriginal people were trained to have a sense of duty they could be useful members of the lower classes of the colony as labourers or mechanics (Rowley 1972:86, Willey 1979:191). Macquarie implemented this training by establishing the Native Institute for Aboriginal children, which was established at the same time as an outbreak of warfare, so Macquarie also called for a conference on peace at the Institute, where he issued rum and blankets to Aboriginal people (Rowley 1972:89). The conference of peace was called the Feast Day, where Aboriginal people living between Port Jackson and the Blue Mountains were requested to attend a general meeting on the 28th December 1814 at the Native Institute in Parramatta (Willey 1979:193). The Governors kept trying to find ways of maintaining control over Aboriginal people and bringing them into the colonial society as well as fulfilling their instructions as Governors.

As part of the development of governance over Aboriginal people in the colony, in addition to the Institute, Macquarie also proposed that land reserves be set aside for the purposes of civilising Aboriginal people through religious instruction (Rowley 1972:89). Further to this proposal Macquarie had also proposed the closure of the Native Institute at Parramatta and the development of an Aboriginal settlement, with villages and buildings near Moss Vale, however, this proposal did not eventuate (Rowley 1972:90).

139 Rowley argues that the children were the focus of the colonial government’s attempt to govern Aboriginal people through education, and that it was thought that it was necessary to remove the influence of Aboriginal parents for this endeavour to be successful (Rowley 1972:89-92) (see for example Maria’s story in Chapter Three).

Following Macquarie, much of the responsibility for the education or the welfare of Aboriginal people fell to missionaries. In the 1820s reserves of land were being granted to missionary groups such as the London Missionary Society and the Church Missionary Society (Rowley 1972:93). By 1825 reserves were established in Wellington, Murrumbidge, Pell and Lake Macquarie (Rowley 1972:94). However, before the start of missions, missionaries had already played a role in what was regarded as the duty of civilising Aboriginal people via missionaries ‘adopting’ Aboriginal children. Rev. Richard Johnson and his wife adopted Abaroo with the ‘hope that she would be a civilizing influence on her people’ and Rev. Samuel Mardsen ‘adopted’ two Aboriginal children with the hope of ‘civilizing them by example’ (Willey 1979:187). This transference of an aspect of Aboriginal governance to missionaries is explored in the findings in Chapters Six and Seven.

Macquarie not only focused his attention on the education of Aboriginal people as a way of governing them within the colony. In 1810 within the Port Regulations and Orders, Macquarie proclaimed:

The natives of this territory are to be treated in every respect as Europeans; and any injury or violence done or offered to the men and women natives will be punished according to law in the same manner and in equal degree as if done to any of His Majesty’s subjects or foreigners residing here; and no spirits, wine, beer, or other intoxicating liquor is to be sold or given from on board any vessel to a native. (Woolmington 1988:6, see also Willey 1979:191)

Whilst Macquarie was stating that Aboriginal people were to be treated in every respect the same as Europeans, in the very same breath he was stating that they should be treated

140 differently, in the fact that Aboriginal people were not to be given alcohol despite his handing out of rum at the feast day. This is another example of how British laws and policies towards Aboriginal people developed in contradictory ways. Macquarie’s approach to Aboriginal people was two fold in that if Aboriginal peoplethey took what he was offering – a place within the settlement, they would be rewarded with feasts, blankets and rum but if they resisted or fought for their land, then they would be met with ‘punitive expeditions, outlawry and, very often, death’ (Willey 1979:196). Despite Macquarie’s statements regarding Aboriginal people living amongst the white population and within the settlements, by 1816 he proclaimed:

…from 4 June no Aborigine ‘shall ever appear at or within one Mile of any Town, Village, or Farm, occupied by, or belonging to any British Subject, armed with any warlike or offensive Weapon or Weapons of any description, such as Spears, Clubs or Waddies, on Pain of Being …considered in a State of Aggression and Hostility and treated accordingly. (Willey 1979:196-197, Stone 1974:34)

Macquarie continued that if more than ‘six unarmed Aborigines’ came near farms that they would be considered as enemies and treated as such, and that it was illegal for Aboriginal people to undertake any form of traditional punishment or fights (Willey 1979:197, Stone 1974:34). The most far reaching and important initiative that Macquarie undertook in regard to Aboriginal welfare within the colony was the development of a system of passports or certificates for any Aboriginal person who was peaceful and ‘wished to place themselves under the protection of the British government’ (Willey 1979:197, Stone 1974:35). Aboriginal people who took up the passport would be protected under British law if they behaved ‘inoffensively and did not carry weapons’, and were offered ‘land, tools, seeds, clothes and six months’ victuals from the stores’, if they chose to settle permanently as farmers (Willey 1979:197, Stone 1974:35-36). Maria is an example of an Aboriginal person who was able to take advantage of these offers and survive in a colonial world. Macquarie encouraged others to move away from their current life of ‘wandering idle and predatory Habits of Life’ to become labourers for settlers and asked parents to bring more of their children into the Native Institute for

141 schooling (Willey 1979:197, Stone 1974:36).

Macquarie also attempted to incorporate Aboriginal people into colonial society through the annual feast day. Macquarie’s feast day went on to become an annual event, and soon became an event attended by officials and leading citizens of the colony. Macquarie began to use the day as an occasion on which to ‘confer honours and so-called ‘chieftaincies’ on Aborigines he favoured’ (Willey 1979:206). As part of awarding chieftaincies, those honoured would be given a breast plate, also known as a King Plate. The first King Plate recorded was given by Governor Macquarie to ‘King’ Boongaree in 1815 (Healy 2008:138). Troy in her work on King Plates (awarded to those deemed to be chiefs or so called Kings and Queens) discusses how the British manipulated certain Aboriginal people into positions of dominance over other Aboriginal people through the practice of awarding chieftaincies (Troy 1993:13). The British selected Aboriginal people who they believed would assist them in some way. Macquarie for example sought to have respected Aboriginal individuals assist him in civilising other Aboriginal persons (Troy 1993:8-13). The conferring of honours and chieftaincies were not just awards to be given to Aboriginal individuals that Macquarie and other colonists liked. In fact the awarding of chieftaincies was an attempt by the British to create a social order and structure that the British knew and understood. Healy (2008:139) argues that it was an attempt ‘to make indigenous people familiar by conferring titles such as ‘chief’ ‘king’, ‘queen’ and ‘prince’ … and ‘attempts on the part of the Aborigines to come to terms with the needs of the Europeans’. However, it must be noted that Aboriginal society was not based upon a hierarchy of chiefs and royalty and therefore the awarding of chieftaincies can only be viewed as social engineering and manipulation for colonial ends.

Each feast day grew larger with increasing numbers of Aboriginal persons and settlers attending. The feast day appears to have become the centre of relationship development between the colonists and Aboriginal groups. Aboriginal groups from as far away as ‘Broken Bay, Jervis Bay, the Monaro district and possibly Port Macquarie’ travelled to Parramatta to attend the annual feast day (Willey 1979:215). However, there was much opposition to the day from both officials and missionaries with some concerned about the

142 effects of alcohol given to Aboriginal people attending the feast (Willey 1979:208-209). Another tool of Aboriginal control and management set up by Macquarie, the Native Institute at Parramatta continued until 1823 when it was transferred to a reserve, which soon became known as ‘Blacktown’ until it closed in 1824 with the boys being transferred to Liverpool and the girls being sent to the Female Orphans School at Parramatta; the school reopened again in 1827 only to close in 1828 (Willey 1979:210-211).

Darling, the next governor, came with instructions once again to protect Aboriginal people from ‘violence and injustice’ but in addition to ‘promote Religion and education’ and to do whatever he needed to do to bring about Aboriginal people ‘conversion to the Christian Faith and for their advancement in Civilisation’ (Reynolds 1972:151, also see Reynolds 1989:183, Elkin 1947:360). Whilst the protection and civilization of Aboriginal people had always been the focus of the British Government, the Christianisation of Aboriginal people soon became part of the official policy. Governor Darling who had inherited the annual feast from Macquarie, decided in 1832 to postpone the feast in December to the following May as it would make more sense to give out the clothing at the beginning of winter due to concerns that Aboriginal persons were using the clothing and blankets to barter for rum. In 1835 he decided to cease the feast day altogether (Reece 1974:124-125). The irony that it was the British who introduced alcohol to Aboriginal people and then blamed them for drinking and later criminalised them for being drunk should not be lost and should be recognised as one of the many great colonial injustices.

Blankets continued to be distributed by police and settlers as a method to keep Aboriginal groups away from towns and to assist with the counting of the numbers of Aboriginal individuals, as the governors were instructed to do (Reece 1974:125). Prior to 1840 the records kept of to whom the blankets were given were the colonial government’s only method of keeping statistical information on Aboriginal people (Carey & Roberts 2002:828). However, Gipps did not believe in the indiscriminate issuing of blankets and informed all magistrates that ‘blankets should only be given out

143 as rewards for particular services rendered, such as for Aboriginal persons assisting in the capture of convict “bolters” and in rescuing people from shipwrecks’. This resulted in the reduction of the number of blankets being issued and in 1844 Gipps ceased the distribution of blankets altogether (Reece 1974:209-210).

Following the end of the slave trade in 1833, there was a growing humanitarian concern about Indigenous populations within British colonies (Woolmington 1988:1, Reynolds 1989:183). The reformers who had fought to end slavery turned their attention to Indigenous peoples and formed the Aborigines Protection Society, with the head of the society, Buxton chairing the 1837 British Select Committee Report on Aborigines in British Settlements (Reynolds 1989:183, Reece 1974:127-129). Following this commission there were a number of other commissions and inquiries that focused on the treatment and conditions of Indigenous peoples. These commissions and inquiries sought to determine the legal status of Indigenous people and/or protect Indigenous populations.

In 1837 the British government attempted to define the responsibilities of colonial governments for their Indigenous populations through the British Parliamentary Select Committee on the Natives in British Colonies. This committee reported that they had ‘as far as we have been able, informed their ignorance, and invited and afforded them the opportunity of becoming partakers of that civilization’ (Reynolds 1972:151-152). The select committee also reminded the governors of colonies that Aboriginal people were British subjects and as such were ‘entitled to equal treatment before the law’ (Fletcher 1976:186). Furthermore, the committee found that colonial legislatures could not be entrusted to take on the responsibility of looking after the interests of Aboriginal people, as frequently the interest of Aboriginal people clashed with their own (Reece 1974:131-132).

The committee recommended:

The responsibility for protection, religious instruction and education was to

144 devolve on Her Majesty’s Executive, although the cost was to be borne by the colonial treasuries… (Reece 1974:132)

To this end a system of protectors was put in place whose duties included: to encourage Aboriginal people to be industrious, to act as coroners where an Aboriginal person had been killed by a ‘white’ and to develop special laws for the local governments, to distribute food and clothing and to collect numbers and information on Aboriginal people (Reece 1974:133-137). However, the education of children was to be left to the missionaries (Reece 1974:133). The cost of the Protectors and their work was to be met by the colonial government of New South Wales (Reece 1974:137).

Contained within the Proclamation were the directions that the Commissioners were to protect Aboriginal people as stated under the law. It was also reinforced that Aboriginal people were subjected to the same laws as other subjects within the colony (Reynolds 1975:156). This again reaffirms that Aboriginal people were, at least legally, British subjects. Some years earlier in 1836, a court in New South Wales found that ‘because of their small numbers and lack of political organization, the Aborigines could not be regarded as living as members of “free and independent tribes” with claims to the land areas they occupied’ (Rowley 1972:15-16). Thus Aboriginal people were not given the recognition of a legal status as a people with rights outside of British governance. The British would not recognise that Aboriginal people had any rights or sovereignty over the land, as this would have undermined the British crown’s claim to Australia (Connor 2002:58).

As argued by Rowley (1970:21), from the earliest days of the colony the separate status of Aboriginal people within the law was developed. Whilst they supposedly enjoyed the rights of being subjects, Aboriginal people were not allowed to give evidence in courts. Furthermore, land and property was taken and even the basic requirements for life were ignored. Governor Phillip for example declared that whilst he still planned to ‘... domesticate and civilize these wild rude people’ he believed that it was necessary to ‘…inflict exemplary punishment by shooting aborigines dead and hanging their bodies

145 from trees’ (Inglis 1974:160). Although Governor Gipps in 1839 pointed out that ‘…the Natives of this Colony have an equal right with the people of European origin to the protection and assurance of the Law of England’ (Reece 1974:176), one of the results of declaring Aboriginal people as British subjects was that any resistance that they displayed was not seen as war but rather as civil disobedience (Connor 2002:58). However, there was difficulty in having Aboriginal people declared British subjects as this status afforded Aboriginal people protection under the law and thus it was illegal to kill them. Connor (2002:58) argues that when Governor Brisbane declared martial law against the Wiradjuri in 1824 he did so to ensure the legal protection of British soldiers who were killing Aboriginal people, as the shooting of British subjects by soldiers was illegal unless it was done during a riot or under Marshall law. Despite the letter of the law stating that Aboriginal people were equal to British subjects, the lack of legal protection of Aboriginal people and the protection of those who killed Aboriginal people was again demonstrated in 1835 when Sir Thomas Mitchell ambushed a group of Aboriginal men and killed seven of them. It was found by an official inquiry that Mitchell could not be held responsible because of the numbers of Aboriginal men and the threat this presented (Inglis 1974:161). There were very few cases where the British were held accountable for the killing of Aboriginal people. Thus the law offered little if any protection for Aboriginal peoples.

This contradiction in the status of Aboriginal people under the law is evident in the case of an Aboriginal man who was captured and brought before the court for his part in the killing of settlers on the Hawkesbury River. The advice of Justice-Advocate Atkins was that the man could not be dealt with before the courts as:

… the natives were unable to plead to an indictment ‘the meaning and tendency of which they must be totally ignorant of’ and because ‘the evidence of Persons not bound by any moral or religious Tye can never be considered or construed as legal evidences’. (Yarwood 1977:101).

Atkins further stated:

146

… if the Aborigines fail to regulate their future conduct, the only mode of action available to the authorities was to pursue them and ‘inflict such punishment as they may merit.’ (Yarwood 1977:101)

This incident demonstrates how Aboriginal people were not treated in the same manner as other British subjects, and despite being under the so called protection of the law, their rights under that law could be totally disregarded. Aboriginal people were to be punished, and often that punishment was death, regardless of positioning under the law, for supposed crimes against the British whilst it was unlikely that the British would be held accountable for crimes against Aboriginal people, despite all being equal under the law.

5.6 Conclusion

The governance of the colony of New South Wales developed in a unique way compared to that of previous British colonies. This was due to the drivers of the colonisation of the country and also the method by which the country was colonised. The colony of New South Wales was primarily set up as a convict colony, which was governed from Britain, with a series of governors being appointed by Britain. The military played a large role in the governance of the colony and in ensuring that the orders from Britain were carried out. Furthermore, the positioning of Aboriginal people within the colony was based on British views of and information on Aboriginal people.

Whilst at the point of Cooks’ arrival in 1770 Aboriginal people became British subjects, admittedly without their consent or in fact their knowledge, the reality was quite different. The British debated whether Aboriginal people were of high enough ‘development’ and ‘civilisation’ to be treated the same as Europeans under the law. However, each time it was examined, it was found that Aboriginal people had the same rights and protections under the law as every other British subject. Further to this the instructions given to those charged with the responsibility of governing the colony, the governors, was that Aboriginal people were to be treated with ‘kindness’ and that anyone

147 destroying them or their property was to be punished accordingly under British law. The governors had the responsibility to govern the whole colony and everyone within the colony. However, the governors found this to be a very difficult task and despite various attempts to incorporate Aboriginal people into the new society, they all failed. These attempts included the forging and developing of relationships, kidnapping, offers of protection, punitive expeditions and the development of laws and policies to manage the growing ‘Aboriginal problem’.

A part of this so-called problem was the British inability to recognise that Aboriginal people first had rights to the land that the British had claimed and were forcibly taking as their own, and second that Aboriginal people had their own systems of social structures and laws that governed their lives. The British arrived with the belief that they were superior in every way to the Aboriginal people and there was very little attempt to seriously understand the views of the Aboriginal population. In fact the British appear to have believed that they were being benevolent to Aboriginal people, that any resistance on their part of Aboriginal people needed to be dealt with firmly (this often meant by death) and that Aboriginal people needed to learn to live with and in the same way as the British. What this meant for Aboriginal people was that their own system of governance was ignored and the British system of governance was imposed and enforced in every aspect of their lives.

In order to understand how and why the British developed and implemented a system of governance over the lives of Aboriginal people it is important to consider a number of questions. What were the governor’s instructions in regard to Aboriginal people within the colony? How did the governors govern the colony and Aboriginal people? How did the governors understand who Aboriginal people were and the rights that they had? How did these rights fit or clash with the British claim of ownership of the land and the right to govern Aboriginal people? How did the governors deal with the clashes of rights and the resistance of Aboriginal people? In order to consider these questions it is essential to explore the words and actions of the governors as well as the instructions they were given from Britain. Much insight can be gained from governmental records of the time, such as

148 governors’ commissioning instructions, correspondence between the governors and governmental officers as well as governmental inquiries. These will be explored in Chapters Six to Eight.

149 Chapter Six

Instructing the Governors

6.1 Introduction

This chapter employs a Critical Indigenous lens to analyse key colonial documents, which include the instructions given to the colonial governors on their appointment; correspondence between the governors and key agents of the British Government and a number of orders and proclamations that the governors made during the period of 1788-1856, in regard to Aboriginal people. For the most part the governors’ instructions were identical with some minor (in terms of numbers rather than nature) changes over time. The amount of material varies greatly between the different governments; from Governors Phillip, Macquarie and Gipps who had the most substantial number of documents to Governors Hunter, Brisbane and Fitzroy who had very little documentation regarding Aboriginal people. From considering the Governor’s instructions alongside what they recorded as their actions and thoughts, it is possible to develop a picture of the ways in which the governors thought about Aboriginal people, how they were treated and their positioning within the colony of New South Wales.

On the 25th April 1787 Captain Arthur Phillip was appointed Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the territory of New South Wales and upon appointment received his commission and instructions (Bladen 1893a:84-91). The instructions placed him in charge of the First Fleet and gave directions for the journey, orders for the transportation of convicts, provisions to be taken on board for the journey as well as instructions for the journey, the return of the ships and the settlement of the colony. Phillip was also told to expect more convicts to follow and to prepare the colony’s settlement for not only those who arrived with him but also those who would arrive afterwards (Bladen 1893a:88). Phillip was ordered to cultivate the land, to provide land grants to emancipated convicts and to those employed in military service as well as to others who sought to improve the land (Bladen 1893a:87). In addition to this there were two other areas addressed in Phillip’s instructions. One was to prevent foreign interest in the settlement (Bladen

150 1893a:91) and the other was specifically about the occupants of the land; the Indigenous inhabitants (Bladen 1893a:89). Phillip’s instructions contained two sections that dealt directly with Aboriginal people. The first section ordered him to secure the land and to protect the people who arrived with him from attack or interruption from the native population (Bladen 1893a:89). The second section set out the framework in which Phillip was to interact with the local people, which included opening an intercourse, conciliating affections and punishing any British subjects who harmed the natives in any way (Bladen 1893a:89). Phillip was also ordered to attempt to count the native population and to develop a relationship to the advantage of the colony (Bladen 1893a:89-90). Interestingly Phillip was also instructed to punish accordingly any of Britain’s subjects who gave the native people any ‘unnecessary interruption in the exercise of their several occupations’ (Bladen 1893a:89).

There are several aspects of ‘unnecessary interruption in the exercise of their several occupations’ that need exploration. What exactly was meant by ‘their several occupations’? Was this talking about land or was this talking about people’s daily lives, which of course cannot be separated from the land in the case of Aboriginal Australians. Another area to consider is the term ‘unnecessary interruption’. What was deemed to be an unnecessary interruption? Was there some thought that the colonists could take the land of another person or group of people and that this could be done with limited interruption? Was there still some space for those being occupied to not be interrupted and if so what was that space? Given Phillip’s instructions earlier in the document that he was to protect the settlement and the people he had brought with him from any attack by the natives and at the same time that he was to provide the natives protection from the new arrivals, it could be seen that Phillip was given at best contradictory instructions (Bladen 1893a:84-91). It would have been impossible to follow both sets of instructions in regard to the native peoples of the land.

The next governor appointed to the colony of New South Wales was Governor John Hunter. Hunter was appointed as Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief on 23rd January 1794 (Bladen 1893b:xxiii). Whilst Hunter’s instructions were to take whatever

151 measures were necessary for peace and security, his instructions did not mention any particular group that he needed to take action against to ensure this (Bladen 1892:227-234). Aboriginal people were not mentioned as a threat against the settlement. Hunter’s instructions pertaining to Aboriginal people were word for word the same as Phillip’s with one exception. That exception was that he was not instructed to prevent attacks from Aboriginal people (Bladen 1893b:227-234). The question is whether there were other groups that the British were worried about or was it a given that the threat of attack was from Aboriginal people.

Indeed every governor from Hunter until Darling, a period of thirty-one years, received identical instructions regarding Aboriginal people. With the appointment of Darling as governor on 16th June 1825 there was a marked change in the instructions from a focus on opening up discourse to focusing on civilising, educating and converting Aboriginal people to Christianity (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e). The instructions still contained statements regarding protecting ‘the natives’ from violence and protecting their right to free enjoyment of their possessions. The wording in these two areas changed, however, the meaning appears to be the same. Darling was also instructed to take advice from the Archdeacon in regard to the conversion of Aboriginal people to Christianity and the ‘civilisation’ of these people. This is the first time that the church is mentioned in relation to Aboriginal people within a governor’s instructions (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e).

The final three governors within the period examined in this thesis (1788-1856), do not have any orders pertaining to Aboriginal people in their instructions. These governors are Bourke, Gipps and Fitzroy. This is not to say that Britain did not provide any such orders to these governors, just that these orders were not contained within their commissioning instructions. Their instructions demonstrated a complete lack of awareness or concern for the rights of Aboriginal people to either their land or their livelihood. The instructions set in train a series of actions and the development of policies that aimed to change the very nature of Aboriginal people and their ways of living, through attempting to civilise them through Christianisation and education.

152

6.2 Implementing the Instructions

Due to the distance between Britain and Australia and the length of time it took for communications to arrive in each place (up to a year), the governors were left to their own judgments regarding how to implement their instructions and how to deal with any difficulties or issues that arose. The governors provided reports to the Colonial Secretary and other key people during the time of their commission, which outlined their actions, activities and the difficulties they faced. The Colonial Secretaries also provided further instructions, feedback and advice to the governors. However, as just mentioned, the value of these further instructions was limited due to the time it took to receive them.

The governors’ instructions and the actions and consequences ensuing, can be broken down into four broad categories; protection, conciliating, observing and civilising. How the governors implemented their instructions will be discussed under these categories. The responses and further instructions from the Colonial Secretaries will also be considered in these categories.

6.2.1 Protection There are two distinct but interrelated areas in the category of protection. One area is the protection of the settlement and the new arrivals (i.e. the British) from Aboriginal people. The other is the protection of Aboriginal people from the consequences of colonisation and the actions of the new arrivals. The instructions to Phillip were to prevent attacks by the natives, but this instruction was not given to any of the other governors. However, every governor reported concerns about natives attacking settlers or destroying settlers’ livestock and crops. In fact almost all of the Governors’ reports to the Colonial Secretary focused on attacks by Aboriginal people and the actions they were either taking or proposing to take to punish and/or to bring Aboriginal people under control. Phillip had been in Sydney Cove just over three months when he was writing of his hopes to never have to fire (shoot) at the ‘natives, but expressed that it had been difficult at times not to (Bladen 1893a:128). However, within another four months he was lamenting that he

153 thought it was possible that he would need to use force to drive ‘the natives’ away (Bladen 1839a:192). This is in complete contradiction to Phillip’s claims that he was trying to get Aboriginal people to live amongst the British. This issue is discussed further under the section on conciliation. By the end of 1790 Phillip had given a General Order that ‘the natives’ were to be made an example of (Watson 1914:293-294). For every man the natives wounded, Phillip ordered that six native men be caught and made an example of (to show other Aboriginal persons what would happen to them if they wounded or killed any of the British) and if the actual perpetrators could not be captured, then any six Aboriginals were to be killed (Watson 1914: 293). It was extremely rare that there was any discussion regarding why Aboriginal people might be attacking the British: no consideration of the fact that the British had arrived and taken over their country, and taken away their livelihoods and had completely disrupted their way of life seem to enter into the minds of the British colonists. Furthermore, the fact that for every British man who was wounded, six Aboriginal men were either to be captured or killed illustrates how the life of an Aboriginal man was seen as being less valuable than that of a British man. If you wanted to quantify it crudely, it would suggest that an Aboriginal person’s life was 6-times less valuable than the life of a British person.

The importance given to the rights of the British over the rights of Aboriginal people and the lack of regard given to their lives and livelihood of is further illustrated by Hunter who gave the settlers permission to take whatever measures were necessary to secure themselves if they were annoyed by the natives (Bladen 1893b:26). Again there is no discussion or definition of what ‘annoyed by the natives’ meant, and in fact this can be interpreted as meaning that if settlers were annoyed by just the mere presence of Aboriginal people they could take matters into their own hands and do as they pleased. In addition Hunter reported that he sent out armed parties to prevent attacks by natives (Bladen 1893b:226). He also offered a reward for the capture of natives who fought back against the British and were severely punished, generally with death. Governor King in 1801 offered a reward for the capture of Pemulwye (an Aboriginal warrior), dead or alive (Bladen 1869:628-629).

154 As well as governors giving permission for the capture and murder of Aboriginal persons, they also used official measures and actions to kill and control them. Governor Macquarie, following the examples of his predecessors in capturing and killing native persons to make examples of them and gave permission for their murder of on several occasions. This ‘making examples’ of Aboriginal individuals was used frequently and by most of the Governors of the period discussed in this thesis. Macquarie would use military expeditions to make examples of ‘natives’ through murder and capture in order to strike terror into them. One incident that Macquarie reported was in April 1816 when he sent out a military detachment to apprehend or destroy the ‘natives’ around the Nepean, Hawkesbury and Grose areas (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:139). Macquarie described these areas as being most infested by them, meaning by ‘natives’ (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e139). This indicates a particularly negative and inhuman way of thinking about Aboriginal people as being an infestation. Further to this he instructed that the military was to capture as many as possible and kill those who resisted. In this same correspondence Macquarie lamented that the expedition had killed 14 and captured 6 Aboriginal individuals. He also stated that there were many innocent Aboriginal men, women and children who were killed, but he saw this as unavoidable as it would strike terror amongst those who survived the military attacks (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:139-140). Macquarie then issued a proclamation on 8th June 1816 that allowed settlers and the military to deem the natives as enemies and to take matters into their own hands and deal with them as enemies (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c141-143). Future governors, such as Brisbane were also clear in their intentions to strike terror into Aboriginal people as a method of preventing their resistance to the British encroachment on their lands. Brisbane declared that that he had developed and used a system to keep them in a state of alarm (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e:431). One illustration of how Governor Brisbane achieved this was with the declaration of Marshall Law in the Bathurst region in 1824 as a way of punishing Aboriginal groups for their resistance (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e:409). Brisbane declared that when personal attacks against Aboriginal groups were necessary, women and children were to be spared (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e:411). However, despite such instructions, frequently this was not the case. In addition there were often statements about not ill

155 treating Aboriginal people. These were in contradiction with what was occurring through out the colony and throughout the period being examined (1788-1856).

Darling instructed that any hostilities or plunder by natives which could not be prevented by vigorous measure were to be opposed by force and that no pain was to be spared to disperse the natives by force whilst at the same time stating that the government would punish anyone who ill treated or was guilty of outrages against Aboriginal people (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e:21). There was no definition of what ‘vigorous measures’ were or at what point the actions of settlers moved from vigorous measures to ill treatment and outrages. One Colonial Secretary, Lord Glenelg in 1838 instructed that where there were ‘unhappy liaisons’ between parties of white settlers and Aboriginals, if the police could not identify and secure the guilty parties then other individuals to the same number were to be captured, and if possible chiefs, who were to be held as hostages to prevent further attacks (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:706). In this case Glenelg talked of ‘unhappy liaisons’ between parties of white settlers and Aboriginals, but he did not require any investigation into who brought about the unhappy liaison. However, where these so called ‘unhappy liaisons’ occurred, it was Aboriginal persons who were to be held responsible for them.

Despite this a number of governors acknowledged that Aboriginal people were victims of frequent aggression, though usually it was claimed that the aggression was perpetrated by the convicts, as reported by Phillip in February 1790 (Bladen 1939a:307-308). By 1814 Macquarie reported that attacks by the ‘natives’ appeared to be in relation to provocation but were of unknown causes and ordered that any offenses or violence against Aboriginal people would be severely punished under the law. Lord John Russell, a Colonial Secretary in 1839 pointed out that that it was impossible for the government (British) to forget that the original aggression was their own (Commonwealth of Australia 1928n:440). Another interesting statement by a Colonial Secretary, in this case Lord Stanley, was that Aboriginal people were committing depredations against the British rather than the acts being because they were suffering from want (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:440). At the same time Lord Stanley acknowledged

156 that it was essential to correct the temper and tone adopted by the settlers towards the natives to deal with some of the problems that were occurring, thus focusing back on the settlers. Whilst there seems to be an acknowledgement by the British that the actions of the British in colonising the country and then the treatment of Aboriginal people upon settlement were wrong, there also appears to have been an incapacity to acknowledge that Aboriginal people’s reactions and actions to protect themselves and their property was justified. At all times the governors and the Colonial Secretaries seem to justify their own positions and wrong doings by demonising Aboriginal people and their actions.

As well as protecting the settlement and the settlers from attack from the natives the governors were instructed to punish any British subjects who destroyed them or gave unnecessary interruption to their occupations. Again there were no definitions as to what ‘destroy’ or ‘unnecessary interruptions’ meant. There are quite a few reports from the governors of Aboriginal persons being robbed, ill treated or even killed by convicts, by settlers and by those charged with their protection. In very few cases were people brought to account for killing Aboriginal individuals and never for interrupting their occupations. Furthermore, the governors repeatedly reported that they gave orders not to ‘murder’ the ‘natives’. Hunter in February 1796, through Government and General Orders told settlers that they were ‘not to wantonly fire at the natives as this was deliberate murder and will be punished as such’ (Bladen 1893b:226). However, in those same orders he told the settlers to use ‘every measure available to them to secure themselves’ if annoyed by the natives (Bladen 1893b:226). This was repeated by King who ordered in October 1802: ‘…the natives are not to be ill-treated or molested’ (Bladen 1869:868). A few months previously though, he had informed the settlers that they were ‘not to suffer invasion of [their] property or endangerment of existence by natives’ (Bladen 1869:795). Also in June 1802 King remitted the punishment of five people for killing two Aboriginal persons and then went on to state that any further ‘injustice or wanton killing of natives will be severely punished by law’ (Bladen 1869:795). Prior to this Lord Hobart, Colonial Secretary, had instructed Governor King to be ‘vigilant and humane in his treatment of the natives’ so as to prevent further

157 embarrassment (Bladen 1869:684). Hobart did not state for whom this embarrassment was occurring or where, but one can only assume that it was the British Government that was being embarrassed in the eyes of the British public by the increasing difficulties and conflicts between the settlers and the natives.

It was continuously claimed, as already noted, that Aboriginal people had the same rights to protection under the British law as all others in the colony. Macquarie in July 1822 acknowledged that Aboriginal people were entitled to protection under the law. During the governorship of Gibbs there was a particular focus on the role of Aboriginal people being able to give evidence with the courts and the role of this in their protection. In writing to Gipps, the Marquis of Normanby argued that it was necessary to ensure that the courts receive evidence from Aboriginal individuals in order to prevent both settlers and natives from attacking each other (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:343). Gipps in April 1841 made the point that Aboriginal people are British subjects and as such have the same rights and responsibilities under British law as other British subjects (Commonwealth of Australia 1928o:312). However, whilst Gipps was right in terms of legal rights, this was not what was actually practised and all of the governors including Gipps acted in ways that were contradictory to these statements. Gipps also declared that Aboriginal persons were amendable to penalties under British law for any crime they committed whether against each other or against ‘white men’ (Commonwealth of Australia 1928o:312). However, Lord Stanley questioned this, which then raises the question as to whether Aboriginal people were under the same the law as other British subjects. Gipps in December 1842 pointed out that it was absolutely necessary for the protection of Aboriginal people that they be able to give evidence in the courts of law (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:439). The concept that it was essential for them to be able to give evidence was even to become a topic of concern in Britain. The Marquis of Normanby wrote to Gipps in August 1839 stating there were plans to try and remove the impediments that prevented Aboriginal people from giving testimony in judicial proceedings and that he thought it was injurious to the interest of justice that their testimony be rejected on religious grounds (Commonwealth of Australia 1928n:302-303X). Normanby also thought that some of the problems or obstacles could

158 be overcome by Aboriginal persons receiving instructions in moral and religious instructions as well as the English language (Commonwealth of Australia 1928n:303).

Gipps informed Normanby in October 1839 that an act of the New South Wales Legislative Council had been passed to allow Aboriginal people to be deemed competent witnesses in criminal cases, despite them not having a distinct idea of religion or belief in rewards and punishment (Commonwealth of Australia 1928n:369). As well Gipps outlined there were measures being introduced to overcome the difficulties in obtaining convictions in cases where Aboriginal people were either the accused or injured party in criminal matters. However, Gipps reported to Lord Russell in August 1840 that the Act to allow Aboriginal people to be received as competent witnesses in criminal cases had been disallowed by Britain (Commonwealth of Australia 1928n:756). In a report by Gray to Gipps, Gray raised his concerns about Aboriginal people being disadvantaged due to the inadmissibility of their evidence in law. It was pointed out that this inadmissibility of evidence worked as much against as for them. Many settlers argued that natives were being given an unfair advantage over the settlers because they were not being held accountable under the law for any acts of aggression (Commonwealth of Australia 1928o:313-314). Gray wrote that he was concerned that this could mean that the settlers would take matters into their own hands. However, he also went on to give an example where settlers had taken matters into their own hands and killed 28 Aboriginal individuals in the Liverpool Plains district and that seven white men had paid for this by forfeiting their own lives in 1838 (Commonwealth of Australia 1928o:313-314). This enacting of justice on behalf of Aboriginal people though was extremely unusual. Despite the declaration of the rights of Aboriginal people to protection under British law and the statements that British men were being held accountable for the deaths of Aboriginal persons, this rarely occurred.

In another incident where justice was not upheld a group of Aboriginal people were attacked and killed by a party of men under the charge of Major Mitchell. It was thought by Lord Glenelg in his communication with Bourke that it was more important to protect Mitchell’s reputation than the welfare of Aboriginal people (Commonwealth of Australia

159 1928j:49-50). However, in less than a year and under another governor, Governor Gipps, Lord Glenelg stated that it was important that the colonists protect Aborigines (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:254). However, in a contradictory letter, Lord Russell instructed Governor Gipps that there was no need to prolong a report or institute any judicial inquiry into the collision between mounted police and natives, as it happened so long ago and it would be impossible to summons an impartial jury (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:678). Russell also stated that he regretted that the mounted police lost sight of their duty to capture offenders and that they shot men who were only guilty of jumping into the water to escape an armed pursuit (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:678). Russell’s statement clearly indicates that the Aboriginal men who were killed were not guilty but that he felt that it was impossible to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. Lord Stanley believed that it was difficult to bring perpetrators of outrages against natives to justice because of the indifference and lightness with which such outrages were spoken about (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:438). It was extremely rare for a British individual (convict, settler or military) to be brought to account, let alone be punished for the deaths of Aboriginal persons. In any event, as a result of the Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry into the conditions in the colonies, systems of Protectors were developed to protect the natives, so it was thought justice for them was taken care of. However, the Protectors and the system of protection did little to protect the rights or the lives of Aboriginal people and their appointments were quite contentious in the colony. The inquiry and the system of Protectors will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Seven.

Whilst there was much discussion and direct communication both to and from the governors regarding the rights of Aboriginal people to protection, the primary focus was upon the British. Regardless of whether Aboriginal people were the perpetrators or the victims, they were held accountable in the majority of cases. In the instances where it was acknowledged that the settlers, convicts or the military were the perpetrators there was generally a reason why they could not be dealt with or an explanation for their acts given that blamed Aboriginal individuals instead. On the occasions that a non-Aboriginal person was held accountable there was much consternation amongst the

160 settlers and the government. In the simplest of terms Aboriginal people became the object and the British the subject. Everything always came back to the rights of the British and worked to justify what had and was occurring. This was no better illustrated than by Macquarie who stated that Aboriginal people had to follow the rules, orders and regulations and these would be strictly enforced for the purpose of protecting British lives.

6.2.2 Conciliating The Governors from Phillip up to and including Brisbane 1788-1825 were all instructed to conciliate the affections of the natives. The majority of these governors spoke of their efforts at conciliating the natives and/or their disappointment at their lack of success at doing so. Phillip and Macquarie focused on this matter more than any of the other governors. Before Phillip had even left Britain in 1781 he had started with great hopes of developing a relationship with the natives and had high expectations of their willingness to not only be friends but also to be grateful for what the British were bringing (Bladen 1839a:52). Phillip did not seem to comprehend that Aboriginal people might experience the events and situations differently. However, despite the fact that at first Phillip was reporting to Lord Sydney and to Under-Secretary Nepean his observations of Aboriginal people, including that they were friendly (Bladen 1839a:128-130), within five months he was stating that the natives were beginning to avoid the British (Bladen 1839a171). At this point Phillip was also reporting clashes between the British and the natives, with the natives always being to blame. By the July of the year of his arrival Phillip reported that there had been a murder by natives and several attacks including the use of force to steal fish (Bladen 1839a:171). He also reported that he was taking steps to prevent insult to the natives and that he planned to guard against future disputes. By September 1788 Phillip was reporting that natives were attacking convicts and attempting to burn crops and that he was considering the possibility of needing to drive them away. It was also at this time that Phillip was expressing hopes that he could get a native family to live with the British and that he was disappointed not to know the natives better. In addition he expressed that he was unwilling to use force to develop the relationship and to get to know the natives better (Bladen 1839a191-192).

161

It appears to be a rather naïve suggestion that one would use force to develop a relationship and to conciliate affections. However, within a short period of time this was exactly what Phillip did. In November of 1788 Phillip was again lamenting that the natives were refusing to come near the British and their refusal to mix was increasing (Bladen 1839a:214). Not less than a month after Phillip expressed his reluctance to use force, he was stating that the only way to learn the language of the local Aboriginal people was to use force and within another three months, just over a year after his arrival, Phillip ordered the taking of a native by force: to learn the language; to point out means of redress if they were injured; and to reconcile the natives to the British so as to point out the advantages of mixing (Bladen 1839a:298). Phillip outlines that as his attempts to persuade some of the ‘natives’ to come and live with the British had failed, he ordered one captured, but would have rather avoided doing so. He goes on to talk about knowing that they must have been alarmed by his actions, but justifies it by saying that the natives would no longer come near the settlement and that this action was absolutely necessary in order to learn their language (Bladen 1839a:298). As described in Chapter Four, within weeks Arabanoo had died from small pox and Phillip had ordered the capture of two more natives (Bennelong and Colbee) and he took steps to ensure that they could not escape. Phillip recorded the events surrounding Bennelong’s capture and imprisonment indicating that he was sure that this time he would succeed. Despite the escape of Colbee, Bennelong remained and Phillip described him as a chief and great warrior (Bladen 1839a300). Phillip in writing to Lord Sydney on 13 February 1790 reported that he had previously always found the natives friendly but due to the capture of the three men no natives would come near the settlement (Bladen 1839a:308). This is despite the fact that Phillip had previously reported that the natives were refusing to come near the settlement already. Phillip also reported that three natives, a man and two children (a boy and a girl) who were suffering from smallpox, were taken in by the British with the hope of reconciling them. Unfortunately, he recorded, the man died and the children were too young for this purpose (Bladen 1839a:308). Throughout the period of Phillip’s commission as governor he moved quite fluidity between attempting to develop

162 friendships and massacring Aboriginal individuals without appearing to see the contradiction in what he was doing or even questioning the logic of his actions.

By 1796 Hunter was governor and he reported that settlers were strictly forbidden to provide any encouragement to the natives to lurk around (Bladen 1893b:226). So within eight years of the British arrival, they had move from trying to force Aboriginal people to live amongst them to keeping them away. However, by January 1802 Lord Hobart wrote to King expressing disappointment at what he called the wise and humane instructions of his predecessors in cultivating the good will of the natives had not been followed (Bladen 1869:684). Throughout the rest of that year King reported several times that he was using every means to conciliate the good will of the natives and to restore friendly intercourse (Bladen 1869:795, 868). By 1814 Macquarie was reporting that the natives near Sydney and other principal settlements were friendly and social with the settlers and were even assisting the settlers with labour (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:368). Further to this he stated that the natives could be encouraged to forego being vindictive by kindness and encouragement and that social intercourse would bring them closer to be civilized. However, by 1816 things appeared to have changed Macquarie’s view considerably. Macquarie reported in the March of that year that he had done everything possible to conciliate the natives by showing them kindness and giving them provisions but that he regretted his overlooking their occasional acts of violence and robberies during that time (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:53-54). During this year Macquarie outlawed a number of Aboriginal warriors and announced a proclamation that greatly restricted Aboriginal movement and gathering (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:342). Ten months after declaring Marshall Law, Macquarie reported that it had had the desired effect and that in the December of 1816 a meeting had taken place at Parramatta where the natives were given treats of food and drink (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:342). He also reported that the natives seemed happy and perfectly satisfied with the meeting.

In the March of 1818 Macquarie reported to Earl Bathurst that none of the previous attempts at conciliation with the natives to the interest of the British had been as

163 successful as had the establishment of the native Institute in Parramatta, which was developed to educate Aboriginal children (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:95). He also reported that the meetings at Parramatta had become annual events where the children from the institute were paraded in front of their parents and that the children produced specimens of their progress in their education. Macquarie claimed that the parents appeared to be delighted with how happy and content their children were (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:139). What Macquarie did not say in this report was that he refused to let the children leave and return to their parents. This begs an important question: did the parents really seem delighted and were the children really happy and content? If they were, was it because of the progress of their education or was it rather at being able to see each other, as this did not happen frequently.

Macquarie requested clothing to give to the natives and argued that this would attract Aboriginal people to the British interest by making them comfortable and comparatively happy (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:). The idea of giving gifts of clothing and other materials to the natives to make them happy and cooperative with the British started with Phillip and was continued by later governors. In addition to this was the belief, stated by Governor Darling, that there was also a need to show the natives the British determination and power to restrain them as well as the desire to protect and conciliate with them (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e:269-270). There appears to be no recognition that these two actions were contradictory and would at best show Aboriginal people that the British could not be trusted. Conciliation was a primary focus for the first twenty-two years of the colony but was still part of the governors’ instructions for thirty-seven years. The instructions to conciliate with the natives disappeared from the governors’ instructions from Darling in 1825 and whilst Darling himself still mentions it (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e:54-55), it was replaced by instructions to civilise and christianise them. Until Macquarie, civilising and christianising did not appear to be a focus for the governors, other than Phillip wanting natives to live amongst the British as Phillip appeared more interested in the British learning about them.

164 Whilst Macquarie’s instructions do not include any mention of civilising and christianising, he did focus on these areas quite early on in his commission and it was possible that it was Macquarie’s initiatives that shaped this direction. This will be discussed further in the section on civilising (see section 6.2.4). As with protection, conciliation was not about the needs and interest of Aboriginal people but rather about what the British wanted and their interest. Aboriginal people became the object of conciliation. In this so call attempt at conciliation, Aboriginal people also became a curiosity, something to be learnt more about (which will be discussed in more detail in the next section 6.2.3 Observing). Again the reasoning for this need to learn about the natives was in the British interest, in furthering their quest to colonise the land without resistance.

6.2.3 Observing The governors up to and including Brisbane were instructed to count the numbers of natives inhabiting the area of the settlement. However, counting natives does not appear to be an instruction that most governors took seriously as there was little evidence of this occurring with the exception of Governor Phillip. Counting proved to be impossible as Phillip reported from the beginning. Phillip stated in May 1788: ‘it is impossible to determine with any accuracy the numbers of natives…’ (Bladen 1893a:133). In July of that year, Phillip stated that the numbers of natives was numerous, and that he thought there were more inland (Bladen 1893a:153). The whole idea of counting the natives appeared again under Governor Gipps when Lord Glenelg following the report of the Select Committee on the House of Commons on Aborigines, instructed the Protectors to obtain accurate information regarding the number of natives living within his district and all of their important details (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:255). The report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines is examined in Chapter Seven.

However, despite the impossible task of counting the numbers within the colony or rather within the area of the settlement, both Phillip and Macquarie spent considerable time reporting their observations of the natives to Britain. Phillip’s first account in May

165 1788 included their physical appearances, their customs, the relationship between men and women, their diet and their lack of clothing (Bladen 1839a:128-133). Phillip described how they used white clay on their bodies, that they adorned themselves with beads and ribbons and that women were subjugated to men. Phillip also described the practice of scarification and the removal of part of the women’s finger in what he thought might have been a sign of marriage. Further to this Phillip also described the manner in which some Aboriginal people responded to him and the people who surrounded him and that he was finding their curiosity troublesome.

Phillip used his own experiences and understandings to interpret what he was seeing rather than reporting it from an Aboriginal perspective. Phillip’s reports provide not just an anthropological description of Aboriginal people but also an insight into the increasing disruption to their way of life caused by the arrival of the British. In September 1788, seven months after the arrival of the First Fleet, Phillip wrote that the local natives were leaving the area due to the scarcity of fish. Within two years he was writing of the impact of small pox on the local Aboriginal population and the number of deaths that were occurring (Bladen 1839:298).

Hunter and King did not report their observations of Aboriginal people. However, Macquarie spent considerable time observing and reporting to Britain. Whilst Phillip’s reports were rather descriptive in nature, Macquarie’s were more interpretive regarding Aboriginal people’s nature and character. Macquarie reported that they had scarcely emerged from the remotest state of rude and uncivilised nature and that they might possess some qualities if properly cultivated and encouraged to do so, so that they might be less wretched and destitute (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:368). He also thought there was some chance that they could progress to a stage of development where they could be of use to the colony in employment as labourers, in agriculture or as lower classes of mechanics (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:368). Macquarie also noted that natives in settled areas, whilst they were still like those outside in that that they were indolent and indifferent to future means of subsistence, also had a free, open and favourable dispossession, they were friendly and inclined to be honest and devoid of

166 designing tricks and treachery. He also made the comment that Aboriginal people wasted the land mainly through their wandering (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:368-369).

Within six months of these comments, Macquarie was reporting on people outside of Sydney. In June 1815 Macquarie had travelled over the Blue Mountains and had taken an Aboriginal man from Sydney with him in the hope that he could translate for him, however, this was not possible due to the difference in languages between Aboriginal groups (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:609-610). Macquarie described the Wiradjuri people he met as being more advanced in civilisation than the people in Sydney due to having fur clothing. He also described them as being harmless and inoffensive and not at all warlike. Macquarie also gave the descriptive account of what people looked like, the food they ate and the stone instruments they used to cut trees and hunt animals (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:609-610) as well as on their good health (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:609). Macquarie, as Phillip had done before him, used his own experiences and understandings to interpret what he saw and then make judgments. These judgments were restated many times throughout Macquarie’s period of governorship.

Macquarie also commented on a journal by a British man called Evan, which he attached to his report and stated that he planned on using Evan to explore further west. However, Evan’s journals appears to differ from Macquarie’s reports in that whilst Macquarie found the people to be friendly and inoffensive, Evan stated that he found them to be so wild that it was impossible to hold intercourse with them (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:609-610). Earl Bathurst replied to Macquarie’s report six months later in December 1815 that he was pleased to entertain more favourable opinions of the character and habits of the natives (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:645). Earl Bathurst saw this as an indication that Aboriginal people were capable of being civilised and educated and that funding should be set aside for this purpose (this is further discussed in the next section on civilising). Following Bathurst’s response, Macquarie did not report any further on his observations of the habits and nature of Aboriginal

167 people. His reports were concerned more with the interactions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people (discussed in protection 6.2.1 and conciliation 6.2.2) (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:53-54), and the attempts to civilise and educate them (discussed in conciliation 6.2.2 and civilising 6.2.4) (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:262).

6.2.4 Civilising Whilst civilising and educating Aboriginal people was not a part of the governors’ instructions until Governor Darling some twenty-seven years after the arrival of Phillip, some indications of these can be found from the beginning of settlement in 1788. For example, Phillip wanted natives to live amongst the settlers. He sought to achieve this by capturing some individuals as well as by moving Aboriginal children into the homes of non-Aboriginal families. Whilst Phillip’s intentions appear to be about wanting to learn more about Aboriginal people, he still wanted them to live as the British did. However, it was not until Macquarie’s reports that the concept of civilising and educating the natives were articulated. Macquarie appears to have played a significant role in the development of the idea of civilising and educating Aboriginal people. It was not that Macquarie did not see this policy as a difficult one, as indeed several times he expressed the idea that this was nigh on impossible, but he kept developing and implementing new ideas and plans to achieve it.

Macquarie in December 1814 described Aboriginal people as poor and unenlightened but who, within time, could been brought into a degree of civilisation and that reason, reflection and a sense of duty could be instilled into their minds (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:367-368). He believed that social intercourse between the uncivilised native and the civilised British would bring Aboriginal people closer to civilisation. He informed Earl Bathurst of his planned experiment, which included the establishment of a native institution at Parramatta (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:368-369). The institution would aim to bring about habits of industry and decency and would commence with six boys and six girls. In 1815 Earl Bathurst allocated funds to

168 Macquarie to assist in projects for these civilisation and instruction projects (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:645).

From 1815 to 1817 Macquarie was very focused on containing and subduing Aboriginal groups. In 1817 he focused back on the Native Institute at Parramatta. It was at this time that the Annual Feast day was instituted and Macquarie informed Earl Bathurst that some Aboriginal parents of their own free will ‘gave up’ their children to the Native Institute (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:342). He did not go on to discuss how military expeditions or the actions of his government and policies might have impacted upon Aboriginal parents’ decisions or what else might have affected their decision. At this point Macquarie claimed that due to the progress of the children at the institution he had great hopes for the further civilisation of many of the natives in the country. Again in March 1819 Macquarie reported to Earl Bathurst on the success of the institution and praised the good natural understanding and aptitude for learning that the children possessed (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:95). In the following year Macquarie was reporting that due to the success of the institute, a Rev. Cartwright had visited. Cartwright was interested in how to improve Aboriginal people and their situation through education and habits of industry in both sexes and indicated that he had plans for a similar institution himself (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:263).

In July of 1822 Macquarie pointed out in his communication with Earl Bathurst that he believed that the attempts to improve the conditions of the natives and the endeavours to civilise them as much as their wandering habits permitted, were in fact acts of justice, given that the British had driven them from their land (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:676-677). It is interesting that the concept of civilising Aboriginal people was seen as an act of justice when the dominant view (including of Macquarie) was that the British were the rightful occupiers of the land due to the lack of development of the natives. He again reported on the success of the Native Institution at Parramatta and that Aboriginal children were good learners and in fact as good as Europeans. He stated that Aboriginal children were susceptible to being completely civilised. However, he did not hold out the same hope for the adults and stated that they were naturally very indolent

169 and averse to labour and it was difficult to get them to become regular settlers (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:677-678). Despite Macquarie’s lack of faith in Aboriginal adults he claimed that he was determined to continue his attempts to civilise those ‘poor inoffensive human beings’. He also described how he had been working with five different tribes, with three being given fishing boats and a further two taking up farms and keeping themselves from their produce. He reported that these people were pleased with themselves and made good examples for other natives (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:678).

Whilst Macquarie saw Aboriginal children as being completely susceptible to being civilised, in the same report he deemed Aboriginal adults as being impossible to civilise, and yet he gave examples of where his attempts to civilise adults seemed to work (Commonwealth of Australia 1928c:677-678). There was much debate about the benefits of educating and civilising Aboriginal people. In 1828 Governor Darling lamented the effects of Macquarie’s civilizing projects and stated that there was no advantage in educating natives to speak English, to read or write because even if they learnt this and had also become accustomed to the comforts of housing, good food and clothing, as soon as their education was completed they would return to the woods (Commonwealth of Australia 1928e:54-55). There does not appear to be a consistent view (between different governors or even by the same individual governor) as to the worth or possibility of civilising Aboriginal adults. Though it was often expressed that it was impossible to civilise Aboriginal people, nevertheless it was a quest that appeared to occupy much of their time.

Whilst the governors continued to focus upon civilising, the actual responsibility to educate and civilise Aboriginal people moved from the governors to missionaries. Viscount Howick wrote to Governor Bourke in November 1831 in support of the son of Major MacDonald assisting the Church Missionary Society to civilise and educate some Aboriginal people (Commonwealth of Australia 1928j:447). Howick claimed that it was thought that McDonald had great influence over the minds of these Aboriginal people (Commonwealth of Australia 1928j:447). Within a month Bourke received further

170 correspondence, this time from Viscount Goderich who also supported the Church Missionary Society in sending out someone to supervise an Aboriginal mission (Commonwealth of Australia 1928j:477-478). He reported that the Legislative Council had received a request for funding for the mission and instructed Bourke that 500 pounds be paid annually from the revenue of New South Wales to commence with the arrival of the missionaries and to be continued for the period that the mission operated. Goderich further instructed Bourke to assist and protect the missionaries and to provide them with land grants so as to induce the missionaries to undertake the task of civilising and instructing the natives in the principals of religion and morality (Commonwealth of Australia 1928j:477). Further to this Goderich thought that the missionaries would provide help with the natives and with settlers who were exposed to the consequences of the mischievous behaviour of the natives’ predatory lives and habits (Commonwealth of Australia 1928j:477). In 1834 Bourke received further instructions, this time from the Right Hon. Spring Rice in regard to the House of Commons presentation on the protection of the rights of the natives and the promotion of the spread of civilisation leading the natives to peacefully and voluntary accept the Christian religion. Bourke was informed that it was his duty to address and discharge these matters (Commonwealth of Australia 1928j:491). Thus the governors were to have the responsibility for funding and overseeing the work of the missionaries, however it was the missionaries who had the responsibility to conduct civilising programs.

This was to change again in 1838 with the responsibility for Aboriginal people moving from solely being that of the missionaries to having a parallel system of Protectors, following the inquiry of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines. The report of the inquiry is examined in more detail in Chapter Seven. By this stage the governor in charge was Governor Gipps and he was instructed by Lord Gleneig that it had been decided to appoint one Chief Protector and four assistant Protectors, who were to be stationed at Port Phillip (now Victoria) (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:253). He was to make provisions to enable the Protectors to occasionally supply the natives with moderate quantities of food and clothing. The main role of the protectors was to induce the natives to civilisation and social improvement through settlement. This was

171 to occur by encouraging Aboriginal people to cultivate the land and live in shelters (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:253). As it was during the governorship of Macquarie, the education and instruction of children was to be the primary focus. The assistant protectors were to promote moral and religious improvement and to prepare the natives for the reception of the knowledge and practice of Christianity. The Protectors were also to learn the native language as soon as possible and were to be accountable for the provisions and clothing given to them for distribution to the natives (Commonwealth of Australia 1928m:254-255).

In 1839 Gipps was informed by Lord Russell that the Crown and Ministers of religion were supportive of assisting the Aboriginal race in the enjoyment of social advantage that would be secured by British superior wealth and knowledge. Furthermore, the British due to their superior wealth and knowledge, had the duty of assisting Aboriginal people. Gipps was instructed that he was to make every effort to instruct the children and young men and that he was to reward the missionaries for their good work (Commonwealth of Australia 1928n:440-441). In April of 1841 Gipps reported to Russell what he considered to be the means by which the natives might be improved and civilised (Commonwealth of Australia 1928o:314-315). He also informed Russell that Captain Grey was of the opinion that evil grew out of the treatment of Aboriginal people because they were a conquered people, and were not allowed to be governed by their own laws. However, Gipps pointed out that this was not the case in New South Wales as the natives were Her Majesty’s subjects and were to be treated as such. Gipps argued that if Aboriginal people were ever to be civilised it would only happen through their employment as labourers (Commonwealth of Australia 1928o:314). However, Gipps also saw this as being problematic as he pointed out that if they were employed as labourers it would be at odds with keeping them separate from the white population. He pointed out the concerns that contact with white men might provide temptations that Aboriginal people would be unable to resist. These temptations included the use of ardent spirits by the men and the seduction of women from their husbands. Further to this Gipps argued that the education of Aboriginal children was essential for the civilisation of the Aboriginal race (Commonwealth of Australia 1928o:315).

172

In September 1842 Lord Stanley instructed Gipps to set aside a sum not exceeding 15 percent of gross income from Land Sales, which were to be held by the crown for the benefits of civilising and protecting Aboriginal people (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:281). However, within 3 months Lord Stanley was informing Gipps that the report on the Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales (discussed in Chapter Seven) showed that the attempts to civilise them had not worked and that there was no reason to expect any different in the future (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:436). Stanley went on to say that the doctrine of Christianity was inoperative and the advantages of civilisation were incommunicable to the natives. He also stated that the evidence was that Aboriginal people had little desire for formal instruction, that they were thoughtless, had a spirit for independence, demonstrated ingratitude and straightforward dealings. He also said that due to intermixing with Europeans there had been an increase in drunkenness, debauchery and other evils. Stanley doubted that there was wisdom in continuing with the missionaries, as he thought it was injurious to the natives to continue in this way when there were other methods and it was more likely to disadvantage the colony due to the unnecessary and profitless expense (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:436-439).

Stanley considered that the Protectors might be more beneficial, but also said that he needed more information. He thought that the Protectors would not be without problems due to collecting large groups of natives within one area and placing them close to settlers. He could not see how this would work without there being previous arrangements to have the natives employed and provide for their own subsistence (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:438). However, Stanley supported the belief that Aboriginal people were incapable of improvement and that their extinction was unavoidable due to the necessary advancement of white settlers (Commonwealth of Australia 1928p:439). In August 1845 Stanley suggested to Gipps that he establish an institution for the removal of half caste children from the dangers they appeared to be subjected to and for their education and civilisation (Commonwealth of Australia 1928r:50).

173

6.3 Governing the Savage Subject

The governors’ instructions and correspondence show the contradictory manner in which the governors (individually and as a group) thought of and acted towards Aboriginal people. This was not assisted by the fact that the instructions they received, both on their initial appointment as governor and then throughout the term of their governorship were contradictory and often in reaction to what had occurred months earlier. However, what all agreed upon was that Aboriginal people were a problem and a problem they needed to find a solution to. The governors tried various methods aimed at finding a solution to ‘the problem’, including attempts to civilise them through education and christianisation (with a particular focus on the children), right through to the state sanction of their murder. However, as part of finding a solution they also had to define what the status of Aboriginal people was within colonial society. The debates mainly focused on their legal status and were mostly about their ability to give evidence in a court of law. However, this debate raised a number of questions, such as: were Aboriginal people within or outside the boundaries of British Law? Aboriginal law was certainly not recognised never mind given any consideration.

In addition there were questions about what status Aboriginal people should have within the legal system, whether they were capable of testifying and if they were not then how could they be held accountable under the law. If they could not be held accountable under the law, then could they be afforded the protection of the law? This also extended to whether or not British people could be held accountable for killing Aboriginal people. However, despite the question over whether the British could be held accountable for harming them, it could be argued that the colonial government sanctioned the killing of Aboriginal people as the governors frequently made proclamations that natives could be killed in certain situations, such as when settlers felt threatened. In addition the governors’ own actions in ordering the military to capture and kill individual or groups of Aboriginal people, positioned them as the enemy and therefore a threat to anyone who was not an Aboriginal person.

174

The status of Aboriginal people within the colony of New South Wales remained an issue that impacted each governor’s ability to determine how to deal with the problems that were arising out of the growing demands of governing the colony. The governors were interpreting their instructions in often, conflicting ways. This is particularly evident in the cases of Phillip and Macquarie who did make attempts to protect them and acknowledge the injustice of colonisation. However, they also ordered the capture and murder of Aboriginal individuals and groups. Whilst Aboriginal people were legally British subjects, in reality they existed outside the margins of what was becoming a new British state. The concerns of the governors of the colony of New South Wales and of the British Government were not really about Aboriginal people and their welfare, but rather were about protecting the interest of the British in successfully colonising the land and eventually making a profit from it. Aboriginal people’s rights existed in so far as they did not conflict with the interest of the British. Once their rights conflicted with the rights of the British they became a problem that needed to be dealt with.

6.4 Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted the contradictory and often ad hoc manner in which the governors treated Aboriginal people and the issues that arose from the British invasion and occupation of their lands. The governors themselves received instructions that were frequently contradictory therefore they were required to interpret and implement these instructions themselves. As these governors were all military men, it is not surprising that they used military actions in their attempts to control and manage the resistance of Aboriginal people to the British occupation. Further to this, there was confusion regarding their legal status, such as their status as British subjects, in relation to legal matters, such as giving evidence, being witnesses and in regard to being put on trial as perpetrators of crimes. Whilst there were actions and discussions around protecting them, it was never really about Aboriginal people, but rather about doing what was needed to protect the interests of the British. The interests of the British were in taking ownership of the land and in enhancing the British administrators’ reputation as

175 enlightened men who were creating an enlightened society by civilising the natives. Aboriginal people became objectified in the process of colonisation and in the concerns of the British. This objectification allowed the British to categorise them as a problem rather than as people with rights. Once problematised the British worked to develop solutions to the ‘Aboriginal problem’. Two solutions emerged: first Aboriginal people were viewed as enemies who could be dealt with via the military, and second as poor, uneducated and uncivilised beings whom the British had the duty to bring into their midst and attempt to civilise through education and christianisation. Whilst there were many examples of the British treating Aboriginal people as the enemy and dealing with them accordingly, this mostly occurred when they were not successful in forcing them to behave in the manner of which the British approved. The main British focus was on developing systems for civilising them. These systems for civilising (or the term in more recent times – assimilating) Aboriginal people have continued ever since. The next chapter will continue this exploration as how the British prosecuted this civilising and colonising project.

176 Chapter Seven

Inquiry about the Colonised

7.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to continue employing a Critical Indigenous lens to analyse key colonial documents. This time the documents are the government inquiries regarding Aboriginal people within the Colony of New South Wales that occurred between 1837 and 1849. There was a total of four inquiries during this time, however, none of them completed their inquiry nor produced a formal report. There was a further report (in 1859), which referred to the previous reports and will be mentioned in relation to the four reports under examination here. The first inquiry was the Inquiry on the Conditions of Aborigines in British Settlements, which was ordered by the British House of Commons in 1837. This inquiry produced the most extensive of the reports. A further four inquiries into the Conditions of Aborigines were ordered by the New South Wales Legislative Council in 1838, 1843, 1845 and 1849. Whilst there has been some previous analysis of the British report, it has not been analysed from a Critical Indigenous Perspective. Furthermore, there does not appear to have been any analysis undertaken of the New South Wales Legislative Council reports. This might be because the first four inquiries failed to produce formal reports. A fifth report (conducted in 1859) had focused upon Port Phillip (which by this time had separated from the colony of New South Wales). Despite the four inquiries not producing formal reports, three of them (1838, 1845 and 1849) did make some recommendations including establishing new inquiries. Overall whilst the New South Wales inquiries did not result in much or produce much information, it is what they did not do and say that gives some insight into the purposes of these inquiries and about the positioning of Aboriginal people within the colony of New South Wales.

The research findings reported in this chapter seek to produce a new understanding of the

177 aims and the outcomes of the inquiries under exanimation. To achieve this a thematic analysis was been conducted to draw out a number of key conceptualisations that emerged within the reports regarding the way that the British (and the colonial government) viewed Aboriginal people and the way in which they viewed themselves in relation to Aboriginal people.

All of the inquiries were conducted during the lead up to ‘responsible government’ (or self-governance) for the New South Wales colonies. The governors during this period were the final three governors appointed by Britain; Bourke, Gipps and Fitzroy. Bourke was governor during The British Select Committee Inquiry into the conditions of Aborigines in British Settlements. Bourke was the governor for the first NSW inquiry; Gipps was governor for the second and third inquiries in the colony of New South Wales and Fitzroy for the final inquiries examined in this thesis. It is of note that these three governors were the only ones appointed by Britain to have nothing pertaining to Aboriginal people written into their instructions. Gipps was the only one of these three governors who demonstrated, through his correspondence to England, an active interest in Aboriginal people. The only other two governors to do so were Phillip and Macquarie who governed before the inquiries occurred.

However, despite their instructions lacking any instructions about Aboriginal people, the Governors still received directions from Britain about how they were to treat Aboriginal people. Bourke was instructed through his correspondence with Britain to set up missions and provide assistance to missionaries in their endeavours to Christianise and civilise Aboriginal people. Bourke was also reminded of his duty to protect Aboriginal people. Gipps was much more active than Bourke spending a lot of time and effort to get Aboriginal people’s evidence accepted by the courts. He believed that as Aboriginal people were British subjects they were entitled to the same rights and protections as all other British subjects. Furthermore, Gipps believed that the difficulties that were presented as being a barrier to Aboriginal people giving evidence, such as their lack of English and not being Christians could be overcome by their conversion to the Christian faith, as well as through their education and civilisation. He also believed that

178 Aboriginal people could be civilised (and that civilisation would include learning English) through the employment of Aboriginal men as labourers and through the education of Aboriginal children.

Unfortunately there is very little correspondence regarding Aboriginal people by Fitzroy and apart from the inquiry during his time, there is little to suggest that he showed any interest in the welfare of Aboriginal people. However, it is not possible to draw any conclusion regarding Fitzroy’s interest or otherwise in Aboriginal people as it was reported that Fitzroy avoided any form of controversy and that he took a laissez faire approach to his governorship, delegating tasks to others and in general letting things run their course (Clune &Turner 2009:206).

7.1.1 The British Report (1837)

The first inquiry to be conducted and the most extensive was the one by the Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements), which was ordered by the British House of Commons (1837) and was carried out in London. The British report took approximately sixteen weeks to complete and collected evidence through written submissions, reports and the examination of witnesses. The witnesses were located both in Britain and in the individual colonies. In some cases witnesses who were located within the colonies were required to travel to Britain to provide verbal testimony.

The committee was made up of fifteen members who were called upon to:

Consider what Measures ought to be adopted with regard to the NATIVE INHABITANTS of countries where BRITISH SETTLEMENTS are made, and to the neighbouring Tribes, in order to secure them the due observance of Justice, and the protection of their Rights; to promote the spread of Civilization among them; and to lead them to the peaceful and voluntary reception of the Christian Religion (Great Britain 1837b:2).

179 Thus the British Select Committee was tasked with finding out what measures should be appointed in the British colonies to provide the Indigenous populations with justice and the protection of their rights; and to promote Civilisation and the Christian religion (Great Britain 1837b:2). The committee decided that the best way to determine the impact of colonisation on Indigenous populations in British colonies was to conduct a survey ‘to observe’ if contact between the colonists and the ‘natives’ had been the ‘greatest blessing’ or the ‘greatest scourge’ (Great Britain 1837b:2). One can only assume that what was meant by ‘conducting a survey to observe’, was to ask the colonists their point of view of what happened and what the impact was. A very small number of Indigenous people were called as witnesses to the inquiry and not one of them was from Australia. Hence, on the whole, the views the committee were hearing were not those of the Indigenous populations they were inquiring about. Furthermore, the views of the witnesses would have been influenced by the personal interest of those individuals. In the case of Australia the witnesses who gave evidence or made submissions included The Archdeacon of New South Wales, Saxe Bannister, Archdeacon Broughton, Coates, Rev. Beecham & Rev. Ellis, Rev. John Williams and Rev. William Yates (Great Britain 1837:764a). As well Dr Lang gave evidence to the inquiry (Great Britain 1837b:11). Seven of the nine witnesses were ordained churchmen, Archdeacons or ministers of religion and their evidence was directly tied to their religious occupation. The eighth witness, Coast, was the secretary to the Church Missionary Society, so also held a religious position (Great Britain 1837:481a). The only witness not identified as holding a religious position was Saxe Bannister, whose occupation was not revealed. During his questioning he stated that he had visited a number of the colonies including New South Wales (Great Britain 1837:174a). So the majority of the witnesses to the inquiry were religious people who gave evidence regarding the colony of New South Wales and this influenced the findings of the inquiry, which are discussed later in this chapter.

The Inquiry looked at a total of eight different British colonies:

 Newfoundland

180  North America  South America  Caribs  New Holland  Van Diemen’s Land  Islands in the Pacific  South Africa

Whilst Caribs was included in the inquiry, it was quickly dismissed with the committee summarising: ‘Of the Caribs, the native inhabitants of the West Indies, we need not speak, as of them little more remains than the tradition that they once existed’ (Great Britain 1837b:10). The Indigenous people of North America noted in the report were:

 Micmacs  Algonquins  Nipissings  Iroquois  Chippeway  Mohawks  Oneidas  Onondagas  Sencas  Cayugas  Tuscaroras  Cree. (Great Britain 1837b:6-9)

Mention is made of, ‘All the other tribes on the borders of the province’ (Great Britain 1837b:8). The report discussed how British Guiana in South America occupied a large country between the rivers of the Orinoco and the Amazons and that the Indigenous peoples within the colonies of Demerara and Essequibo came from four separate nations;

181 ‘…the Caribs, Arawacks, Warrows, and Accaways’ (Great Britain 1837b:9).

The section of the report on the Islands in the Pacific focused heavily on New Zealand but it made mention of other Islands in the South Pacific such as the Society Islands, Sandwich Islands, Navigator’s Islands (also referred to as Samoa), Friendly Islands and Tonga (Great Britain 1837b:14-25). The report states that the ‘Aborigines’ of South Africa could be ‘…classed under two distinct races, Hottentots and Caffres’ (Great Britain1837b:25). The report further breaks down the ‘Aborigines’ of South Africa into groupings, claiming that the Hottentots can be divided into ‘… “tame” or colonial Hottentots, and the wild Hottentots or Bushmen’ (Great Britain 1837b:25). The Hottentots were said to come from three groups; the Corannas, the Gonaquas and a ‘mixed race’ of Griquas (Great Britain 1837b:25). The Griquas were referred to in the report as a ‘…mixed race, “the offspring of colonists by Hottentot females…”” (Great Britain 1837b:64). The Caffres were described as denoting ‘…the three contiguous tribes of Amakosa, Amatembee and Amaponda’ (Great Britain 1837b:25). The report also talks about other ‘…kindred tribes, who were early designated under the term Bushmen’ (Great Britain 1837b:27), thus implying a connection with the Hottentots tribes.

New Holland was the colony of New South Wales, which at that time included what was to later become the colony of Port Phillip (or what is now known as the State of Victoria). Van Diemen’s Land, the other colony under investigation, was later to be named Tasmania. With the exception of Caribs, New Holland and Van Diemen’s Land have the shortest reports. The Indigenous people of these two colonies are not identified by their different tribal groups but are basically treated as a singular group, except in differentiating between the ‘natives of Sydney and Parramatta’ and those of the ‘interior’ (Great Britain 1837b:11). The opening comments in the section of the report that focuses on New Holland states:

The inhabitants of New Holland, in their original condition, have been described by travellers as the most degraded of the human race … (Great Britain 1837b: 10)

182

The report did not question this description but went on to say that it feared that contact with Europeans had only made Aboriginal people even more wretched (Great Britain 1837b:10). The report focused on the effects of the contact between Aboriginal people and the colonists and concluded that for the most part the results for Aboriginal people had been negative. Much was written in the Inquiry report about the injustices done to Aboriginal people and the violation of Aboriginal peoples’ rights to their land and enjoyment of their property, but this was then justified by saying that Aboriginal people had no rights due to:

…the barbarous state of these people, and so entirely destitute are they even the rudest forms of civil polity, that their claims, whether as sovereigns or proprietors of the soil, have been utterly disregarded. (Great Britain 1837b:82)

Whilst acknowledging that the rights of Aboriginal Australians to their lands were violated, the report made a number of recommendations for general regulations in dealing with Aboriginal people. One of these general regulations was that treaties should be made with natives as a matter of urgency (Great Britain 1837b:80). However, it appears that this regulation was not extended to Aboriginal Australians as the report went on to say that Aboriginal Australians had allegiance to the Queen and that whilst they had been unjustly treated by the invasion of their lands, justice and humanity would not be served by relinquishing the British claim on the land (Great Britain 1837b:82-83). The report served to reinforce the positioning of Aboriginal people as having no ability and thus no rights to govern themselves and no rights to their own ancestral lands. It confirmed them as being under British rule and validated the way in which they were colonised.

The report examined a number of colonies and made general recommendations for all colonies and then made specific recommendations for individual colonies. One of the most important differences in the general recommendations compared with the specific recommendations for the colony of New South Wales was the general recommendation

183 that treaties with Natives be made between the local government and the natives of the local area (Great Britain 1837b:80).

The recommendations for the colony of New South Wales were:

 Land taken ‘without assertion of any other title than that of superior force and by the commissions under which the Australian Colonies are governed, Her Majesty’s sovereignty over the whole of New Holland is asserted without reserve’  Aborigines must be considered as having an allegiance to the Queen and therefore are entitled to her protection. (Great Britain 1837b:82-83)

Compared with other colonies the colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land and the Aboriginal people within those colonies were determined to be under the sovereignty of the British crown from the beginning whereas this was not case in other colonies. So the making of treaties was not only, not required, but impossible. This set a significantly different relationship between the New Holland colonies and the colonial administration and settlers compared with other British colonies and their Indigenous inhabitants.

The British report was the forerunner of the New South Wales reports and could be said to be the instigation for the local reports, as it set down a number of recommendations regarding which the governors had to report to the Colonial Secretary in the Home Office. The Legislative Council of New South Wales appointed a number of committees to consider the matter of the conditions of the ‘natives’ and to look at their welfare. Whilst the British report included much less on the colony of New South Wales than on all but one other colony, nevertheless the New South Wales Legislative council reports were even more scant in comparison and appear to show no real intention of dealing with the issues that were occurring.

7.1.2 The NSW Reports

184

In 1859, the report of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council of New South Wales on Aborigines, noted that on five previous occasions the subject of their appointment had been brought before the Legislative Council of New South Wales, but that there had been no ‘effectual measures adopted for the amelioration of the Aborigines’ (Victoria Legislative Council 1859:iii). In many ways this report footnotes the outcomes of each of the previous occasions on which the matter was brought before the legislature. It notes that in 1838 a committee was formed and a report printed following an inquiry; that in 1843 another committee was formed and report ordered but no further notice was taken; that in 1845 another committee was appointed and the Chairperson died and no further notice was taken; in 1849 another committee was formed and that the outcome was a report that the treatment of Aboriginal people ‘was cruel in the extreme’ and that in 1850 the Governor and Executive of New South Wales made a number of recommendations which ‘contained some humane recommendations’, however, these were not acted upon (Victoria Legislative Council 1859:iii).

Each of the four NSW inquiries between 1838 and 1849 will now be examined in more detail.

185 7.1.3 The First NSW Inquiry and its Report (1838)

The year following the British Report in 1837, the colony of New South Wales, under the governorship of Governor George Gipps, formed a committee to inquire into the condition of the Aborigines in the colony of New South Wales. The New South Wales Legislative Council appointed this committee on 14th August 1838 (NSW Legislative Council 1838a). The committee consisted of three men, The Lord Bishop of Australia, Mr Blaxland (The Collector of Customs) and Mr Macarthur (The Auditor General), who were appointed to:

…inquire into the present state of the Aborigines, and to take Evidence, particularly as to the consequences of their intercourse with the Colonist, and the results of the efforts that have been made to introduce Civilization, Education, and Christianity amongst them, and to inquire into the state, progress, and effects of the several Missions now employed amongst the Aboriginal tribes. (NSW Legislative Council 1838a)

The inquiry took a total of eight weeks and the committee found that they were unable to find the number of witnesses they wished and felt that they were unable to come to any conclusions, and that a similar committee should be appointed at the next session of the Legislative Council to undertake a more complete investigation (NSW Legislative Council 1838b). Further to this the Select Committee reported that, as a result of a lack of witnesses, it was unable to pay as close attention as required to the different points that required examining (NSW Legislative Council New South Wales Legislative Council 1838b:1).

However, the committee was able to come to an agreement in regard to a proposal to relocate the ‘natives’ from Van Diemen’s Land (who had been moved to Flinders Island) to New South Wales. The committee was against the proposal due to the expense involved and the belief that the natives from Van Diemen’s Land would be a negative influence on the ‘natives’ in the colony of New South Wales and this would be a threat to

186 the settlers (New South Wales Legislative Council 1838b:1). Further to this the committee believed that the subject of the inquiry was of interest to humanity and vital to the welfare of the colony (New South Wales Legislative Council 1838b:1-2).

7.1.4 The Second NSW Inquiry (1843)

As noted earlier whilst a committee was appointed, no report or comment was made by the committee.

7.1.5 The Third NSW Inquiry and its Report (1845)

Despite the first committee’s recommendation that another committee be formed at the next session of the Legislative Council, which would have been 1839, it was not until 1843 that a new committee was appointed. It failed to produce a report and it took another two years (1845) for yet another new committee to report. At that time Governor George Gipps was still governor of the colony of New South Wales. The committee appointed to undertake the inquiry was considerably larger than the committee of three that was appointed to the 1838 Inquiry. This committee consisted of nine men who were appointed to ‘…consider the conditions of the Aborigines, and the best means of promoting their welfare’.

This committee sat for nine weeks, a week longer than the committee of 1838. Despite the larger committee, the considerably smaller scope of inquiry and admittedly only slightly longer time, the committee’s report contained almost nothing of substance. The committee reported that it was unable to produce any findings as it had only received a few submissions, which it attached and hoped to obtain more (NSW Leglistave Council 1845). Furthermore, a number of members of the committee had undertaken to ‘produce intelligent Aborigines’ who could provide their own views as to their conditions and claimed that if for no other reason than this the report should be delayed (NSW Legislative Council 1838a). This inquiry had moved from looking at the impact of

187 contact between Aboriginal people and the colonists and the results of the efforts made to civilise, Christianise and educate Aboriginal people to focusing on the means by which to promote the welfare of Aboriginal people. This is not to suggest that every member of the committee thought they were limited to just this area. Dr Lang put the motion that the committee be instructed to look at the workings of the Protectorate of Aborigines at Port Phillip (NSW Legislative Council 1838a). However, the motion was withdrawn and no explanation is recorded as to why. It should be noted that Dr Lang provided evidence to the British inquiry in 1837 regarding the reasons for the diminishing number of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales (Great Britain 1837b:11).

7.1.6 The Fourth NSW Inquiry Report (1849)

Whilst it took another four years before another committee was appointed to inquire into the conditions of Aboriginal people in the colony, the question of the workings of the Protectorate in Port Phillip did not disappear with the withdrawal of the motion in 1845. The next inquiry committee was instructed to:

…inquire into the state of Aboriginal inhabitants of this Colony – more especially with regard to the success or failure of the present Protectorate system in Port Phillip. (NSW Legislative Council 1849a)

There had been a change of governor in the form of Governor Fitzroy and the committee had changed with the exception of one person, Mr Suttor. This time the committee met for eight weeks and consisted of seven men, notably not including Dr Lang.

Again the committee stated it was unable to fulfil the instructions it was given. The committee stated that given the extent of the question and the great difficulties in addressing the conditions of Aboriginal people, it had limited itself to examining the working of the Protectorate system in Port Phillip (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1). The committee concluded that the Protectorate system had been a failure as well as a great expense to the colony and that much more benefit could be gained by focusing on

188 the education and religious instruction of the white population of the colony, whose improvement would also benefit Aboriginal people (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:2). The report does not discuss how redirecting funds to the education of the white population would benefit Aboriginal people but it did state that the Protectorates had caused prejudices amongst the settlers who were removed from ‘their lands’ to create reserves (1849b:1-2). The committee also concluded that there was no hope for Aboriginal adults and the only hope for the education of Aboriginal children was to totally separate them from their parents and that this separation should be compulsory (1849b:1).

7.2 The Themes

Whilst each report was different in scope, questions, thoroughness and the content, there were some common themes. These themes have been collated into the six overarching themes:

 Impact of Colonisation,  Protection  Civilising the ‘Natives’  Ideologies and Values  Duty of the British  Objects of Curiosity

Within these overarching themes there are a number of subthemes that will be examined. As well there are sub themes that are common across two or more of the overarching themes requiring examination within each theme.

7.2.1 Impact of Colonisation

The British committee was appointed to find out what the results were from British

189 contact with ‘uncivilised nations’ and how the policy of colonisation had ‘already effected the interest, and, we fear we may add, sacrificed the lives, of many thousands, may yet, in all probability, influence the character and destiny of millions of the human race’ (Great Britain 1837b:3). The British report found that European colonisation, including that by the British, had been a ‘source of calamities to uncivilised people’, that their lands had been taken, characters debased and that it had been a barrier to spreading civilisation (Great Britain 1837b:5). Further to this the report was also highly critical of the manner in which colonisation had occurred stating that ‘the Europeans when colonising other lands had been uninvited and acted as if they were ‘…lords of soil’ and that they then punished ‘the natives’ if they reacted against the taking of their country’ (Great Britain 1837b:5). Also the report recognised that Indigenous people were being denied a ‘means of existence’ as a result of colonisation (Great Britain 1837b:5-6). The report argued that the effects of colonisation upon Aboriginal people were not from the determination of government but from ‘ignorance’ and the difficulty that distance created in keeping in check ‘cupidity and punishing crimes’ of those who colonised other lands (Great Britain 1837b:75). Hence individuals who were acting outside of the directions of the home land, were held responsible for the negative impact of colonisation and associated outcomes. This is despite the fact that colonisation was legitimised by the home government and that the military and the governors were not only involved in many of the punishing actions but were leading and authoring them.

The report concluded that colonisation and the results of colonisation had been a burden upon Britain and that the national interest of Britain must come first even though it resulted in the encroachment on the territory of others and disregarded their rights (Great Britain 1837b:76). Further to colonisation being a burden upon Britain, the report talked about the cost in terms of ‘economy, of security, of commerce, of reputation’ (Great Britain 1837b:75). It also claimed that the oppression of the ‘natives’ had resulted in impeding successful colonisation, had engendered war, incurred great expense and damaged Britain’s reputation (Great Britain 1837b:75). The committee believed that the banishment or extermination of the ‘natives’ had resulted in the loss of potential profitable workers, customers and good neighbours (Great Britain 1837b:75). There

190 appears to be no question regarding the ethics of colonising another country, just the manner in which it occurred. This suggests that the committee believed that Britain had the right to colonise other countries with the only question being the manner in which the colonisation occurred.

The committee also made comparisons between the ‘oppression of the natives of barbarous countries’ with the evils of the slave trade and slavery and stated that Britain had in fact made atonement for its involvement with slavery (Great Britain 1837b:75). The committee concluded that it was necessary to stop the evils being practiced against the ‘natives’ because it was most important to address ‘the national necessity of finding some outlet for the superabundant population of Great Britain and Ireland’ (Great Britain 1837b:75-76). There appears to be some cognitive dissonance in the thinking of the committee members between the wrongs of slavery and what was occurring in the colonisation of other countries: even though the issue of ‘native’ labour appears in the report and recommendations were made regarding the engagement of the labour of the Indigenous populations within the colonies, the slave labour of the colonised was not questioned.

The section of the report that focuses exclusively on New Holland (or the colony of New South Wales), starts out by repeating the common description of Aboriginal people in the colony as the ‘most degraded of the human race’ and goes on to say how they fear that Aboriginal people are now even more wretched through contact with Europeans (Great Britain 1837b:10). Concern was raised regarding the dramatic decrease in the number of Aboriginal people since the British arrived and it is stated that this decrease was due to both violence (acts of murder by convicts, free settlers and the military) and to the mixing of Aboriginal people with the ‘dregs’ of British society (Great Britain 1837:10-11). However, despite the acknowledgement that Aboriginal people were being murdered, more focus was given to the decreasing population being due to Aboriginal people being contaminated through contact with the worst of British society. Evidence was given by Bishop Broughton that Aboriginal people ‘appear to wear out, and gradually decay’ when they meet Europeans and that contact resulted in Aboriginal

191 people losing their better qualities and ‘the most objectionable and degrading’ qualities of the British being taken up (Great Britain 1837b:11). Dr Lang (a Minister of religion) also provided evidence that the numbers of Aboriginal people were decreasing due to ‘infanticide, intemperance and European diseases’ (Great Britain 1837b:11). While the committee raised its concerns regarding the decreasing Aboriginal population within the colony of New South Wales and admitted that this was caused by British contact, the focus was moved from the murder of Aboriginal people by some British settlers to a focus on the supposed weakness of Aboriginal people. It is important to note that none of the New South Wales Legislature Select Committee reports even considers the impact of colonisation upon Aboriginal people.

7.2.2 Protection

The theme of Protection within the reports has three distinct aspects which will be dealt with under three sub-themes: (1) the Protection of British settlers (including military and convicts), (2) the rights of Aboriginal people to protection under British law and (3) the development of a system of Protectorates charged with the responsibility for ‘looking after’ Aboriginal people and their interests. Protection was a major part of the concerns of and the actions taken by the Governors. Protection was not just about protecting individuals but rather it was about protecting the interest of the British in developing the colony. Rather than protecting Aboriginal people, the acts done in the name of protection were really about managing and controlling Aboriginal people.

Protection of British Settlers The British report found that there were two alternative systems to ensure British security and peace within colonial borders and that was either ‘overwhelming force with all its attendant expenses, or a line of temperate conduct and of justice towards our neighbours’ (Great Britain 1837b:75). The Committee reported the view of one of the inquiry’s witnesses who put the alternatives more bluntly ‘trade, commerce, peace and civilization’ or ‘extermination’ which could not be stopped ‘until you have shot the last man’ (Great Britain 1837b:75). The British report also indicated a regret about the

192 disproportionate punishment that had been dealt out to Aboriginal people but also stated that it would be wrong to remain passive as this would encourage Aboriginal people to perpetrate violence against the British (Great Britain 1837b:79-80). The protection and security of the British population within the colonies was placed above that of the Indigenous populations.

There was also a statement about the need to get Aboriginal people to develop a system of law to deal with Aboriginal people who committed crimes against the ‘Queen’s Subjects’ and it was suggested that a treaty should be developed that set out which crimes would be punished, what the punishment would be and what procedures would be needed to enforce the punishments (Great Britain 1837b:80). Interestingly, on the one hand, it was being said that Aboriginal people needed to develop a system of law alongside punishment against the Queen’s Subjects and, on the other hand, it recommended that a treaty be developed to set out what the crimes were that would be punished and what the punishment would be. Given that this would be set out in a treaty, this would mean that the British would at the very least have influence on these decisions. But this also implied the making of a treaty, something that was never negotiated in New Holland. As well the report itself had already stated that Aboriginal people were British subjects, and therefore the Queen’s Subjects, but on this matter Aboriginal people were set outside of the definition of Queen’s Subjects with only the British arrivals defined within this category. Aboriginal people appear to move in and out of the category of British subject, as it suited the writers’ of the report. Furthermore, a treaty could not be made with people who were counted as British subjects. So Aboriginal people were not afforded the rights of British subjects when there was a conflict of interest. Once again the contradictory nature of the positioning of Aboriginal people is evident in that those people who were charged with the responsibility for the welfare of Aboriginal people were the very people who were prepared to overlook the rights of Aboriginal people in favour of the interest of those who benefited from colonisation.

The British report found that when there was conflict between the British and Aboriginal people, the treatment of Aboriginal people was akin to ‘enforcing belligerent rights

193 against a public enemy’ (Great Britain 1837b:83). It was also recommended that Protectors be appointed with one of their roles being to ensure that Aboriginal people were amendable to the law (Great Britain 1837b:84). Whilst there was some concern about causing injustice due to Aboriginal people being ignorant of their rights to protection under the law, perversely there was a concern that Aboriginal people might be given an unfair advantage over the British people (Great Britain 1837b:84). Thus whilst admitting that Aboriginal people had experienced great harm at the hands of the British, the concern was making sure that Aboriginal people were not given an advance over the British. The only New South Wales Legislative Council inquiry report that raised concerns about the protection of British settlers was the first report, which was concerned with the safety of settlers. It noted that, if ‘natives’ from Van Diemen’s Land were moved to New South Wales the New South Wales ‘natives’ could be negatively influenced (New South Wales Legislative Council 1838b:1). Which would result in them being more aggressive and creating more conflict with the British settlers.

The Rights of Aborigines to Protection Under British Law It is noted in the British Report that in 1825 the King had given instructions as to Aboriginal peoples’ protection from violence and injustice (Great Britain 1837b:11). It was found that Aboriginal people in the colony were governed by her Majesty’s sovereignty thro without any reserve and stated that allegiance of the Queen implied entitlement to her protection (Great Britain 1837b:83). This meant that Aboriginal peoples were legally British subjects and thus came under the rule of British law, both in terms of the protections of their rights and their amenability under British law.

Despite this the report also found that very little effort had been made to protect Aboriginal people from violence of the ‘undesirable British country man’ (Great Britain 1837b:10). The report went on to point out that there had been many instances of murder and violence against Aboriginal people which had been committed by stock keepers (who were convicts employed by farmers), cedar-cutters and remote free settlers (Great Britain 1837b:10). The report also acknowledged that some of the murders and acts of violence were committed by military parties that had been sent out against Aboriginal

194 people (Great Britain 1837b:10). At the same time the report pointed out that every person in the colony was under the protection of the law and Aboriginal people were subject to the same punishment under the law as white people (Great Britain 1837b:83). This meant that Aboriginal people were legally entitled to the same level and means of protection under British law as any of the British arrivals. Despite this the committee expressed the opinion that the lack of ability to protect Indigenous people in the British colonies did not come about due to a lack of will to do so from the British Government but was due to the great distances and that this resulted in difficulties in keeping colonists in check and in punishing their crimes (Great Britain 1837b:75). However, this statement ignores the fact that military parties were sent out against Aboriginal people under the instructions of the governor, or at the very least with the agreement of the governor. As the governor of the colony was an officer of the government, acting on behalf of the British government this made the British government responsible for any actions that were taken.

The reports of the inquiries of the New South Wales Legislative Council made no mention of the rights of Aboriginal people to protection under British Law. However, given that most of the reports were not completed and that those that were completed were extremely limited in their scope and in the extent of the report, this is not surprising.

Protectorates The British Report made general recommendations regarding the protection of natives in all of its colonies and then made specific recommendations for the protection of the natives in the colony of New South Wales. The committee gave justification for giving different recommendations for the protection of the natives in each colony on the basis of the difficulties of having one code of rules applied to a variety of different colonies. The committee stated that some colonies had treaties, some retained their own laws and usages and some, due to circumstances were under British protection and had become British subjects and that they had no other laws other than those imposed by the British (Great Britain 1837b:76). However, despite this the committee was able to make a number of general recommendations, which covered a number of different matters, from

195 the administration of protection of natives; the need for contracts for employment of natives; the prevention of the sale of ardent spirits to natives; regulations regarding the sale of lands; acquisition of new territories; religious instruction and education (including the recruitment and employment of missionaries to be regulated); and punishment of crimes and treaties (Great Britain 1837b:76-81).

The general recommendations regarding protectors in the colonies are much more extensive than the recommendations for the colony of New South Wales. The New South Wales recommendations were that funds were to be used to employ missionaries to instruct Aboriginal people and to employ protectors to defend them (Great Britain 1837b:83-84). The committee in its report made a number of specific suggestions as to the duties of Protectors which included: learning about Aboriginal people and language; the supply of gifts not to include alcohol; finding means to engage Aboriginal people in employment; assisting missionaries with education of the young; performing the duty of coroner when ‘Aborigines’ were killed; determining special regulations to ensure Aboriginal people were protected by the law and held amendable to the law; preventing employment of Aboriginal people as police; be invested with the character of a magistrate to prosecute crimes against ‘Aborigines’; defend Aborigines accused of crimes; regular reporting of the execution of their duties and for advancing the interest of Aborigines; and report on statistical information which should show progress in ceasing the depopulation and decay of tribes (Great Britain 1837b:83-84). At no point did the report outline which of the general recommendations were to be applied to the colony of New South Wales and which were not to be applied.

The inquiry of 1849 was the only New South Wales Legislative Council inquiry to address the issue of protectors. This inquiry was appointed to consider the success or the failure of the protectorate system in Port Phillip. The committee reported that it had been presented with evidence that resulted in the committee coming to the conclusions that the Protectorate was either a total failure or that the efforts of the Protectorate were prejudicial to the ‘objects of its care’ (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1).

196 The committee’s advice was that the Protectorate system should be abolished based on the opinion that there was no hope for Aboriginal adults, that the education of children could only be successful if they were to be totally separated from their parents and this should be a compulsory measure (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1). The committee expressed the belief that any new Protectorates would be unfair to settlers who could lose some of their lands and that this might interfere with any good feelings that had developed between the black and white population within the colony (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1-2). A further reason for the abolition of the Protectorate system was the expense that had already been incurred and that efforts should be focused upon the promotion of the interest of religion and education of the white population as this would result in the improvement of conditions for Aboriginal people (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1-2). The overriding concern appears to be the views and feelings of the white settler population rather than the welfare and protection of Aboriginal people for which the Protectorate was responsible and about which the inquiry committee was asked advice.

7.2.3 Civilising the Natives

The theme of civilisation covers the themes of education and Christianisation. Whilst these two sub themes can be seen as different from each other, they are clearly linked. Education and Christianisation are seen as key tools in the supposed civilisation of Indigenous people. They are therefore considered under the generalised theme of civilisation.

Within the British report, the Indigenous populations were constantly referred to as ‘uncivilised’, with the British population being referred to as ‘civilised’ and ‘enlightened’ (1838). Further to this the report continuously pointed out that it was the duty of the British as enlightened people, to bring civilisation to the uncivilised (Great Britain 1837b). The inquiries started on the basic assumption that people the British had colonised and were now governing were ‘uncivilised’ and thus lesser than themselves.

197 This way of thinking coloured the committee’s views and findings throughout the report. This is evident in a statement in the report that colonisation had a higher purpose than just that of commercial and military interest; rather God had given Britain the duty to ‘civilise and Christianise the savages’ (Great Britain 1837b:76).

The British committee went even further when talking about the Aboriginal people of New Holland (Australia) stating that Aboriginal people were ‘probably the least instructed portion of the human race in all the arts of social life’ and ‘are in a barbarous state, entirely destitute’ (Great Britain 1837b:82). In addition to this negative view of Aboriginal people, the British committee expressed grave concerns regarding the decrease in the Aboriginal populations and possible extinction. The committee’s recommendation to address this issue was based on the evidence given by one of its witnesses Dr Lang, that the possible extinction could be addressed through the influence of Christianity (Great Britain 1837b:11).

Included in the instructions for the duties of protectors was that ‘religious instruction and education’ be provided to the ‘natives’ and that money should come out of revenue to provide religious instructions for adults, education of youth and protection for all (Great Britain 1837b:79). Furthermore, the committee recommended that missionaries be employed and that they be responsible for the moral and religious improvement of Indigenous people within the colonies (Great Britain 1837b:79). The real focus was about getting Aboriginal people to become white and to take on western values and ways of living. Aboriginal people’s culture and way of life was seen as being immoral, Aboriginal people needed to be rescued and for that to occur Aboriginal people had to be acculturated and assimilated to the British way of life.

Due to the limited outcomes of the New South Wales Legislative Council inquiries, very little is written on this topic. However, the 1849 report stated that there was ‘no hope for the prospects of the adult population and that the education of the children can only be successful if totally separated from their parents’ (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1). As discussed earlier the committee expressed the belief that the promotion of religion

198 and education of the white population would be more beneficial and that this would benefit the Aboriginal population (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1). It did not outline though how the religious and educational advancement of the white population would benefit Aboriginal people.

As previously expressed, there does not seem to be any recognition of the cognitive dissonance of the committee regarding Aboriginal people and the views that it was the duty of the British to civilise Aboriginal people whilst at the same time seeing Aboriginal people as incapable of being civilised.

199 7.2.4 Ideologies and Values

A number of ideologies and values underpinned not only the way Indigenous populations were treated within the colonies but also the views of the committee members of the inquiries and thus the findings and recommendations of the inquiries. The ideologies and values that were present within the inquiry reports pertained to the character of both the Indigenous and British populations (one being inferior and the other being superior). This included the duty of the superior beings to the inferior beings and the objectification of the inferior beings into an object of curiosity.

The sub-theme of character is broken down into two further sub-themes of the character of Indigenous people and the character of the British.

The Character of Indigenous People A common theme of most of the reports is that Aboriginal people were an inferior race of people. The decreasing numbers of Aboriginals and the poor conditions they suffered whilst in part due to the injustices and cruel treatment dealt out to them by Europeans, were in the main the result of an inferior character and race coming into contact with a superior character and race. This terrible decrease in their numbers and capacity was due their inability to adapt to new and superior living conditions and to avoid the vices of the worst of the Europeans (Great Britain 1837b, NSW Legislative Council 1849b). This is evident in the British report which commented that there was a tendency for Indigenous people to be classed as ‘savages’ and therefore it allowed the colonist to ‘exempt themselves from the obligations due to them as our fellow men’ (Great Britain 1837b:3). The committee did report that there were variations amongst Indigenous people as they were ‘found in all grades of advancement, from utter barbarism to semi-civilised’ (Great Britain 1837b:76). The committee’s view on the Aboriginal people in the colony of New South was that they were on the scale of utter barbarism. The committee reported that travellers had reported that Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales were the ‘most degraded of the human race’ (Great Britain 1837b:10). Further to this the committee proclaimed that the Aboriginal tribes

200 along the coast of New Holland were ‘forming probably the least instructed portion of the human race in all the arts of social life’ and that they did not even have the ‘rudest form of civil government’ (Great Britain 1837b:82).

Whilst the New South Wales Legislative Council Reports are scant in length and content, they do provide evidence that the underlying ideologies regarding and views about Indigenous people were the same as those contained within the British Report.

One of the inquiries found that the prospects of the adult population were hopeless, however some success could have come in the form of educating their children (as discussed earlier in section on Civilising the Natives in section 7.2.3) (NSW Legislative Council 1849b:1). Furthermore the committee of 1845 spoke of finding ‘intelligent Aborigines’ who would be able to give testimony of their own conditions (New South Wales Legislative Council 1845). Thus whilst there were some positive views of Aboriginal people, the overwhelming majority of beliefs regarding Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales were of great moral, intellectual and physical decay and the lowest of all ‘uncivilised men’.

The Character of British People Interestingly the British view of themselves appeared in complete contrast to their views of Aboriginal people, with a minimal number of occasions when the view was negative and an overwhelming number of times the view was that of superiority with the greatest of moral, intellectual and physical character. The British described themselves as being enlightened, and as Christian people (Great Britain 1837b:3). The committee went further in stating that the British Empire was blessed by ‘…her eminence, her strength, her wealth, her prosperity, her intellectual, her moral and her religious advances’ (Great Britain 1837b:76).

In contradiction to this the report talked about British vices but attributed this to the ‘dregs’ of our countryman’, such as convicts, labourers and some of the free settlers (i.e. those from the lower classes) (Great Britain 1837b:11). Whilst the British report points

201 out that the actions of the British had been righteous or enlightened in their attitude towards ‘native’ peoples, overall it failed to see the contradiction between this and the reported views of the British character; when the report did find flaws in the British, it assigned the actions to the less desirable members of the British race. This suggested that while the British people were presented as ‘civilised’ people there was a continuum of civilisation along which different groups (or classes) of British people sat. Those of the upper classes sat at the top of the continuum of the civilised and the lower classes (such as labourers) were near the bottom with the convicts being at the bottom of the continuum but still within the range of or the potential to be ‘civilised’.

Given the scant nature of the New South Wales Legislative Council inquiry reports th statements regarding the character of the British population or what would by this point have been defined as the settler populations of New South Wales were few. However, there were comments made about the ‘Duty of the British’ which will be discussed in the next section. From what has been said about the character of the Aboriginal people of the colony of New South Wales and what has not been said about the character of the British or now settler population, it can be assumed that the views regarding both groups remained the same: that the Aboriginal people were morally, intellectually and physically inferior and the British (or now settler population), were enlightened, civilised and thus superior beings.

7.2.5 Duty of the British

The sub-theme of Duty of the British is broken down into two further sub-themes of Duty to Indigenous people and Duty to Britain.

Duty to Indigenous People

The view of the British was that given their superiority and the inferiority of the

202 Indigenous populations, the British (and the settler populations) had a duty to bring the benefits of civilisation to the ‘uncivilised’ being - the Indigenous populations. This view was demonstrated extensively throughout the British report and underpinned the New South Wales reports. The British report started off by stating that the British had a duty to the uncivilised to ‘confer upon them the most important benefits’ of civilisation (Great Britain 1837b:3). These benefits were later outlined in the British Report (1837b:76) which stated that the British had a duty to bring ‘civilization and humanity, peace and good government, and above all, the knowledge of the true God’, to Indigenous people. The committee took the view that it was the duty of the British to be ‘righteous’ and to use ‘justice’ in their interactions with those who they were colonising (Great Britain 1837b:4). However, the committee acknowledged that it thought this was rarely put into practice (Great Britain 1837b:4). The committee seemed to have a strong sense of the injustices and negative consequences for Indigenous people and the devastation that colonisation had caused and that there was a need to address at least some part of this.

The idea of British duty to Indigenous people was extended through the practice and impact of colonisation. The British committee pointed out that the British as the colonisers were responsible for the negative impact of colonisation upon Indigenous people and therefore had an obligation to make reparation, even if it appeared hopeless and also a moral obligation to put an end to the immoral discourse that had occurred between the Indigenous and European populations (Great Britain 1837b:11-12). Despite the fact that the inquiry found that colonisation had a negative impact, there was no consideration to cease colonising and to this end the committee expressed the view that in future colonising endeavours on behalf of the British should ‘protect those who are too weak and too ignorant to defend themselves’ (Great Britain 1837b:76). Thus the committee still thought it was possible to undertake the action of colonising other lands and subjugating the Indigenous population whilst at the same time protecting them. It was also reported that the British had a duty to enforce the observance of the rights of the uncivilised due to their superior strength (Great Britain 1837b:3). The belief in the superiority of the British and the inferiority of Indigenous populations was held consistently throughout the period covered in this thesis. Given the particular strengths

203 of the British in their own eyes, and their ability to avoid their own culpability, the British felt obligated to take care of the Indigenous populations. It appears that the welfare of one group would always be at the expense of the other and that the welfare of the British (and that of the settler population) had to come first.

Duty to Britain

The British Inquiry found that the impact upon the Indigenous people in many of its colonies had been a burden upon the Empire and that it had resulted in great losses in terms of money, potential workforce and markets. This had damaged the British reputation, created wars and had impeded successful colonisation (Great Britain 1837b:75). However, colonisation was necessary for Britain in order to deal with its excess population and that there was a need to find a way to successfully colonise other countries and to do so in a just way (Great Britain 1837b:75-76). This was further evident when the committee discussed the idea of having colonists act in more friendly and just ways towards those they were colonising. This was not in the interest or in keeping with the rights of the Indigenous populations but rather in the interest of promoting the civil and commercial interests of Britain (Great Britain 1837b:75-76). The committee discussed the need to colonise and to export its surplus population as being in the nation’s interest (Great Britain 1837b:75-76). Overall it seems that the British concern here was not so much for the Indigenous populations of its colonies but to find a way to continue colonising without damage to its reputation and with the least financial obligation or loss to Empire.

Not one of the New South Wales Legislative Council inquiry reports makes any direct statements regarding duty to Britain. This is probably because there was no need to question the processes or consequences of colonisation, as it was assumed that it was the right of the British to colonise and the right of the settlers to occupy the country. The only question was how to deal with the remaining Indigenous population and even that was questionable given the limited time and effort put into the inquiries as well as the lack of detail in the reports, when they occurred. Therefore it would appear to be

204 reasonable to assume that the taking of Aboriginal land (hunting grounds) was part of the duty to Britain in providing land for its surplus population.

7.2.6 Object of Curiosity

Indigenous people were ‘objects of curiosity’ and were seen as being an interesting subject of inquiry. Whilst in the British Report there was no direct comment regarding the prospect of studying Indigenous people, there was a recommendation that as part of the duties of the Protectors within the colony of New South Wales, reports would be made that contained accurate statistical information (Great Britain 1837b:84). However, in the reports from the New South Wales Legislative Council inquiries there were a number of statements made about how valuable information regarding Aboriginal people would be. In the very first inquiry untaken in the colony of New South Wales and a year after the British inquiry, the committee declared that the focus of the inquiry was a subject of great interest to humanity (New South Wales Legislative Council 1838b:1-2). The next inquiry committee in 1845, exclaimed that there was a need for ‘intelligent Aborigines’ to provide evidence of their own circumstances and that this would be ‘a species of testimony’ that was highly desirable (New South Wales Legislative Council 1845).

Thus Aboriginal people were viewed as primarily objects of curiosity and for study, and as objects of subjugation and oppression by the colonisers. Furthermore, the impact of colonisation upon those who were colonised and viewed as being inferior beings who could not withstand the encroachment of civilisation was an interesting topic and would provide valuable information and no end of scientific discussion about the process of civilisation to the developed world.

7.3 Conclusion

The inquiries and their reports (or lack of reports) provide some insights into the views of the British Government and key individuals regarding Aboriginal people. The New

205 South Wales inquiries for the most part, did not produce formal reports and this appears to be the result of insufficient resources and information to undertake and complete the task. Hence it could be assumed that the colonial government did not take the matter of the conditions of Aboriginal people seriously and undertook an exercise in appearing to be doing something when actually doing nothing. One could question whether this situation arose from a complete lack of interest in the conditions of Aboriginal people or whether the colonial government did not want to initiate serious inquiries for fear of negative reports on what was occurring. When the inquiries made recommendations, these were heavily focused upon the role of protectors and also the need for civilisation, education and religious instruction. This could be explained by the fact that many of the people sitting on the inquiry committees were members of religious organisations. In addition, where witnesses were called, the majority were also members of religious organisations. These influenced the outcome of the reports and the recommendations that were made.

The reports from the inquiries also provided an insight into the way in which the British saw themselves and perceived Aboriginal people. The British saw themselves as individuals and were able to separate the actions of the morally deficient British (convicts, lower class and rogue elements) from the actions of those in charge (the governors, other military and religious leaders, elite, and free settlers). Whilst there was a number of acknowledgements that great injustices and acts of violence had been carried out against Aboriginal people, for the most part the responsibilities for those injustices and crimes were attributed to the acts of individuals operating outside of government rule and control. However, for the most part many acts of violence had been ordered by the colonial governors and carried out by the military. When acknowledging fault on the behalf of the government and its agents for the negative impact of colonisation, it was generally minimised by saying that it was an unintended consequence of necessary actions by the British. The British needed to colonise for economic and social reasons and they had a responsibility to bring Christianity and civilisation to the uncivilised. The British also needed to protect their citizens against attacks from the Indigenous populations. At all times Aboriginal people are seen as being

206 savages and lacking the capability to provide for themselves. Whilst there is some acknowledgement that Aboriginal people were unable to provide for themselves because of the actions of the British in taking land, and thus preventing Aboriginal people from hunting, British culpability was dismissed and the blame was placed back onto Aboriginal people. It was the Aboriginal people’s fault that they could not stop the British from taking their land and it was also Aboriginal people’s fault that they did not force the British to make provisions for them.

What the inquiries, the outcomes, reports and recommendations illuminated was the fact that the British were looking at themselves rather than at Aboriginal people. In reality the inquiries were considering the actions of the British in their colonising activities and considering how they would deal with the negative impact of those activities in order to protect their interests. The interests of the British were twofold; those of the British Government (both in Britain and also in the colonies) including economic interest and the reputation of Britain as a civilised and enlighten society; the second set of interests were those of religious organisations and their representatives. Their interests involved increasing their activities in christianising Indigenous people and also gaining resources in which to set up missions in order to carry out their christianising work on Indigenous peoples around the globe. The interests of Indigenous people were not a consideration in any of the deliberations of the inquiries. Indigenous people were objectified and were placed in subordinate positions to the British at all times. Whilst all Indigenous people were seen as less than the British, Aboriginal people of the colony of New South Wales were seen as the lowest of all people, even in comparison to other Indigenous peoples.

By using a Critical Indigenous lens in analysing the inquiry documents, I was able to shift the focus from Indigenous people to that of the British. I was also able to consider what was not said or recorded as well as what was actually happening. This approach allowed me to move from seeing Aboriginal people as the subject of the inquiries to how they were objectified and also how it was the British who were really the subjects of the inquiries. Aboriginal people were seen as victims of their own moral and physical decay rather than the actions of the British who were colonising their land. British colonisation

207 pauperised Aboriginal people, though the British did not take responsibility for this and claimed that Aboriginal people were already paupers due to their own lack of advancement. The status and conditions of Aboriginal people meant that the British had a duty (frequently identified as a burden) to care for Aboriginal people and to try to protect them from not only the worst of British society but also from themselves. In doing this the British set up a system to provide and protect Aboriginal people – a system of welfare through Protectorates and Missions and in doing so welfarised Aboriginal people in the process of colonising them.

In the next chapter I will bring together the findings discussed in Chapters Six and Seven with the literature and invoke an Indigenous critical analysis to provide a new way of understanding the relationship between the colonising British and the Indigenous peoples of the land and the way this might assist in understanding contemporary Australian Indigenous welfare.

208 Chapter Eight

Talking Back 8.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter will be to bring together the findings in this thesis to explore the use of welfare in the colonisation of Aboriginal people. This chapter argues that the process was an active one - that there was a purposeful and intentional welfarisation of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales. The manner in which colonisation of the land of New South Wales and the Indigenous population who were already here, was carried out, can be identified through the words and the actions of key members and agents of the British government, such as the governors, the Colonial Secretary and members of Parliamentary Inquiries. Two case studies, Maria and Bennelong are used to illuminate how Aboriginal people became welfarised by the actions of the British colonisers. The analysis of the documents examined in this study identified major themes within each of the two collections. Each of the governor’s instructions, which included the initial instructions when appointed as governor and the correspondence between the governors and the British Parliament, were analysed. Four themes were identified in the governors’ documents: (1) protection, (2) conciliation, (3) observing and (4) civilising. The second set of documents, the reports of the inquiries, contained the themes of (1) impact of colonisation, (2) protection, (3) civilising the natives and (4) ideologies and values. A detailed examination of these themes allowed an exploration of what the British were doing and what their intentions were, not based solely on their recorded actions but also on what they themselves wrote. However, a thematic analysis also allows for an examination of the consequences of these intentions and actions and reopens the initial research question of how welfare was used in the colonisation of Aboriginal people. This chapter will conclude with a consideration of how we (Aboriginal people) can become ‘de-welfarised’ through a decolonising reading of the documents and of the stories of Bennelong and Maria.

209 8.2 Back to the Beginning – Governing a Colony

At the heart of this study, is the examination of the governors’ orders and their correspondence with the British parliament together with the reports of government inquiries into the condition of the ‘natives’ in the colony of New South Wales between 1788 and 1859. I was able to analyse what the governors and the British Government of the day were saying in relation to Aboriginal people in the early period of colonisation. Most scholars have described the events during that period using ‘white’ perspectives rather than seeking to understand those events from Aboriginal peoples’ perspectives. The findings that have emerged from this study and have been reported in Chapters Six and Seven have not been articulated in previous research about Aboriginal people and the colonisation of Australia. These can be grouped into three overarching areas:

 Implementation of instructions: the governors’ instructions meant little in terms of implementation, as most governors did not implement fully or in some cases even partially implement, their instructions regarding Aboriginal people. In fact some acted in ways contrary to their instructions;  Symbolic inquiries: the government inquiries regarding the welfare of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales were largely symbolic;  Welfarisation of Aboriginal people: It is evident in the documents that welfarisation was a key part of the process of colonisation and subjugation of Aboriginal people. The British needed to control Aboriginal people in order to easily take over more and more of their land. The creation of dependency on the British for the necessities of life, as well as on things the British introduced like alcohol, ensured British control of Aboriginal peoples. By stealing Aboriginal land and destroying Aboriginal peoples’ ways of life, the British created dependency on British charity. The British in a perverse justification, then used this growing dependency as proof that Aboriginal people were physically and morally impoverished, justifying their welfarisation. Added to this the British lacked any understanding of Aboriginal people, their societies and cultures, and

210 misinterpreted Aboriginal peoples’ way of life to the extent that they saw Aboriginal people as being both physically and morally poor and in need of welfare and charity. Management through welfare soon led, not only to welfarisation but also to criminalisation of Aboriginal peoples, providing a further justification for the British to control and contain them over the colonial period and beyond.

Each of the above groupings, which contain the themes identified in Chapters Six and Seven, will be discussed in detail in the following sections. Furthermore, the case studies of Bennelong and Maria will be discussed in more detail as examples of how welfarisation of Aboriginal people was implemented.

8.3. Implementation of Instructions

It would be a mistake to think that the colonisation of Australia and of Aboriginal people was a well planned and executed process. Not only did the British not know anything about the physical, social, political and cultural environment to which they were going, but they had almost no plans regarding how they were going to set up the new colony or how they were going to colonise the people and country. The governors’ instructions were heavily influenced by the politics of the day, which included the influence of some powerful members of British society. These individuals belonged to various networks. Laidlow (2005:21-35) argues that there were three networks in Britain that had influence over the running of all of the British colonies:

 The Peninsular network: this network was formed around colonial governors, senior officials, military personnel, members of government, aristocracy and members of the royal court  The Humanitarian network: this network included groups involved in the anti-slavery movement and various religious groups  The scientific network: members of this network were scientists and those

211 supporting the scientific endeavour.

Whilst all the above networks played a role in the colonisation of Australia, the decision to colonise Australia and the instructions to Phillip on his arrival were based upon Captain Cook’s documentation when he claimed sovereignty of the southern land in 1770 in the name of the King of England. As is well known now, Cook did not follow and in fact disobeyed his orders. Cook claimed that the numbers of Aboriginal people were small, that the interior of the country was empty and that Aboriginal people did not have a system of governance (Frost 1981:518-519). It is generally thought that Cook claimed Australia under the legal concept of Terra Nullius. But Connor (2005) argues that Australia was not declared Terra Nullius and indeed my thorough search of the British and Australian colonial archives for documents declaring Terra Nullius failed to locate them. This though does not mean that Terra Nullius was not declared. I contend that Terra Nullius was ‘declared’ by action at least, when Cook claimed sovereignty in the name of the King, in his utterly dismissive description of the ‘native’ peoples and by the British Parliament sending Phillip to establish a penal colony.

Importantly records of debates and inquiries regarding the legal positioning of Aboriginal people revealed that they became British subjects at the time of Cook declaring sovereignty in a form that was not inflicted on any other Indigenous people. Whilst Britain claimed sovereignty over other lands and the Indigenous populations became British subjects, the British recognised the rights of the Indigenous populations as sovereign beings in all other colonies than New South Wales and signed treaties with the Indigenous owners. The 1837 British inquiry urged British colonisers to make treaties as a matter of urgency in all colonies where no treaty existed with the exception of the colony of New South Wales (Great Britain 1837:80-83). All this information can be treated as ‘the smoking gun’ so to speak, as evidence that Australia was viewed and treated as Terra Nullius. No other British colony was treated in this way. Adding insult to injury, the inquiry went on to state that whilst the invasion of Australian Aboriginal peoples’ land was unjust, justice would not be served by withdrawing from Britain’s sovereign claim over the land (Great Britain 1837: 82-83). In other words, the inquiry

212 argued that because Aboriginal people were so low in human development there was no point in recognising the rights of Australian Aboriginal people as sovereign peoples and hence no reason to enter into a treaty with them.

Phillip’s orders contain several instructions on how he was to deal with Aboriginal people. Whilst these were a small part of his instructions, they do provide some information on the positioning of Aboriginal people and the ideologies of the British in relation to Aboriginal people. They also reveal something of the view of Aboriginal people held by the British, giving some insight into how the British could have at one and the same time behaved as if the Great South Land was Terra Nullius while at the same time acknowledging there were people in the country to be dealt with and managed. Cook had painted a picture of such poverty of culture as well as lack of governance and organised livelihood that the belief was that Aboriginal people had no right to sovereignty over the land (Mundle 2013:262-263).

Firstly Phillip was told to secure the land and to protect those arriving with him from the ‘native’ population. Secondly, Phillip was instructed in how to interact with Aboriginal people. This interaction included ‘opening intercourse’, ‘conciliating affection’ and also punishing any of the British who ‘may harm them or interrupt them in the exercise of their occupation’ (Pembroke 2013:205-206). Phillip was also instructed to count the numbers of Aboriginal people and to develop a relationship with Aboriginal people to the advantage of the colony. These instructions highlight a number of things. Phillip’s primary concern was to be the securing of the land and the protection of the British. Importantly, the whole point of developing a relationship with the Aboriginal population was to be to the advantage of the British. Whilst these points seem straight forward, the instructions were also contradictory: Phillip was to prevent Aboriginal people from attacking or interrupting the British arrivals, but also Phillip was to protect the Aboriginal people and to punish any British people who harmed them. Phillip was also instructed to punish any British subject who unnecessarily interrupted Aboriginal people in the exercise of their several occupations.

213 This state of affairs did not improve over time as successive governors were appointed with no changes to each governor’s instructions over the first thirty-one years of the colony, despite there being six different governors and two administrators within that time. The early governors’ instructions were not directly about actions that could lead to welfarisation of Aboriginal people, nevertheless these early governors set about the welfarisation of Aboriginal people from the earliest days. But from Darling (1825) until Gipps was appointed in 1838, the governors were openly instructed to civilise, educate and Christianise Aboriginal people. Governors Gipps and Fitzroy had no mention of Aboriginal people in their instructions.

Whilst the governors were able to and indeed did report to and ask for advice from the colonial secretary about their dealings with Aboriginal people, the turnaround time for the letters leaving the colony, being received in Britain and a response being returned to the governors, made the whole exercise pointless in determining how to implement the orders or to deal with any problems that had arisen. All these early governors were left to interpret and implement their instructions, which were scant, themselves. The manner in which they did so was ad hoc and chaotic. It would have been confusing and almost impossible for Aboriginal people to understand what the British wanted and what they were doing apart from taking the land. Although there may have been a clash of cultures at various points and in specific contexts, what is evident from the documents of the time is that two groups of people—the colonisers and the colonised were trying to deal with the impacts of decisions made by people in a distant place who had no information or knowledge about the place over which they claimed ownership or of the people they sought to control.

As well as the instructions being written by those without experience or knowledge of the new colony and the Indigenous population, the manner in which the governors implemented their instructions were often contradictory and at times in opposition to the instructions. The person giving instructions, the Secretary of State, was not only far away and inexperienced regarding the realities of the new colony, it is also argued by Cell that each Secretary of State ‘…lacked the capacity to produce coherent colonial policies or

214 for continuous supervision’ (Clune and Turner 2009:6). Clune and Turner (2009:6) observed that the position of Secretary of State was not well regarded and that not many were in the position for a long enough period to understand the job. Further to this Laidlow (2005:44) believed that the government was disinterested in what was happening within the colonies, except in times of crisis. Laidlow (2005:61-62) explains that there was a contradiction within the role, in that whilst the governor was on one hand ‘an independent colonial autocrat’, on the other hand each was also a puppet of the mother country. Further it is important to recognise that all of the governors who were appointed from Britain were military men. As the colony was established as a penal colony, it was seen that having a military background was appropriate to the job (Clune and Turner 2009:4). The first governors were primarily appointed to establish and then oversee a penal colony. Laidlow (2005:41) argues that due to their military backgrounds they would have had a ‘predisposition to rigidity and autocracy’.

This predisposition to rigidity and autocracy would have influenced the way in which they understood their orders and the manner in which they implemented them. Various examples of this can be seen throughout the period examined in this thesis; from Phillip ordering the capture of Aboriginal men, Macquarie declaring Marshall Law against the Wiradjuri people in the Bathurst region to Darling ordering the dispersal of the natives by force. All of the governors (those who received instructions about Aboriginal people) were meant to treat Aboriginal people with kindness and to be conciliatory and to ensure that Aboriginal people were protected, but these instructions were overridden quickly by the demands to protect the British and to use force (and in some cases deadly force) to do so. Use of force to control and manage Aboriginal people and any disagreements that might occur between Aboriginal people and the colonisers became the norm and was seen as justified.

215 8.4 Symbolic Inquiries

Government inquiries are used to assist governments to investigate issues, find facts, provide recommendations and manage crises (Gilligan 2002:289-290). Borchardt (1991:1) claims that government inquiries are often used to ‘investigate types of social evil, natural or man-made disasters, and personal or corporate misdemeanour alleged or real;…’. Further to this Prasser (2006) argues that inquiries are often established when governments want to provide the appearance of dealing with a controversial issue. It could be argued that the British inquiry and the NSW inquiries fit Prasser’s description of a government establishing an inquiry in an attempt to be seen to be doing something. In fact Ashforth questions whether the role of inquiries is to find knowledge of a given situation or whether they are symbolic rituals that confirm and reinforce the power of the state (1990:11). As well Ainsworth and Hardy (2012) argue that inquiries should be seen as ceremonial events in which governments produce authoritative knowledge, which allows governments to act in a particular way in addressing social problems. In this case, the social problem was the existence of Aboriginal people. The inquiries studied in this thesis, produced knowledge regarding Aboriginal people, which in turn legitimised the power and position of the colonial government and the actions and impact of colonisation.

As discussed in Chapter Seven, there were a number of Parliamentary inquiries into the conditions of Aboriginal people. The British inquiry was the most extensive and looked at all the British settlements (or colonies). However, the section in the report on the Colony of NSW was very small in comparison to other sections looking at Indigenous populations in other colonies. The inclusion of Aboriginal people in the Colony of NSW appears to be more cursory than a serious examination of what was occurring at the time.

Although the inquiry found that Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales had rights due to their occupation of the country before British colonisation and that their rights had been denied it decided that no good would come from recognising these rights at that point in time. The focus of the recommendations of the British inquiry, in relation

216 to Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales, was heavily focused on the development of Protectorates, which would provide for the civilising of Aboriginal people through the introduction of Christianity and education (Elbourne 2003). As seen in Chapter Seven, this was probably directly as a result of the Chairman, Brixton’s interest in religion, education and poor relief as well as his influential role in the deliberations of the inquiry, which can be seen in its findings and recommendations.

In addition to furthering the interests of Brixton, the British inquiry can also be seen as a form of damage control for Britain. The British inquiry found that the spread of civilisation through colonisation had been hindered by the actions of the colonisers. However, whilst acknowledging that it was the colonisers at fault here, the inquiry distanced the British Government from the negative impact of colonisation by stating that the problem arose from the government’s inability to keep perpetrators in check and to punish crimes against Indigenous peoples due to the distance between Britain and the colonies. In stating this, the inquiry was ignoring the fact that the colonisers (in particular the governors) were representatives of the British Government who were acting on behalf of the government..

Whilst the British inquiry had some appearance of considering the conditions of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales, the inquiries of the Legislative Council of New South Wales did not even manage this. No proper report was produced by any of the inquiries and most of the inquiry committees did not even manage to perform the actual task of an inquiry. The first inquiry concluded saying it could not gain sufficient witnesses and recommended another inquiry, the next two inquiries did not report at all, with the final inquiry being focused on the Protectorate in Port Phillip rather than what was happening within the colony of New South Wales. The resources, including time and personnel for the New South Wales inquiries were extremely limited (ranging from 8 to 12 weeks and from a committee of between 3 and 9 men). There is no indication regarding what financial resources were made available to the committees to carry out the inquiries. Despite the fact that as Ashforth (1990:10) points out inquiries are expected to act speedily, the limited time allocated to the committees of the New

217 South Wales inquiries cannot be seen as reasonable given the important matters they were required to deliberate on. One conclusion is that the New South Wales Legislative Council Inquiries were symbolic in intent and in practice.

The inquiries can be seen as an exercise in being seen to be doing the right thing and in justifying the actions and consequences of the British Government and their agents. Inquiries are seen as producers of truth and once the report is published then the truth it has produced becomes permanent (Ashforth 1990:10). The inquires produced a particular knowledge about Aboriginal people, following on from Cook’s initial interpretation of what he saw, which focused upon their inability to deal with contact with more civilised people and their moral incapacity. The inquiries also found that whilst not much could be done to assist Aboriginal people due to their inability to be civilised, it was still the duty of the British to do everything that they could. The inquiries did not just produce knowledge about Aboriginal people, but also about the British colonisers. Although they acknowledged that the British had committed injustices against Aboriginal people, it was generally regarded as the fault of a few errant individuals rather than the acts carried out in the process of colonisation. Hence the inquiries for the most part were ceremonial exercises in that they appeared to be doing something whilst in reality they were either doing nothing or very little. When they did produce something, they produced their truths about Aboriginal people, justifying the actions of those doing the colonising and most importantly seeking to protect the reputation of the British. This truth about the uncivilised Aboriginal and enlightened British benefactor was set very early in the colony and has continued over time. Although challenged at various points, it has remained the dominant history of the land now called Australia.

8.5 Welfarisation of Aboriginal People

The British needed to place Aboriginal people within their hierarchal structured society. The British had already determined that Aboriginal people were inferior to themselves and even lower than the lowest classes of British society. As British society was based

218 on social and economic status, the British considered Aboriginal people to be poor on every level. The only way the British could conceive of lifting them out of poverty was by bringing civilization to Aboriginal people and this was implemented through Christian benevolence. The British saw the plight of their own poor as an individual circumstance, due to that individual being morally corrupt and in need of correction. The British transferred this view onto Aboriginal people as a whole. This view of Aboriginal people as poor and morally corrupt together with the purposeful organisation of methods of control of Aboriginal people and the destruction of Aboriginal people’s ability to be self-sufficient resulted in the British placing Aboriginal people in a relationship of dependency.

Prior to British colonisation, Aboriginal people had lived on and from the land very successfully. Upon arrival of the First Fleet the British started denying Aboriginal people their livelihood by taking their land. As more and more people arrived from Britain, there was less and less land available to Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people attempted to negotiate some areas where they could continue to hunt and access water but these were largely unsuccessful. Even when there was some success, it was in form of land which was set aside as a reserve, and these reserves were managed by either protectors or missionaries not by Aboriginal people. Protectors tried to control Aboriginal people by disrupting their traditional ways of life, providing rations to them, and pressing Aboriginal people into farming the land as the British did, thus destroying their traditional food collection processes and food sources. Aboriginal people quickly learnt that if they were to survive they must submit to the British, individually and as a whole. The manifestation of this submission was dependence upon the British; there was no other way of survival.

The British also saw Aboriginal peoples’ dependency as further evidence of their morally corrupt natures. As with the British poor, the British ruling class sought to correct this moral corruption. At first this correction was not organised into a formal system and was mostly carried out by individuals or small groups such as churches and other organisations. The correction became more formal under Governor Macquarie

219 with the development of relief and institutions for Aboriginal people such as the Annual Feast Day, rations and the Native Institute. As with the British poor the focus of the administration was on remedying the moral corruption of children and the British sought to remove children from their parents to save them. However, this did not save children from being poor, nor in the case of Aboriginal people from being Aboriginal. What it did was create a dependency upon welfare administration that was to last for centuries and into contemporary Australia.

Although the British colonial administration forced Aboriginal people into dependency there was a backlash of resentment towards Aboriginal people by some colonists for being dependent. Governors and Inquiries reported that the settlers resented Aboriginal people because of the money that was spent on them or for the provision of land for reserves and missions. This was seen as unfair or an injustice to settlers because settlers believed the land should be there for the taking (NSW 1849). There was no recognition that this was Aboriginal land; yet another indication that the British believed the land was Terra Nullius.

It is also evident that the British blamed this dependency on Aboriginal people. One of the New South Wales Inquiry’s reports stated that if Aboriginal people were not so weak and ignorant, they would have forced the government to make provisions for them, as other Indigenous populations had done (Milligan 1859:iv). In this manner the process of welfarisation perversely perpetuates ‘blaming the victim’ i.e. Aboriginal people are at fault for being in a state of need. This is counter to the history accounted in this thesis and by the works of other, such as Reynolds, Bennett, Broome and Frost, of oppression through colonisation. Those who invaded and took everything from Aboriginal people are responsible for Aboriginal people having no means of living other than by British provisions.

Although Christian benevolence was the rationale, the underlying motivation was exercise and maintenance of imperial power. The British needed to control Aboriginal people if settlement and colonisation were to survive and it was also necessary to protect

220 Britain’s reputation as an enlightened empire and society. Although the committee of the first New South Wales Inquiry thought that the welfare of Aboriginal people was of interest to humanity it indicated that it was more importantly vital to the welfare of the colony (NSW 1838). Providing charity to Aboriginal people was not really about improving the wellbeing of Aboriginal people, it was about the British looking to their own interests, controlling Aboriginal people and protecting their reputation and belief in themselves as superior and moral beings.

What occurred was not only the development of a welfare system for Aboriginal people but also, crucially the welfarisation of Aboriginal people. Welfarisation moves beyond just a state of being dependent on welfare to having that state become the person or group’s identity. Being Aboriginal quickly became synonymous with being in need of assistance from others. Welfarisation removes any form of agency from the individual or group and places that individual or group into a relationship of dependency on another.

The British relied very heavily upon its class structure and many who travelled to the colony were attempting to escape its restrictions. But the British were unable to consider any other way of being and they recreated that class structure within the colony. As outlined by Marx (Fine & Saad-Filho 2010:82-85) the class structure was fundamentally made up of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, those who own the means of production and those who provided the labour for production, with a third class being the reserve work force. When the British arrived in the colony it brought its own workforce with it and did not require the labour of Aboriginal people. Hence, Aboriginal people did not fit into any of the class layers that already existed. In fact Aboriginal people were seen as being far below even the lowest in the British class structure; they were seen as a different class altogether. There was some suggestion that Aboriginal people could mix with the lower classes within the colony, not because they were considered as being the same, but rather that the lower classes would lift Aboriginal people up from their degraded position. At the same time though, the worst of the British lower classes were seen as corrupting Aboriginal people. The outcome of this classism as it developed in the

221 colony was another level in the class system: a welfare class for Aboriginal people.

This new ‘welfare class’ was not just comprised of Aboriginal people because they were ‘poor’ and ‘immoral’, but also because they were considered incapable of being saved. This state of degradation was understood by the British as the consequence of lack of social and human development. Colonisation was about development and sometimes there were unavoidable negative consequences; in this case Aboriginal people experienced the unavoidable negative consequences and were seen then and some would argue now, in 21st century parlance, as ‘collateral damage’ for the advancement of welfare capitalism (Bauman 2011:15-17).

The general belief of the British was that nothing could be done for the betterment of Aboriginal people (adults in particular), due to their own nature; it was still the duty of the British as enlightened people however to do something. So that doing something was to focus on the children because they were seen as being more malleable than the adults. Also part of that something was to develop a social structure that included Aboriginal people. However, the position of Aboriginal people within the British social structure in the colony, excluded them from any real engagement except as the ‘other’. Most crucially it impoverished Aboriginal people and forced them into a state of dependency that was impossible to escape. As argued earlier, these structures and systems further entrapped Aboriginal people into being reliant upon those very structures and systems. Aboriginal welfare was not about the wellbeing of Aboriginal people. It was about the maintenance of the superiority and control of the British coloniser and the subjugation of the Aboriginal people. The systems and structures that existed to supposedly address the wellbeing of Aboriginal people became part of the definition of who Aboriginal people were in relation to the British. Dependency is an aspect of the coloniser – colonised relationships and becomes part of what is known about the colonised (Said 1989: 206-208, Memmi 1965, Alfred 2009:52). Aboriginal people became locked into a relationship of dependency upon the British and the British formalised this relationship through the welfarising of Aboriginal people, both in terms of physical provision and in developing a social category of dependency.

222

Attending to Aboriginal welfare was something that the British people did. It gave the British another avenue of Christian benevolence, another way to enact their Enlightenment and to prove their superiority in human development. Welfarisation creates control and embeds methods and systems of management and control over the person/s who are welfarised. To be welfarised is to become an object on which others focus attention; it is to have things done for you and to you whilst allowing you to say nothing back. If the welfarised resist then they fall outside of the system and their lives are put at risk. However, welfarisation is not just about those who are welfarised, it is also about those who belong to the groups who are doing the welfarising such as politicians, bureaucrats and professionals. It provides jobs and vocations, it increases those doing the welfarising’s reputation and self-worth because they come to see themselves as benevolent and it also allows those in positions of power to deny any responsibility for their actions in creating the conditions in which a person is welfarised. In the case of the Colony of New South, it was not just individual people who were welfarised but an entire people and it was not limited to those generations alive during the period examined in this thesis. The perpetuation of Aboriginal people as subject to welfare categorisation and identity is intergenerational and has continued since White colonisation.

8.6 The Maintenance of Welfarisation in the 21st Century

As just argued, welfarisation is a tool of colonisation, but is also an entity in itself and something to be challenged and broken free from. The process of decolonisation for Aboriginal people is made more complex because they must de-welfarise as part of that process. Alfred (2009:50) argues that the relationship between Indigenous people and the state, socially and economically, is perpetuated by historical and current colonisation. For Aboriginal people this means that they are locked into an intergenerational relationship of dependency with the state and one way that dependency manifests itself is through welfare provision. Alfred (2009:49) also argues that the success and survival of Indigenous people who are being colonised becomes more and more dependent upon the

223 state and the decisions of the state, and Indigenous people have no control over these structural arrangements. What has been created is what is termed by Rittel and Webber (1973) ‘a wicked problem’ in that the problem does not appear to have a solution and that often the solution and the problem are one and the same.

Overcoming this structural colonial dependency relationship can appear to be insurmountable. To break free from dependency one requires resources. Aboriginal people are dependent upon the state for those resources. It appears to be a vicious cycle and impossible to become independent from the state because the very thing needed to be independent has to be gained from the state. Further to this to gain independence in terms of state provision would require decolonisation from the state. This is made more complicated in contemporary Australia because the original colonising state, Britain, granted independence to the nation of Australia, with a new constitution deliberately without recognition of the first peoples, in 1900 (Galligan 1995:25-29). So with whom do Aboriginal people deal in the process of decolonising; the original colonisers - the British Government - or those to whom the British granted power to rule, the elected Australian Government of the day. The passage of time between the original landing of the British in the land now called Australia and the present time (226 years) adds further complication. How does one begin to address the wrongs that occurred such a long time ago and can one even do so? This would appear to be a wicked problem, a problem seemingly without a solution, but without a solution the problem remains and continues entrenched. The commencement and cause of Aboriginal peoples’ dependency on welfare was colonisation. Colonisation is the cause of welfarisation whilst at the same time welfarisation is a tool in colonisation. Welfarisation is both the cause and the effect of colonisation for Aboriginal people. Welfarisation cannot be addressed without addressing colonisation.

So, how does one de-welfarise and still survive, given that to survive Aboriginal people have had to be and continue to be dependent upon welfare.

8.7 A Step Towards De-Welfarisation

224

Coming back to the stories of Bennelong and Maria, it is impossible to decolonise and de-welfarise these two individuals, due to the passage of time. However, I propose to decolonise their stories by developing a new understanding of what occurred to each of them. Memmi (1965:86) asserts that the coloniser aims to turn the colonised into an object that exists only to further the needs of the colonisers. This is further argued by Freire (1970:42) who states that the oppressed (in this case the colonised) are made into things that have no purpose except for that prescribed by their oppressor (the coloniser). In the cases of Bennelong’s and Maria’s stories, what was told by the colonisers was to justify their actions. Therefore, the stories of Bennelong and Maria have become tools of colonisation. Retelling these stories in the words of Aboriginal people and as understood and seen by Aboriginal people is an action of decolonising. Bhabha (1996:88) argues that we need to rethink the stories of colonisation and that we need to understand the process of subjectification. Bennelong and Maria were subjectified; they were positioned as objects in the colonising story. The process of subjectification was their categorisation as the morally corrupt and improvised other in need of British Christian benevolence.

8.7.1 Bennelong

As discussed in Chapters Four and Five the relationship between Bennelong and Phillip has been presented as a great friendship. The story of Bennelong as an individual (outside of his friendship with Phillip) has not been presented so positively. Whilst Bennelong plays a dual role in the story of colonisation, always remaining the savage, at once he is the good savage who is amenable to the efforts of Christian civilisation whilst at the same time a bad, violent and unredeemable savage. On one hand Bennelong is described as being intelligent and good natured (Egan 1999:169), whilst also being described as sullen and defiant (Egan 1999:142). However, despite any positive descriptions of Bennelong, he remains the savage. Combe complained that whilst in England, Bennelong was introduced to the highest echelons within British society and was able to act with the ‘utmost propriety’, but that once he had returned to the colony,

225 he regressed again to become a ‘naked savage’ and showed no signs of improvement from having mixed with ‘civilised man’ (Anderson 2007:132). Phillip on the other hand does not have a dual role in the story – he was always the good benefactor, the one who introduced Bennelong to the possibilities of civilisation and provided him with many opportunities. It was claimed that Phillip acted in a fatherly manner towards Bennelong and even that Bennelong ended up calling Phillip ‘beanga’ meaning father and that Phillip called Bennelong ‘doorow’ meaning son (Egan 1999:169).

It is impossible to confirm or dispute these claims at this point in history, but it is possible to question why Bennelong might have done as he did. However, if it is assumed that Bennelong called Phillip father and that Phillip called Bennelong son, the nature of the relationship can be questioned. A father and son type relationship is not a relationship between equals, but between one who has been a benefactor and one who is dependent. It is also a relationship where one is dominant and one is subservient. Lerner (1986:89) argues that within ancient patriarchal societies, the father has the power of life or death over his children and indeed control over every aspect of their lives. It is reasonable to propose that the relationship between Phillip and Bennelong was not a friendship but a relationship that was unequal and where Bennelong was reliant upon Phillip’s acts of benevolence, for his survival within the colony. Phillip was placed and indeed placed himself in a position of superiority to Bennelong. Mannoni (1956:18) claims that the colonial situation is developed when the white man thinks of himself as superior due to his position. As governor, Phillip was in a position of superiority to everyone in the colony, the military, settlers, convicts and Aboriginal people. However, Phillip also thought of himself as superior to Aboriginal people, in that he saw himself as being civilised and Aboriginal people uncivilised; he saw his role as showing this uncivilised being how to be a civilised human and this was illustrated by the way he treated Bennelong, firstly capturing him and then seeking to educate him. Freire (1970:55) argues that by educating the oppressed into the dominant system the oppressed can more easily be dominated. Furthermore, when the state (in this case the colonial government) provides this education in a paternalistic manner, the subject becomes categorised and identified as a welfare recipient (Freire 1970:55). Bennelong became dependent upon

226 the colonial government and at the same time became categorised as a welfare recipient. This is despite the fact that Bennelong had little choice in the matter and that he was forced violently into this relationship with the coloniser. Through this dependency and categorisation Bennelong was welfarised and his life story is one of welfarisation.

8.7.2 Maria

Whilst Maria’s story does not have the same prominence as Bennelong’s story, hers is seen as proving that it is possible to civilise Aboriginal people, but only if they are removed when young enough from the influences of Aboriginal people and communities. Maria is the success story of Macquarie’s aim to civilise through education and the Christianising of Aboriginal children who would then assimilate into the colonial society. Despite the so called success of Maria’s education and wefarising she is all but invisible within the history of the land now called Australia. Maria’s story is never told in conjunction with Bennelong, despite the fact that she was married (though for a brief time) to Bennelong’s son Dickey shortly before his death. It is not possible to know whether Maria and Bennelong ever crossed paths, as Dickey was also taken into the Native Institute and Bennelong died the year before Maria was placed in the Native Institute. And in fact whilst Maria’s story is buried in Australian history, Dickey’s story is completely neglected. However, there is enough known about Maria, to consider her story and in what ways it can be decolonised.

In comparison to Bennelong, Maria is an example of success of colonisation, whereas Bennelong is an example of colonisation failing. However, much more is recorded about Bennelong than Maria. As stated above the colonised are turned into objects that are of use to the coloniser. The coloniser continuously seeks to prove the incapacity of Aboriginal people, therefore Bennelong’s story presents the coloniser with the evidence needed to justify their actions – that Aboriginal people were incapable of being civilised and were in need of care by the British. Maria’s story on the other hand suggested that Aboriginal people were more than capable of learning and even overtaking the colonisers.

227

Further to this Maria’s second marriage was to a white man, a convict, John Locke, who was assigned to her. Maria eventually ended up owning a considerable amount of land over three different land grants and locations. This ownership of land was not easily come by. It started with Governor Macquarie promising her a grant of land upon her marriage; the grant was not honoured for quite sometime. Maria, after many years was successful in gaining the promised grant, but it involved a struggle with her so-called good friend and employer, the Rev. Cartwright. After Maria and her husband selected a piece of land, she was caught up in a struggle with Cartwright for some years as he tried to prevent her ownership of the land and to claim it for himself. Eventually the land was given to Maria. It is not recorded why Cartwright opposed Maria having the land, except that it was adjacent to his own land and that he wanted to increase his own property. Why he did not do this before Maria’s claim is unknown. It could be speculated that maybe Cartwright did not want to see an Aboriginal woman and a convict man, despite claims of a friendship between them all, owning land or maybe being neighbours. It could be as simple as the fact that he did not want to lose good employees and wanted to keep them in a position where they had to be of service to him.

After gaining the land grant adjacent to Cartwright’s property, Maria was also successful in claiming her brother’s grant following his death, but again not without difficulties. By the time of her death Maria was in ownership of a third piece of land. Whilst Maria could be seen as being successful and independent, at all times she was dependent upon the good will and benevolence of others. Furthermore, and importantly, the grants were placed in the name of her husband. At this point Maria’s race and gender intersected. As a female in a capitalist patriarchal society, Maria had to be economically dependent upon a male, either her father or her husband (Lerner 1986:217-219). In Maria’s case this dependency was upon her husband and before him her employer Cartwright and before that the managers of the Native Institute and the governor who was responsible for the colony at the time. Maria’s dependency moved from the state to her husband. At one point Maria had power over her husband, in that he was a convict assigned to her. However, this power would have only been symbolic and ceased once he had completed

228 his sentence and was given his ticket of leave. The power that Maria’s husband was given over her is illustrated by the fact that the land grants were placed in her husband’s name. For Maria the only way out of dependency upon the government was to shift to dependency upon her husband. As a female she would always be dependent upon a male, her husband or the head of state – the governor. Non-Aboriginal females in the colony also were dependent on a male benefactor, but as Maria’s father was Aboriginal, he himself was dependent upon the colonial state, which meant that Maria would have been as well. Given Maria’s father’s position of subservience, it leads to the question about how much free will he had in placing his daughter into the Native Institute.

Maria’s story illustrates that Aboriginal people, no matter how successful, were never considered to be the equal of the British and were tolerated as long as they remained in a subservient position to their colonisers. Furthermore, as a female, Maria was in a position of subservience to the male head, whether that was her husband or the state. In addition to the intersection of race and gender in Maria’s story, the other interesting factor is that it is all but invisible. Maria’s story does not show the incapacity of Aboriginal people to deal with the so called more civilised men who invaded her land. In fact Maria’s story shows the opposite. It is difficult to say whether Maria’s Aboriginality or her female gender makes her story invisible. However, what can be glimpsed is that once again as with Bennelong’s story the colonising men in Maria’s story consider themselves to be superior to Maria and Maria is only an object in the story for the benefit of the coloniser. As Maria’s story does not serve the purposes of the coloniser, her story is all but forgotten.

8.8 Maintaining Colonisation and Welfarisation

Aboriginal people need to reclaim and retell the stories of Bennelong and Maria in order to decolonise them. Decolonising these stories does not change the story or the events, but changes the way in which they are understood. It also interrogates the ways in which they have been used. What I, as an Aboriginal woman in 21st century Australia see is two individuals who were facing an extremely difficult set of circumstances beyond their

229 control. They did what they could to survive the colonial encroachment upon their lands and their being. They each did this in different ways due to the nature of their individual circumstances. Both were captives of the colonisers, Bennelong taken as an adult and Maria as a child. Bennelong was taken quite early in the colonial process, in 1789 and before the creation of institutions for Aboriginal people. Maria was taken in 1814, some 25 years later. Both were taken for educational purposes: Bennelong to learn English and to teach Governor Phillip how to communicate with Aboriginal people; Maria to learn how to be civilised, through Christianity, reading and writing. Bennelong was proof of the inability of Aboriginal people to be civilised, whilst Maria was proof that there was hope for the civilisation of Aboriginal people through their children. However, neither ever managed to move beyond the colonial relationship of subservience to their dominant masters. What is known is that Bennelong never moved out of the classification of being a savage. It is not known whether Maria moved from being classified as a savage to being civilised. However, if she did her classification was dependent upon her relationship to her white husband. Furthermore, Maria had to continuously ask for assistance from the governor to gain the land she was granted. As a woman Maria’s dependency was entrenched. In the patriarchal colonial society, it was never possible for an Aboriginal man to move out of his dependent relationship with the coloniser. Whilst this is equally true for Aboriginal women, there was a difference in the manner in which this played out, in that Aboriginal women could move their relationship from the state to a male. However, that male could not be Aboriginal, but had to be a part of the colonising group. Aboriginal women were also locked into this relationship of dependency upon the coloniser.

British colonisation was devastating for Aboriginal people. The death rate was incredibly high due to the combination of introduced diseases, starvation and being killed by the British (Turbet 2011). As pointed out by Evans (2004:107) the numbers who died during the early years of colonisation are difficult to estimate but it is thought that at the time of British arrival in 1788 the population was over 1 million but decreased to around sixty thousand by 1888. It cannot be claimed that Aboriginal people did not resist either the invasion or stealing of their lands or the dependency that was forced upon them. The

230 invasion and stealing of Aboriginal land by the British was a violent affair as can be seen by the works of scholars such as Reynolds (2006), Broome (2002) Evans (2004) Kociumbas (2004) and Karskens (2009). There is nothing to suggest that Aboriginal people had ever experienced anything like the devastation that the British were to wreak to upon them, and thus had no way of preparing for its arrival. Aboriginal people who did survive the onslaught of disease, starvation and murder, would have had to try to find ways to accommodate the range of colonising practices of the British. The stories of Bennelong and Maria are examples of the ways in which two different individuals at different times during the early colonial period did so.

However, the impact of colonisation is not just something that happened during those early colonial years or just to Aboriginal people. Colonisation has affected the descendants of the original colonisers and those who arrived in the colony since the 1850s. Kreig (2009:30) explains that colonisation was not a moment, but is an ongoing experience and is evident by the ‘…the ongoing colonising practices of social marginalization, incarceration and racism in all its forms…’

For Aboriginal people the impact and the trauma of colonisation is a real and lived experience. This trauma of colonisation for Aboriginal people has been ‘individual, family and community…over multiple generations (Clarke, Harnett, Atkinson & Shochet 1999:6) Krieg (2009:30) terms this collective trauma. Menzies and McNamara (2008) discuss how when people have not had the direct experience of a traumatic event, they can still experience the legacies of that event. Atkins (2002:92) argues what she terms as post-colonial trauma, which results in ‘illness, dependency and dysfunction’. However, the term post-colonial is misleading, as ‘post’ suggests that it is after the fact, that something is in the past, has finished, whereas the colonisation of the lands now called Australia is not a process that has been completed or something that finished at a certain point of time. Whilst Aboriginal people today have not directly experienced the original invasion and the atrocities that occurred during the early colonial period, the descendants of the Aboriginal people from that time live with the results and legacies of those events today, including on-going dispossession and dependency upon the state.

231

In relation to the ongoing colonisation that occurs for non-Indigenous Australians, Riggs and Augoustino (2005:467-168) declare that in claiming a location as Australian subjects, they are required to be invested in the denial of Indigenous sovereignty. This denial of Indigenous sovereignty commenced with Cook in 1770 and is ongoing. Furthermore, it also requires non-Indigenous Australians to maintain an unequal power relationship that is both a part of colonisation and a result of colonisation (Riggs& Augoustinos 2005:468). This power relationship is maintained through the creation of dependency (Memmi 1967:88-89) and also through a denial of the actions and responsibility for the past. Cohen (2001:133-134) suggests there are a number of ways to deny the past, which include: denial about the role of government or government figures; transforming the events from what they were into something more benign; questioning the impact of the event and the event in time – to something that happened long ago; and claiming the new generation is not responsible for the past. It is suggested by Connor (see Chapter Four for more detail) that people should not let the past effect the present and if we could all just get along then it would all be fine. In addition Connor (2005:329-330) always sees the problems as being Aboriginal problems rather than problems that arise from colonisation.

The colonisation and the impact of the original colonisation continues and continues to shape and reinforce the relationship between Aboriginal people and other Australians. The relationship still places Aboriginal people in a position of powerlessness and dependency. However, non-Aboriginal Australians struggle with this relationship as well. In order to deal with the issue of their position, non-Aboriginal Australians seek to deny the truth about colonisation, the collective experiences of Aboriginal people and continue to objectify Aboriginal people. This objectification includes Aboriginal people as being problems and Aboriginal people’s social positioning as welfare dependent being due to Aboriginal people’s inability to assimilate into the wider society.

Governments continue to focus upon fixing the problems of Aboriginal people, undertaking inquiries into the problems of Aboriginal people and then developing

232 policies and programs to remediate Aboriginal people. Thus policies and programs continue the welfarisation of Aboriginal people. Cronin (2007:189) argues that governments have used Aboriginal people’s welfare dependency and the associated structures and frameworks as a way to maintain Aboriginal people in a subordinate position within Australian society. Whilst other Australians receive welfare payments and there are some who are welfare dependent, writers such Hughes (2007:69) argue there is a difference because Aboriginal people living in the ‘homelands’ do not make significant contributions to public funds through taxes and rates like other mainstream Australians do. Hughes is not just saying that Aboriginal people are welfare dependent, she is also arguing that Aboriginal people do not make a contribution to the Australian economy. Further to this Hughes is singling out a particular group of Aboriginal people, those who are living as close as possible to a traditional lifestyle. Whilst she has not articulated her thoughts on Aboriginal people outside of the ‘homelands’, one can assume that she is not speaking about them at all, as her comparison group, the ones who contribute to the economy are ‘mainstream’ Australians. Thus as with Bennelong and Maria, Bennelong is openly spoken about and remembered due to his dependency on the British, whereas Maria who achieved what the British would have considered success in terms of being civilised, has all but disappeared from the pages of Australia history. In both the cases of Bennelong and Maria and in the case of Aboriginal people today, it is the Aboriginal people who have assimilated (i.e. civilised) who are made invisible whereas the ‘Aborigine’ who is welfare dependent is the problematic Aborigine who continues to be used as evidence of the problem and of the need for correction and control. In addition Aboriginal people’s worth is only in terms of what they bring to the country (colony) rather than the rights of Aboriginal people to live on their own lands and to continue their cultural practices.

Noel Pearson (2000a) as an Aboriginal man gave legitimacy to the current wave of views on Aboriginal welfare dependency and the linkage of welfare dependency to social and cultural dysfunction. The government was able to use this legitimacy to undertake steps that no one could have foreseen, and pushing Aboriginal people further back into the welfarisation of the early colonial period. In June 2007 the then Federal Government,

233 under the leadership of the Prime Minister John Howard and the Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mal Brough declared an emergency in many of the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory (NT) due to child abuse and announced that they would be introducing legislation (NTER) to address this emergency (Stringer 2007). The legislation placed restrictions on 73 NT Aboriginal communities, placed government business managers into the communities, provided people with what was called a basic card instead of money, banned access to and consumption of alcohol and pornography, and made access to welfare conditional upon Aboriginal people meeting certain conditions and behaviours as well as focusing on child health and welfare (Norris 2010:143). Many of the policies and practices that underpinned the NTER were no different from, and in fact used almost the same terms as the colonial policies and practices under the early colonial government, in that Aboriginal people were given rations, banned from alcohol usage, had to behave in a certain manner with and again the focus on children.

There are moves to include all Aboriginal people who receive welfare payments in these policies and practices. Forrest (2014), (a prominent mining magnate) was commissioned by the current Australian Government to provide a report on ending the disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Forrest’s report focuses upon the problems that are created by the behaviours of Aboriginal people, including dependency on welfare. He includes most aspects of the NTER, in particular control of welfare, as strategies within his report. Further to this he has developed a model that starts with the call to end welfare dependency but requiring all able-body people to work (Forrest 2014:15). Dick Smith (2014), another prominent businessman writes that we should implement Forrest’s report and that Aboriginal people are locked into a cultural time wrap that is killing them, that people must move out of communities to get jobs and whilst acknowledging that this is assimilation, he believes that it is assimilation that makes Australia a great country and therefore it is good for Aboriginal people.

These contemporary arguments and reports continue to problematize Aboriginal people. They continue to claim that the way to address Aboriginal poverty (pauperism) is

234 through behaviour change (moral correction). There continues to be a heavy focus upon saving Aboriginal children from the immorality of their parents. So, the colonial welfare system, its practices and the ideologies, did not end in the mid 1850s. It continues today. Aboriginal people are still in a colonial relationship with the state, a relationship of forced and enforced dependency, which the state and descendants of the early colonisers deeply resented. Despite the fact that more than two hundred years have past since the landing of the First Fleet, there is no recognition or acknowledgement that Aboriginal peoples’ dependency was created purposefully by the colonial administration and that ownership and control over Aboriginal peoples’ land and even their lives is still in the hands of others. Aboriginal people continue to be seen as the problem and are punished for being a problem. Being poor is still seen as being a moral deficiency on behalf of the individual who is poor (Mendes 2008:55-56). However, poverty is racialised as it was in the early colony, in that it is seen as part of the Aboriginal problem. Aboriginal people are poor because they choose to be due to their moral deficiencies that must be corrected. To overcome this problem Aboriginal people must assimilate (in other words must become civilised) into the dominant culture, the culture of the colonisers.

8.9 Conclusion This discussion chapter has drawn together the analysed literature, the findings, and my attempt via critical Indigenous methodology to understand the nature of the relationship between Aboriginal people and the British colonial administration in the first fifty years or so of the colony of New South Wales. In particular I have used a new lens, a critical Indigenous historical approach to interrogate the documents of the time in relation to the introduction of welfare into Aboriginal lives and culture. This investigation was triggered by the claims of 21st Century commentators like Noel Pearson and John Howard that Aboriginal welfare dependency has only occurred since the late 20th Century and is Aboriginal peoples’ fault.

It can be argued that the British administration, both in the colony and in Britain, showed concern regarding the welfare of Aboriginal people and that the inquiries are evidence of this. However, on close reading of the Inquiries’ reports, it can be seen that the end

235 results of these inquiries, in particular the British Inquiry report, were primarily made up of justifications for the direct acts and effects of colonisation. Whilst regretting some of the worst results of the act of colonisation, it was argued that it was a necessary action. The New South Wales Inquiries can best be understood as ‘being seen to be doing something’; at worst they show the sheer indifference of the government in the colony of New South Wales to the disastrous impact colonisation had and was having on Aboriginal people. The governors’ words and actions also show that they had no understanding of and no capacity to comprehend Aboriginal people or their social structures. But more importantly they had no real interest in understanding; their focus was on managing and controlling the Aboriginal population so that it would not be a threat to the colonists. In a breathtaking rationalisation the British held Aboriginal people responsible for being unable to fend off the British invasion and then for its aftermath. The British acted in contradictory ways and although they had little insight into these contradictions some writers in the colony at the time indicated they knew perfectly well that the British were deliberately destroying Aboriginal peoples’ communities and cultures and creating dependency. The most important things were the advancement of the Empire, protection of British colonists and the protection of the reputation of Britain. No real concern was given to the plight of Aboriginal people because their interests were always secondary to the concerns of the British. The British used welfare as a tool of colonisation, creating dependency after Aboriginal people had been stripped of their lands, after tens of thousands had died and after Aboriginal people had no means to live on lands near and around the expanding colony. Welfarisation was embedded as a means of management and control and for their very survival Aboriginal people became dependent upon the British.

By welfarising Aboriginal people the British had complete control not only over Aboriginal people, not only over the land, but also over the telling of the history of what occurred. As outlined earlier in this chapter, what is known about the colonised is developed and controlled by the colonisers for their own purposes. The colonisers through records and inquiries developed specific knowledge about the colonised population – Aboriginal people. The inquiries produced knowledge that became truth

236 upon which the government could justify their plans and actions. These ‘truths’ have continued through the centuries since the early colony to form what is known about Aboriginal people and the British colonisers – what is now called the history of Australian Settlement. Furthering Bhabha’s (1996) idea that we need to understand the process of subjectification, we also need to understand how the colonisers asserted their ways of knowing and how this formed the basis of colonial power, both in the past and in what continues today (Riggs & Augoustinos 2005:462).

Welfarisation and colonisation are inextricably intertwined in Australia for Aboriginal people and the path out of one requires a path out of the other. Moving beyond this study’s new insight into what happened between Aboriginal people and the British in the early colony and why it happened, to finding a way to decolonise and to de-welfarise is required. This thesis has reconstructed an understanding of the governors and their actions towards Aboriginal people. It has interrupted the beliefs and views of the colonial relationships that are commonly argued, of great friendships between individuals and unintended impacts of colonisation. This thesis has shifted the ground from the accepted stories of a colonial administration trying to treat Aboriginal people kindly or of a clash of cultures to one where the governors act purposefully in ways to subjugate Aboriginal people in the interest of colonisation and the Empire.

The thesis’ most original contribution is the illumination of the way in which the Australian welfare system was developed and how a particular style of welfare was established for Aboriginal people. Aboriginal welfare was developed from the earliest days of the colony as a way of managing and controlling Aboriginal people, of forcing them into submission and of creating a racialised under-class. This system was underpinned by the ideologies and values of patriarchal capitalism and colonialism as well as the British Poor Laws. The system and the actions in developing and implementing it were justified, in formal documentation, as for the good of Aboriginal people. However, as became evident in the analysis of the archival documents examined in this study, it was never about Aboriginal people but rather about ensuring the interests of the British in claiming the land and in protecting their reputations as civilised

237 enlightened men. Aboriginal people were just collateral damage in the colonising endeavour. This thesis highlights the importance of using a critical Indigenous methodology in re-interpreting the colonisation and of the welfarisation of Aboriginal people. An essential element of using a critical Indigenous methodology is for the reader to have an insight into how the researcher (their own story) influences the research question posed and the lens through which the material has been analysed. Further to this it is not just the researcher who brings new understandings to the topic that was researched, but these new understandings (as well as the process of doing the research) have also resulted in growth and change for the researcher.

238 Chapter Nine

Conclusion: A New Beginning

9.1 From the Past to the Present

When starting this thesis I had two burning questions. They were: In what ways was welfare used by the British in the process of colonisation of Aboriginal people in the colony of New South Wales and how does one do Indigenous Research and what makes a methodology Indigenous? I knew what I wanted to find out but I was uncertain about how I would go about finding the answers to my questions in a way that was Indigenous. For me it was important that as a Wiradjuri woman, I use an Indigenous methodology, but as discussed in Chapter Two I experienced difficulties in finding writings about Indigenous methodologies that fitted with what I was doing; an analysis of historical documents. Thus I had to develop my own methodology drawing upon the principles of critical and Indigenous research methodologies. As outlined in Chapter Two, Indigenous research ultimately should be decolonising and that fitted perfectly with my position as an Aboriginal woman in 21st century Australia.

My journey took many twists and turns and there were a number of significant life events along the way. People came and went in my life. I married and went from being a single mother of three teens to a grandmother as well as a stepmother. I changed jobs, got involved in various projects, some completed, some ongoing. I got sick, had treatment and recovered, got sick again with surgeries at various points and recovered again. I learnt lessons about not always trying to being the person who is responsible for everyone and everything, even thought that goes against my very nature. Most importantly (and quite lately) I learnt to say no. There have often been times when I wondered if I was ever going to be able to complete this thesis. However, as I write this, I am finishing. This makes me think back to the little girl, who thought she was dumb and no good at anything, because that is what the adults around her told her.

239

Who is that little girl? Well she was the one who saw a lot and just tried to not draw attention to herself. She lived in a world where she had no control over anything, not even over her own being. She existed in a world where people came and went and often never came back again. The world were children could disappear or even die, so best to just sit and wait, but wait for what? That she did not know, but it was best not to ask either. She tried to make herself smaller and smaller so she would not be seen. However, it never quite worked. Then something happened, and the little girl was no longer little and she had to stand up for the children she had been blessed with and for the ones who had not survived. That little girl never left, she just grew into a woman.

She found a place where they wanted to hear her voice and they encouraged her to question. She found that maybe she was not dumb after all. But those voices from when she was little returned; one was her own voice, but some were adults from when she was small. Those voices told her that those others had just let her think that she was smart, she did not really deserve the marks she got, they were just letting her through and that in the end she would still be nothing. However, bit by bit she pushed ahead and telling herself she could until eventually she believed it.

Along the way she would meet many amazing people, share with others the best and the worst of life experiences. She was honored to be there with people as they gave their children life and just as honored to share with people as they said their final goodbyes to their children. She travelled to many places throughout the world and she even had a president make her coffee. She found her father again and along with that who she was as a Wiradjuri woman. She had always known that she was Aboriginal; that knowledge had never been denied her. Her treatment as a child was based on the fact she was Aboriginal, the removals, the placements in institutions, the being told she was no good. She went from being on welfare to having a university degree and a job; she was no longer that hopeless welfare dependent blugger on society. Who was she now? She struggled with that question for quite sometime and it caused quite a bit of pain. The pain came from the question: was she now assimilated and had she lost the part that made her

240 Aboriginal. Her own internalised colonisation made her think that her Aboriginality was about being a member of the underclass, being unwanted and unlovable and that she was never going to amount to much.

The next steps for her were to decolonise her mind and her heart. Meeting many other Wiradjuri people who were successful and still a part of their culture, was the first step. Learning the history of Aboriginal people’s resistance and fighting for their rights as humans and as the true sovereign people of their lands. Finding spaces where it is OK to be Aboriginal and to be bright. Learning to brush off the voices from the past, that sometimes came from new people, but who still said the same things. Learning that she could do something, achieve something and change just one part of the future. Most importantly she learnt that to be Aboriginal, was to be strong, to be successful and to be proud. As that girl grown to a woman, I am on that journey towards decolonising myself. My journey is part of the decolonisation of my family, my community and my country. It might have taken 50 years but here I am today and I am honored to have been able to share this journey with each and every one of you, who reads this thesis, those who have walked beside me at different times, who do so now and those who will walk with me in future.

9.2 The Present

The story above could have just as easily been part of Maria’s story. Most of Maria’s story is not known and probably never will be. However, there are many parrallels between Maria’s story and my own that are known. Taking or forcing children into care and placing them in institutions based on the assumption that their families are not good enough to look after them, because they are Aboriginal, has been central to British and then white Australia’s belief, policy and practice since the first years of the colony. Both Maria and I were successful in our education albeit Maria as a child and myself as an adult. We both had to fight to provide for ourselves and our families. We have both been dependent upon ‘the system’ for our and our families’ livelihoods, whilst at the same time we can both be seen as successful examples of assimilation. However, whilst I do

241 not know what Maria thought of it all, I do not want to be a successful story for assimilation. I have not and will never stop being Aboriginal and all that it entails. I look to my foremothers such as Maria and see them as examples of women who lived through the hardest of times, but survived and ensured the survival of their families and they are the women I strive to be like. My quest has moved beyond surviving the arrivals of ‘white’ people to my survival as an Aboriginal person and that requires me to be able to decolonise myself. Understanding how and why this colonisation and welfarisation occurred, is proving to be a key for me in my quest.

Further to this it is important that we (Aboriginal Australians) find a new way to decolonise the stories of Aboriginal people like Maria and Bennelong. We need to move the stories beyond that of their relationship to the coloniser. Both Maria and Bennelong were much more than their stories suggest. Maria was intelligent; she learnt not only a foreign language but also learned the colonisiers’ ways extremely well. Maria was able to operate across cultures and was able to communicate and negotiate with those who sought to oppress her and frequently she won. Maria should be the story of the strength and character of Australian woman. Bennelong’s story is much better known than Maria’s and is one of greater complexity in the processes of colonisation, if that is possible. Bennelong is objectified to the point that he is reduced to an unintelligent savage, who is unable to resist the call of the uncivilised being. However, Bennelong was clever enough to learn how to communicate quickly with the British, to copy their customs and ways, and to work out ways of dealing with them. Bennelong was a great diplomat who was able to negotiate and work with the British elite. When Bennelong was no longer useful to the British, he was discarded and held up as an object of ridicule. There are many parts of Bennelong’s story that are remarkable and as such his story has been passed down throughout generations. Bennelong was someone who faced diversity and found ways to not only overcome the diversity but also to use it to his advantage. However, Bennelong’s story should also serve as a warning to be careful, in that when we Indigenous people cease to be useful, those who seek to control us can not only easily discard us, but also reposition us as uncivilised beings.

242 Noel Pearson, whose work and words were quoted at the beginning of this thesis, and were a large part of the reason why I wanted to research this area, was courted by Australian Government ministers for many years, but, like Bennelong is now being discarded by those who sought a relationship with him and who deemed him to be an Aboriginal leader. As I finish writing this thesis, a story has appeared regarding Pearson in which an old friend and supporter, who says he now regrets his silence about Pearson’s ‘dark’ side and who gives an account of Pearson being self-indulgent and a bully (Sheehan 2014). This story is not the first of its kind; another story resurfaced on social media from one commentator which questions Pearson’s position as eloquent, highly articulate and intelligent. The article by Cadzow (2012) is entitled Cape Crusader (Cape in relation to his geographical location in Cape York in Northern Queensland). It draws upon personal accounts summing up Pearson as a significant statesman for his people, but that when you scratch the surface you see another Pearson who is a foul mouthed bully. Pearson and Bennelong’s stories are growing in similarity and demonstrate that colonisation (or the current-day assimilation) is not the answer to Aboriginal people’s survival and that we must find a different path, a path to decolonisation.

9.3 From the Present to the Future

The journey has not ended and there are many steps ahead. What this thesis has revealed is that one of the strategies in the colonisation of Aboriginal people, was to welfarise them. As outlined in the latter part of Chapter Eight, Aboriginal people are still welfarised. Government policies and practices continue to welfarise Aboriginal people in the 21st century. To decolonise we Indigenous Australians must de-welfarise. It is a vicious cycle: our welfarisation is in our dependency upon the Australian Government and it is this dependency that keeps us welfarised. However, we cannot stop being dependent using the punitive measures that have and continue to be proposed, regardless of who is proposing them, whether its white Government ministers or Aboriginal people such as Noel Pearson. What is shown in this thesis is that in principle the current policies and practices are the same policies and practices that welfarised Aboriginal people

243 during the early colonial period. These policies and practices use the same welfare policies as were used by the early governors of the colony of New South Wales: to control and change Aboriginal people; to vindicate the colonisers’ destruction of Aboriginal peoples’ societies and lives; to blame Aboriginal people for the dependency forced upon them by the British and by subsequent Australian governments since; and to force them to assimilate into white society. Thus it is time to find a way to de-welfarise. However there is still much to learn and do as we Aboriginal people work our way towards de-welfarisation and decolonisation.

Using critical Indigenous research methodology and methods, this thesis has demonstrated that even the colonising British, in their documents, inquiries and reports during the first 50 years of the colony, acknowledged that Aboriginal people had been done a severe injustice in the taking of their lands without recognition of sovereignty and the destruction of their societies. But this thesis only touched on the parallels between the use of welfare and the solutions to the ‘Aboriginal problem’ during early colonial times and today. There needs to be a much deeper analysis done to provide the evidence that the solutions currently being promoted are not new and continue to place Aboriginal people in positions of welfare dependency and subordination. New solutions that are developed in conjunction with Aboriginal communities and in recognition of the impact of the past upon individuals and communities are needed. These solutions must be sustainable and not ad hoc or dependent upon the will of the Government at the time. Aboriginal people must be recognised as the sovereign people of the Australian nation and as such with the rights and entitlements that come with this. These findings suggest the further questions:

What are the parallels between the use of welfare during early colonisation and today?

What are the ways and means Aboriginal communities can use to develop and lead processes of de-welfarisation that are sustainable?

244 245 Reference List

ABC (1999) Race wars written out of Australian history. 7.30 Report. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s28233.htm Transcript 07/06/1999

Ainsworth, S. & Hardy, C. (2012) Subjects of Inquiry: Statistics, Stories, and the Production of Knowledge. Organization Studies 33(12) 1693-1714

Alfred, G. T. (2009) Colonialism and State Dependency. Journal de las santé autochtone. Nov. pp 42-60

Anderson, K. (2007) Race and the Crisis of Humanism. Routledge, Oxon.

Arbon, V. (2008) Knowing from Where? in Gunstone, A. (ed) History, Politics & Knowledge. Essays in Australian Indigenous Studies. Australian Scholarly Publishing Pty Ltd, Victoria. Pp 134-146

Archer, T. (1985) The Pauper, The Thief and The Convict. Garland Publishing, Inc. USA

Armitage, A. (1995) Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. UBC Press, British Columbia.

Armitage, D. (2000) Protestantism and empire: Hakluyt, Purchas and property in The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Cambridge University Press, UK. Chapter 3.

Ashcroft, B. (2001) Post-colonial Transformation. Routledge, London.

Ashforth, A. (1990) Reckoning Schemes of Legitimation: On Commissions of Inquiry as Power/Knowledge Forms. Journal of Historical Sociology Vol. 3, No. 1 March. pp1-23

Atkinson, J. (2002) Trauma Trails, Recreating Song Lines: The Transgenerational Effects of Trauma on Indigenous Australian. Spinifex Press, Victoria.

Atkinson, P. & Coffey, A. (2011) Analysing Documentary Research in Silverman, D. Qualitative Research. Sage, London. 3rd edition.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2011) Guides for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies. AIATSI, Canberra. 2nd edition.

Barton, G. B (1889). History of New South Wales from the records. Charles Potter, Government Printers, Sydney. Vol. 1.

246 Batiste, M. and J.Y. Henderson, (2000) Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage, A Global Challenge. Purich Publishing Ltd, Saskatoon.

Bauman, Z. (2011) Collateral Damage. Polity Press, U.K.

Beilharz, P., Considine, M. & Watts, R. (1992) Arguing about the Welfare State. The Australian Experience. Allen & Unwin, North Sydney.

Bell, J. H. (1952) Official Policies Towards the Aborigines of New South Wales in Mankind Vol. 5, No. 8 pp 345-355

Bell, K. N. & Morrell, W. P. (eds) (1928) Selected Documents on British Colonial Policy 1830-1860. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Bennett, S. (1985a) The History of Australian Discovery and Colonisation. The Currawong Press, NSW. Volume1

Bennett, S. (1985b) The History of Australian Discovery and Colonisation. The Currawong Press, NSW. Volume 2

Berreen, R. (1994) And thereby to Discountenance to Mendicit’. Practices of charity in early nineteenth century Australia in Wearing, M. & Berreen, R. (eds) Welfare & Social Policy in Australia. The distribution of advantage. Harcourt Brace, Marrickville, New South Wales.

Bessarab, D. & Ng’andu, B. (2010) Yarning About Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research. International Jouranl of Critical Indigenous Studies 3(1) pp 37-55.

Bhabha, H. K. (1996) The Other Question: Difference, Discrimination, and the Discourse of Colonialism in Baker, Jr., H. A., Diawara, M. & Lindeborg, R. H. (eds) Black British Cultural Studies. A Reader. The Unviersity of Chicago Press, USA.

Birch, T. (2007) ‘The invisible fire’ Indigenous sovereignty, history and responsibility in Moreton-Robinson, A. (ed) Sovereign Sbujects. Indigenous Sovereignty Matters. Allen & Unwin, NSW. Chapter 7.

Birch, T. (2013) The Trouble with History in Clark, A. & Ashton, P. (eds) Australian History now. NewSouth Publishing. NSW. Chapter 14.

Bird Rose, D. (1992) Dingo Makes Us Human. Life and land in an Aboriginal Australian culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blainey, G. (1975) Triumph of the nomads: a history of ancient Australia. The Macmillian Company of Australia. South Melbourne.

247 Bladen, F. M. (1893a) Historical Records of New South Wales. Cook 1762-1780. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 1, Part 1.

Bladen, F. M. (1892) Historical Records of New South Wales. Phillip 1783-1792. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 1, Part 2.

Bladen, F. M. (1901) Historical Records of New South Wales. Grose and Patterson 1793-1795. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 2.

Bladen, F. M. (1893b) Historical Records of New South Wales. Hunter 1796-1799. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 3.

Bladen, F. M. (1896) Historical Records of New South Wales. Hunter and King 1800-1802. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 4.

Bladen, F. M. (1897a) Historical Records of New South Wales. King 1803-1805. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 5.

Bladen, F. M. (1898) Historical Records of New South Wales. King and Bligh 1806-1808. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 6.

Bladen, F. M. (1897b) Historical Records of New South Wales. Bligh and Macquarie 1809-1811. Charles Potter, Government Printer, Sydney. Vol 7.

Bottomore, T. B. & Rubel, M. (eds) (1961) Society Relations, and Economic Structure in Karl Marx. Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. Penguin Books, England. Part 1, Chapter 3.

Borchardt, D. H. (1991) Commissions of Inquiry in Australia. A brief survey. La Trobe University Press, Victoria.

Boucher, L. (2013) New Cultural History and Australia’s Colonial Past in Clark, A. & Ashton, P. (eds) Australian History now. NewSouth Publishing. NSW. Chapter 17.

Bourke, C. & Cox, H. (1994) Two Laws: One Land in Bourke, C., Bourke, E. & Edwards, B. (eds) Aboriginal Australia: An Introductory Reader in Aboriginal Studies. University of Queensland Press, Australia. Chapter 4.

Bourke, C. & Edwards, B. (1994) Family and Kin in Bourke, C., Bourke, E. & Edwards, B. (eds) Aboriginal Australia: An Introductory Reader in Aboriginal Studies. University of Queensland Press, Australia. Chapter 6.

Breen, S. (2008) Defending the National Honour: The history crusaders and Australia’s past in Gunstone, A. (ed) History, Politics and Knowledge: Essays in

248 Australian Indigenous Studies. Australian Scholarly Publishing Pty Ltd, North Melbourne. Pp 168-190

Brewer, A. (1990) Marxist theories of imperialism. A critical survey. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Brodgen, M. & Nijhar, P. (2000) Crime, Abuse and the Elderly. Willan Publishing, UK.

Brook, J. & Kohn, J. L. (1991) The Parramatta Native Institution and the Black Town: A History. New South Wales University Press, NSW

Broom, L. & Lancaster Jones, F. (1973) The Repatriation of the Aborigines in A Blanket a Year. Aborigines in Australian Society. Australian National University Press, Canberra. Chapter 1.

Broome, R. (2002) Black Responses to White Dominance 1788-2001 (3rd ed). Allen & Unwin.

Broome, R. (2002) The Gamaraigal Confront the British in Aboriginal Australians. Black Responses to White Dominance 1788-2001 (3rd ed). Allen & Unwin. Chapter 2

Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 3rd edition.

Bryson, L. (1992) Welfare & The State. Who Benefits? The Macmillian Press Ltd, London.

Buchan, B. (2005) The empire of political thought: civilization, savagery and perceptions of Indigenous government in History of the Human Science. Vol 18 No 2 pp 1-22

Buchan, B. & Heath, M. (2006) Savagery and Cilivization: From Terra Nullius to the ‘Tide of History’ in Ethnicities 2006; 6; 5 pp 5-26

Bultin, N. (1994) Forming a Colonial Economy. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

Cadzow, J. (2012) Cap crusader in Sydney Morning Herald, August 25. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cape-crusader-20120820-24h57.html viewed 21/08/2014.

Cannella, G. S. & Manuelito, K. D. (2008) Feminisms From Unthought Locations: Indigenous Worldviews, Marginalized Feminisms, and Revisioning an Anticolonial

249 Social Science in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc, California. Chapter 2

Cassidy, J. (1989) A reappraisal of aboriginal policy in colonial Australia: Imperial and colonial instruments and legislation recognising the special rights and status of the Australian aboriginals. The Journal of Legal History, 10:3, 365-379.

Castles, F. (2001) A farewell to the Australian welfare’ in Eureka Street, Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp 29-31.

Carey, H. M. & Roberts, D. (2002) Smallpox and the Baiame Waganna of Wellington Valley, New South Wales 1829-1840: The Earliest Nativist Movements in Aboriginal Australia in Ethnohistory Vol. 49, No. 4 Fall 2002.

Cesaire, A. (1994) Discourse on Colonialism in Williams, P. & Chrisman, L. (eds) Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial theory. A Reader. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire.

Checkland, S. G. & Checkland, E.O. A. (1974) The Poor Law Report of 1834. Penguin Books Ltd, England.

Chilisa, B. (2012) Indigenous Research Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc., USA.

Clarke, C., Harnett, P., Atkinson, J. & Shochet, I. (1999) Enhancing Resilience in Indigenous People: The Integration of Individual, Family and Community Interventions. Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal. Vol. 23, No. 4, July/August pp 6-10.

Clendinnen, Inga. The History Question: Who Owns the Past? Quarterly Essay, No. 23, 2006: 1-72.

Clinton, R. N. (1989). Proclamation of 1763: Colonial Prelude to Two Centuries of Federal-State Conflict over the Management of Indian Affairs, The. BUL Rev., 69, 329. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/bulr69&div=15&id= &page= accessed 11/11/2014

Clune, D & Turner, K. (eds) (2009) Introduction in The Governors of New South Wales 1788-2010. The Federation Press, NSW.

Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial. Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Polity Press, UK.

Collins, D. (1798) An account of the English colony in New South Wales: with remarks on the dispositions, customs, manners, &c. of the native inhabitants of that

250 country. To which are added, some particulars of New Zealand. http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/ozlit/pdf/colacc1.pdf viewed 29/07/2014.

Collingwood, R. G. The Historical Imagination. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Commonwealth of Australia (2014) A New System for Better Employment and Social Outcomes. Interim Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform to the Minister for Social Services.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1914) Historical Records of Australia. 1788-1796. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 1.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928a) Historical Records of Australia. Jan, 1809-June 1813. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 7.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928b) Historical Records of Australia. July 1813-Dec 1815. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 8.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928c) Historical Records of Australia. Jan, 1816-Dec 1818. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 9.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928d) Historical Records of Australia. Jan, 1819-Dec 1822. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 10.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928e) Historical Records of Australia. Jan, 1823-Nov 1825. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 11.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928f) Historical Records of Australia. June 1825-Dec 1826. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 12.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928g) Historical Records of Australia. Jan, 1827-Feb 1828. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 13.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928h) Historical Records of Australia. Mar, 1828-May 1829. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 14.

251 Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928i) Historical Records of Australia. June, 1829-Dec 1830. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 15.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928j) Historical Records of Australia. 1831-1832. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 16.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928k) Historical Records of Australia. 1833-June 1835. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 17.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928l) Historical Records of Australia. July 1835-June 1837. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 18.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928m) Historical Records of Australia. July 1837-Jan 1839. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 19.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928n) Historical Records of Australia. Feb 1839-Sept 1840. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 20.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928o) Historical Records of Australia. Oct 1840-Mar 1842. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 21.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928p) Historical Records of Australia. Apr 1842-June 1843. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 22.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928q) Historical Records of Australia. July 1843-Sept 1844. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 23.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928r) Historical Records of Australia. Oct 1844-Mar 1846. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 24.

Commonwealth of Australia, F. (1928s) Historical Records of Australia. Apr 1846-Sept 1847. The Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Series 1. Vol. 25

252 Conley, M. (1982) The ‘Undeserving’ Poor: Welfare and Labour Policy in Kennedy, R. (ed) Australian Welfare History. Critical Essays. The Macmillian Company of Australia Pty Ltd. South Melbourne. Chapter 11

Connell, R. W. & Irving, T. H. (1980) Class Structure in Australian History. Documents, Narrative and Argument. Longman Cheshire Pty Limited. Melbourne.

Connor, J. (2002) The Australian Frontier Wars 1788-1838. UNSW Press, Sydney.

Connor, M (2005) The Invention of Terra Nullius. Historical and Legal Fictions on the Foundation of Australia. Macleay Press, Sydney.

Cronin, D. (2007) ‘Welfare Dependency and mutual obligation in Moreton-Robinson, A. (ed) Sovereign Subjects. Indigenous Sovereignty Matters. Allen & Unwin, NSW. Chapter 12.

Crowley, F. K. (1955) The Foundation Years, 1788-1821 in Greenwood, G. (ed) Australia. A Social and Political History. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Australia. Chapter One.

Cunningham, P. (1828) Two Years in New South Wales, London 3rd Edition.

Currey, C. H. (1916) Social, Economic, and Political Grievances in Australia. British Colonial Policy 1783-1915. Oxford University Press, London. Chapter IV

Davis Del Piccolo, G. L. (1992) The Colonial Relationship: The African and European in the United States Today. http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guide/Soc34/Soc34readings/colonial%20Relat ionship.pdf viewed 03/06/2007

Denzin N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) (2008) Introduction. The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research in The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, USA.

Dickey, B. (1987) No Charity There. A Short History of Social Welfare in Australia. Allen & Unwin Australia

Digney, A. (1982) The Poor Law in Nineteenth-Century England and Wales. The Chameleon Press Limited, London.

Duke, F. (1976) Pauper Education in Fraser, D. (ed) The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century The Macmillian Press Ltd, London. Chapter Three.

253 Dunbar Jr. C (2008) Critical Race Theory and Indigenous Methodologies in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc., California. Chapter 5

Eckermann, A., Dowd, T., Chong, E., Nixon, L., Gray, R. & Johnson, S. (2006) Binan Goonj. Bridging Cultures in Aboriginal Health. Elsevier Australia, Chatswood. Second edition.

Edwards, B. (1994) Living the Dreaming in Bourke, C., Bourke, E. & Edwards, B. (eds) Aboriginal Australia: An Introductory Reader in Aboriginal Studies. University of Queensland Press, Australia. Chapter 5.

Egerton, H. E. (1897) Colonial Policy after the loss of the American Provinces – Australia and Cape Colony – The Slave Trade and Slavery in A Short History of British Colonial Policy 1606-1909 Methuen & Co. Ltd. London. Chapter X

Egerton, H. E. (1903) The origin & growth of the English colonies: and of their system of government. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Egan, J. (1999) Buried Alive. Sydney 1788-92. Eyewitness accounts of the making of a nation. Allen & Unwin, NSW.

Elbourne, E. (2003) The Sin of the Settler: The 1835-1836 Select Committee on Aborigines and Debates Over Virtue and Conquest in the Early Nineteenth-Century British White Settler Empire. Journal of Colonialism and Colony History 4:31

Elkin, A. P. (1947) Native Peoples in Grattan, C. H. (ed) Australia. University of California Press, USA.

Emerson, R. (1962) Colonial Policy and National Movements in From Empire to Nation. The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Chapter 4.

Engles, B. (2006) Old Problem, New Label: Reconstructing the Problem of Welfare Dependency in Australian Social Policy Discourse. Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Social Policy, No 41, September. pp 5-14

Evans, R. (2004) “PIGMENTIA” Racial Fears and White Australia in Moses, D. (ed) Genocide and Settler Society. Frontier Vilence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. Berghahn Books, USA. Chapter 4.

Evans, E. J. (1978) Social policy 1830-1914 Individualism, collectivism and the origins of the Welfare State. Department of History. University of Lancaster.

254 Evans, J., Grimshaw, P., Phillips, D. & Swain, S. (2003) Imperial expansion and its critics in Equal subjects, unequal rights. Indigenous Peoples in British Settler Colonies, 1830-1910. Manchester University Press, UK. Chapter 1

Fanon, F. (1967) Black Face, White Mask. Grove Press, New York.

Fanon, F. (1967) The wretched of the earth. Penguin Books, Suffolk.

Fieldhouse, D. K. (1981) Colonialism 1870-1945. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Fieldhouse, D. K. (1969) British Colonial Policy in Abbott, G. J. & Nairn, N. B. (eds) Economic Growth of Australia 1788-1821. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. Chapter One.

Finlayson, J. & Anderson, I. (2002) The Aboriginal Self in Beilharz, P. & Hogan, T. (eds) Social Self, Global Culture. An Introduction to Sociological Ideas (2nd ed) Oxford University Press, Victoria.

Fine, B. & Saad-Filho, A. (2010) Marx’s ‘Capital’. Pluto Press, London. 5th edition

Fine, M., Tuck, E. & Zeller-Berkman, S. (2008) Do You Believe in Geneva? Methods and Ethics at the Global-Local Nexus in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc., California. 8

Finer, S. E. (1970) The Main Forms of Modern Government in Comparative Government. Allan Lane, London. Part One.

Fisher, S. An accumulation of Misery? in Kennedy, R. (1982) Australian Welfare History. Critical Essays. The Macmillian Company of Australian Pty Ltd, South Melbourne. Australia.

Fenna, A. (2004) Australian public policy. Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, New South Wales.

Foley, D. (2008) An Indigenous Standpoint Theory in Gunstone, A. (ed) History, Politics & Knowledge. Essays in Australian Indigenous Studies. Australian Scholarly Publishing Pty Ltd, Victoria. pp 113-133

Ford, L. (2010) Settler Sovereignty. Jurisdiction and Indigenous People in America and Australia. 1788-1836. Harvard University Press, USA.

Forrest, A. (2014). The Forrest Review. Creating Parity. Commonwealth of Australia. ACT.

255 Flannery, T. (1999) The Explorers. Epic First-Hand Accounts of Exploration in Australia. Phoenix Press, London.

Fletcher, B. (1976) Colonial Australia before 1850. Thomas Nelson (Australian) Limited, West Melbourne.

Fraser, D. (ed) (1976) The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century. The Macmillian Press Ltd, London. Introduction.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Books, England.

Frost, A. (1981) New South Wales as terra nullius: The British Denial of Aboriginal Land Rights in Historical Studies, 19:77 pp 513-523

Frost, A. (1987) Arthur Phillip 1738-1814. His Voyaging. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Fry, H. K. (1936) The Problem of the Aborigines. Australian Policy in Retrospect and Prospect in Australian Rhodes Review No. 2. pp 33-42

Gale, G. F. & Brookman, A. (1973) Change and Conflict in Race Relations in Australia. The Aborigines. McGraw-Hill Book Company Australia Pty Ltd, National Library of Australia. Part II

Galligan, B. (1995) Federal Republic. Australia’s Constitutional System of Government. Cambridge University Press, Hong Kong.

Garton, S. (1994) Rights and Duties. Arguing charity and welfare 1880-1920 in Wearing, M. & Berreen, R. (eds) Welfare & Social Policy in Australia. The distribution of advantage. Harcourt Brace, Marrickville, New South Wales

Garton, S. (1990) Out of Luck. Poor Australians and Social Welfare. Allen & Unwin Australian Pty Ltd.

Gilbert, S. (2012) Women and Constructing Re-membering: Identity Formation in the Stolen Generations. Thesis – University of Newcastle

Gilligan, G. Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 35(3) pp 289-290

Godden, J. (1982) The Work for Them, and the Glory for Us!’ Sydney Women’s Philanthropy, 1880-1910 in Kennedy, R.(ed) Australian Welfare History. Critical Essays. The Macmillian Company of Australia Pty Ltd. South Melbourne.

Goodall, H. (1995) New South Wales in McGrath, A. (ed) Contested Ground. Australian Aborigines under the British Crown. Allen & Unwin, NSW. Chapter 2

256

Grande, S. (2008) Red Pedagogy: The Un-Methodology in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc, California. Chapter 12

Gratton, C. H. (1947) Australia. University of California Press, USA.

Great Britain (1837a) Report of the Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements). C. Struik (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town. Vol. 1. Part 1

Great Britain (1837b) Report of the Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements). C. Struik (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town. Vol. 1 Part 2

Grieves, V. (2003) Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History: A View from the Other Side in Contested Histories Forum No. 85, Nov. pp194-199

Grenville, K. (2005) The Secret River. The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne.

Grenville, K. (2006) Searching for The Secret River. The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne.

Grenville, K. (2007) The Question of History: Response. Quarterly Essay, No. 25, pp 66-72.

Grenville, K. (2008) The Lieutenant. The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne.

Griffiths, T. (1996) Hunters and Collectors. The Antiquarian Imagination in Australia. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Haebich, A. (2005) The Battlefields of Aboriginal History in Lyons, M. & Russell, P. (eds) Australia’s History. Themes and Debates. UNSW Press, NSW.

Harris, A. (1964) Settlers and Convicts or Recollections of Sixteen Years’ Labour in the Australian Backwoods. Melbourne University Press.

Harlow, V. & Madden, F.. (1953) British Colonial Developments 1774-1834. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Hart, M. (2010) Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an Indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1) pp 1-16

Hartwell, R. M. (1955) The Pastoral Ascendancy 1820-50 in Greenwood, G. (ed) Australia. A Social and Political History. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Australia. Chapter Two.

257 Hartwell, R. M. (1969) The British Background in Abbott, G. J. & Nairn, N. B. (eds) Economic Growth of Australia 1788-1821. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. Chapter Two.

Havemann, P. (ed) (1999) Indigenous Rights in the Political Jurisprudence of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Parallel Chronologies in Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada, & New Zealand. Oxford University Press, New Zealand. Chronology Three pp 22-64.

Healy, C. (2008) Forgetting Aborigines. UNSW Press, Sydney.

Henderson, G. (2004) The trouble with Keith Windschuttle. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/news/Gerard-Henderson/The-trouble-with-Keith-Winds chuttle/2004/12/06/1102182220823.html viewed 05/02/2014

Herman Traore, I. (2013) in Indigenous Researcher’s Thoughts: An experience from Research with Communities in Burkina Faso Using Participatory Methods in Mertens, D. M., Cram, F. & Chilisa, B. (eds) Indigenous Pathways into Social Research. Voices of a New Generation. Left Coast Press Inc., USA. Chapter 10

Herring, S., Spangaro, J., Lauw, M. & MnNamara, L. (2012) The Intersection of Trauma, Racism, and Cultural Competence in Effective Work with Aboriginal peoples: Waiting for Trust. Australian Social Work 66:1 pp 104-117

Hiatt, L. R. (1984) Aboriginal Political Life. Paper presented at the Wenthworth Lecture. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/lbry/dig/wenthworth/m0036843_a.rtf viewed: 01/09/2008

Hill, D. (2008) 1788. The Brutal Truth of the First Fleet. The biggest single overseas migration the world had ever seen. William Heinemann. Australia.

Hirst, J. (2008) Freedom on the Fatal Shore. Australia’s First Colony. Black In. Melbourne.

Hobbes, T. (1951) The English Works of Thomas Hobbes. Sir Willaim Molesworth, London. http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ft itle=585&layout=html#chapter_89842| viewed 07/02/2014

Hogg, R. (2001) Penality and modes of regulating indigenous peoples in Australia in Punishment and Society Vol. 3 (3) pp 355-379

Hollinsworth, D. (1998) The Construction of Australian Racism:1770-1920s in Race and Racism in Australia (2nd Ed). Social Science Press, NSW.

Hornung, F. (2013) Indigenous Research with a Cultural Context in Mertens, D. M.,

258 Cram, F. & Chilisa, B. (eds) Indigenous Pathways into Social Research. Voices of a New Generation. Left Coast Press Inc., USA. Chapter 5

Hoskins, I. (2009) Sydney Harbour. A history. University of New South Wales Press, NSW.

Howard, J. (2007) A New Reconciliation. The Sydney Papers. Spring 2007 pp 105-110.

Hughes, H. (2007) Lands of Shame. Centre for Independent Studies, St Leonards, NSW.

Hughes, R. (2003) The Fatal Shore. A History of the Transportation of Convicts to Australia, 1787-1868. Vintage, London.

Inglis, K. S. (1974) Natural Enemies in The Australian Colonists. An exploration of social history 1788-1890. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. Chapter 10.

Inglis, K. (1984) The child of no one in Living Mistakes. Mothers who consented to adoption. George Allen and Unwin Australia Pty Ltd, North Sydney, New South Wales. Chapter 1.

Inglis, K. S. (1974) The Australian Colonists. An exploration of social history 1788-1870. Melbourne University Press, Victoria.

Jamrozik, A. (2005) Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State. Australian society in the 21st Century. (2nd ed) Pearsons Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, New South Wales.

Jaramillo, N. & McLaren, (2008) Rethinking Critical Pedagogy: Socialismo Nepantla and the Specter of Che in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc, California. 10.

Jones. M. A. (1990) The Australian Welfare State. Origins, Control & Choices. Allen & Unwin, Sydney. p 9.

Kapper, C. J. (1904) Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II. Government Printing Office. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Kappler/Vol2/Toc.htm viewed 02/03/2014

Karskens, G. (2009) The Colony. A History of Early Sydney. Allen & Unwin, NSW.

259 Keal, P (2003) European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Moral Backwardness of International Society. Cambridge Press, UK.

Keneally, T. (2009) Australians. Origins to Eureka. Allen & Unwin, NSW.

Kennedy, R.(ed) 1982 Charity and Ideology in Colonial Victoria in Australian Welfare History. Critical Essays. The Macmillian Company of Australia Pty Ltd. South Melbourne.

Kewley, T. H. (1969) Australia’s Welfare State. The Macmillian Company of Australia Pty Ltd, South Melbourne p1

King, R. (1986) Terra Australis: Terra Nullius aut Terra Aboriginum? In Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 72 (2) 75-91.

King, S. Poverty and Welfare in England, 1700-1850. A regional perspective. Manchester University Press, UK.

Kittrell, E. R. (1970) The Development of the Theory of Colonisation in English Classical Political Economy in Shaw, A. G. L. (ed) Great Britain and the Colonies 1815-1865. Methuen & Co Ltd, London. Chapter 2.

Kociumbas, J. (2004) Genocide and Modernity in Colonial Australia in Moses, D. (ed) Genocide and Settler Society. Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. Berghahn Books, USA. Chapter 4.

Kociumbas, J. (1992) The Oxford History of Australia. Possession 1770-1860, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Australia.

Koditschek, T. (2011) Liberalism, Imperialism, and the Historical Imagination: Nineteenth-Century Visions of a Greater Britain. Cambridge University Press, USA.

Kositsiw, M. (2013) Prospects and Challenges of Becoming an Indigenous Researcher in Mertens, D. M., Cram, F. & Chilisa, B. (eds) Indigenous Pathways into Social Research. Voices of a New Generation. Left Coast Press Inc., USA. Chapter 16.

Krieg, A. (2009) The Experience of Collelctive Trauma in Australian Indigenous Communities. Australas Psychiarty 17:S28 pp 28-32.

Laidlaw, Z. (2005) Colonial connections, 1815-45. Patronage, the information revolution and colonial government. Manchester University Press, UK.

Lane, B & Maher, S. (2013) History syllabus needs a rethink, says Abbott in The Australian 03/09/2013

260 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/history-syllabus-nee ds-a-rethink-says-abbott/story-fn9qr68y-1226709354686# viewed 05/02/2014.

Langton, M. (2008) Trapped in the Aboriginality Reality Show [online]. Griffith Review. No. 19, Autumn 143-159 http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=301663100094144;res=IELL CC viewed 28/07/14

Lashley, M. E. (2000) Implementing Treaty Settlements via Indigenous Institutions: Social Justice and Detribalization in New Zealand. The Contemporary Pacific. Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring. pp 1-55.

Lavalette, M. & Pratt, A. (2006) Marxism and Welfare in Social Policy. Theories, Concepts and Issues. (3rd ed) Sage Publication, London. Chapter 4.

Lerner, G. (1986) The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press. New York.

Macdonald, K. & Tipton, C. (1993) Using Documents in Gilbert, N. (ed) Researching Social Life. Sage Publication, London.

Manne, R. (2009) Comment. The History Wars. The Monthly. Australian politics, society & culture. No. 51, Nov 2009.

Mannoni, O. (1956) Prospero and Caliban: the psychology of colonisation. Methuen & Co, London.

Marshall, J. D. (1968) The Old Poor Law 1795-1834 The Macmillian Press Ltd, London.

Martin-Borran Mirraboopa, K. (2001) Ways of knowing, ways of being, and ways of doing: Developing a theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous re-search and Indigenist research. The Power of knowledge and Resonance of Tradition – Indigenous Studies Conference. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra. Conference paper pp 1-8.

Marx, K., Engels, F. & Moores, S. (1906) Manifesto of the communist party. CH Kerr & Company, (Location unknown).

Maynard, J. (2003) Australia history – lifting haze of descending fog? Australian History Vol. 27 pp 139-145.

McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary Research in Education, History and the Social Sciences. Routledge Falmer, London.

261 Mahon, A. (1996) Understanding the welfare state in McMahon, A., Thomson, J. & Williams, C. (eds) Understanding the Australian Welfare State: key documents and themes. Macmillian Education Australia Pty Ltd, Victoria. Chapter 2.

McMichael, P. (1984) The Transition from Penal to Commerical Colony in Settlers and the Agrarian Question. Capitalism in Colonial Australia. Cambridge University Press, USA. Chapter 2.

McNaughton, I. D. (1955) Colonial Liberalism 1851-92 in Greenwood, G. (ed) Australia. A Social and Political History. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Australia. Chapter Three.

McPherson, C. B. (ed) (1980) John Locke Second Treatise of Government. Hackett Publishing Company. US.

Merivale, H. (1861) Colonisation and Colonies. Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, London.

Meiksins Wood, E. (1999) Unhappy Families: Global Capitalism in a World of Nation-States in Monthly Review Vol. 51, No, 3.

Mendes, P. (2008) Australia’s Welfare Wars Revisited: The Players, the Politics and the Ideologies. UNSW Press, Australia.

Memmi, A. (1965) The Colonizer and the colonized. The Orion Press, New York.

Meyer, M. A. (2008) Indigenous and Authentic: Epistemology and the Triangulation of Meaning in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc, California. Chapter 11.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, USA.

Milford, G. D. (1935) The Australian Indians and Phillip in Governor Phillip and the Early Settlement of New South Wales. “The Harbour” Newspaper & Publishing Co. Ltd. Sydney. Chapter XI.

Milligan, J. (1859) Victoria. Report of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on The Aborigines. Government Printer, Melbourne.

Morgan, P. D. (1999) Encounters c. 1500 – c. 1800 in Daunton, M. & Halpern, R. (eds) Empire and others: British encounters with indigenous peoples, 1600-1800. UCL Press, UK.

Morgan, P. Who owns Australia's past?: Morgan on Morgan . Quadrant, Vol. 29, No. 3, Mar 1985: 33-36.

262 http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/november/1270703045/robert-manne/co mment viewed 05/02/2014

Mundle, R. (2013) Cook. From Sailor to Legend. Harper Collins Publishers Australia Ltd, Sydney.

Nakata, M. N. (2007) Disciplining the savages, savaging the disciplines. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Neal, D. (2002) The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony: Law and Politics in Early New South Wales. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

New South Wales Legislative Council (1838a) Voting and Proceedings of The Legislative Council. Tuesday, 14, August 1838. Microfilm. State Library of NSW.

New South Wales Legislative Council (1838b) Report from the Select Committee on the Conditions of the Aborigines. October 30, 1845. Microfilm. State Library of NSW.

New South Wales Legislative Council (1845) Aborigines Question. Report from the Committee. October 12, 1838. Microfilm. State Library of NSW.

New South Wales Legislative Council (1849a) Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council. 29th June. Microfilm, State Library of NSW.

New South Wales Legislative Council (1849b) Report from the Select Committee on Aborigines and Protectorate. 20th August 1849. Microfilm, State Library of NSW.

Norris, R. (2010) The More Things Change… The Origins and Impact of Australian Indigenous Economic Exclusion. Post Press, Brisbane.

O’Brien, A. (1988) The Shadow of the Asylum Poverty’s Prison. The Poor In New South Wales 1880-1918. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. Chapter 4.

O’Brien, M. & Penna, S. (1998) Theorising Welfare. Enlightment and Modern Society. Sage Publications, London.

O’Malley, P. (1998) Indigenous Governance in Dean, M. & Hindess, B. (eds). Governing Australia: Studies in Contemporary Rationalities of Government. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. Chapter 9.

Parker, M. (2011) The Science of Qualitative Research. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Pembroke, M. (2013) Governor in Arthur Phillip, Sailor, Mercenary, Governor, Spy. Hardie Grant Books, Victoria. Chapter 11.

263

Porter, B. (2004) Peril and Propaganda, c.1900 in The Absent-Minded Imperialists. Empire, Society and Culture in Britain. Oxford University Press, UK.

Prasser, S. (2006) Royal commissions and public inquiries in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, NSW.

Pearson, N. (2007) White Guilt, victimhood and the quest for a radical centre. Griffith Review Issue, 16. pp

Pearson, N. (2000a) Our right to take responsibility. Noel Pearson and Associates, Cairns, Qld.

Pearson, N. (2000b) Passive welfare and the destruction of Indigenous society in Australia in Saunders, P. (ed) Reforming the Australian welfare state. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Chapter 7.

Pierre, J. (ed) (2002) Introduction: Understanding Governance in Debating Governance, Authority, Steering and Democracy. Oxford University Press, UK.

Peterson, N. & Sanders, W. (eds) (1998) Introduction in Citizenship and Indigenous Australians. Changing Conceptions and Possibilities. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

Perkins, N. (1995) Aboriginal Australians Yesterday and Today: An Aboriginal Overview in Moores, I. (ed) Voices of Aboriginal Australia. Past, Present , Future. Butterfuly Books, NSW.

Prior, L. (2011) Using Documents in Social Research in Silverman, D. Qualitative Research. Sage, London. 3rd edition.

Ramsland, J. (1986) Children of the Back Lanes. Destitute and Neglected Children in Colonial New South Wales. New South Wales University Press, Australia.

Rapley, T. (2007) Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis. Sage Publication Ltd, London.

Read, P. (2013) Making Aboriginal History in Clark, A. & Ashton, P. (eds) Australian History now. NewSouth Publishing. NSW. Chapter 1.

Reece, R. H. W. (1974) Aborigines and Colonists. Aborigines and Colonial Society in New South Wales in the 1830s and 1840s. Sydney University Press.

Reynolds, H. (1972) Aborigines and Settlers. The Australian Experience 1788-1939. Cassell Australia Ltd, Victoria.

264 Reynolds, H. (1981) The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to European Invasion of Australia. UNSW Press, Sydney.

Reynolds, H. (1987) Frontier. Aborigines, Settlers and Land. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, St Lenonards, NSW.

Reynolds, H. (1998) The Law of the Land. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, St Lenonards, NSW.

Reynolds, H. (1989) Dispossession. Black Australians and White Invaders.. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, St Lenonards, NSW.

Reynolds, H. (1996) Aboriginal Sovereignty. Reflections on race, state and nation. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, St Lenonards, NSW.

Reynolds, H This Whispering in Our Hearts (1998) Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Reynolds, H. Why Weren't We Told? (2000) Penguin Books, Melbourne.

Reynolds, H. An Indelible Stain? The Question of Genocide in Australia's History (2001) Penguin Books, Melbourne.

Reynolds, H. (1992) The Law of the Land. Penguin Books, Victoria. 2nd edition.

Reynolds, H. Fate of a Free People (2004) Penguin Books, Melbourne.

Reynolds, H. A History of Tasmania (2011) Cambridge University Press, New York.

Richards, T. (1883) Early Australian Discovery in An Epitome of the Official History of New South Wales. From the Foundations of the Colony, in 1788, to the Close of the First Session of the Eleventh Parliament Under Responsible Government, in 1883. Government Printers, Sydney. Chapter 1.

Riggs, D. W. & Augoustinos, M. (2005) The Psychic Life of Colonial Power: Racialised Subjectivities, Bodies and Methods. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 15 pp 461-477

Rigney, L. I. (2001) A firs perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in science: Framing Indigenous research towards Indigenous Australian intellectual sovereignty. Kaurna Higher Education Journal (7) August.

Rigney, L. I. (1999) Internationalization of an Indigenous Anticolonial Cultural Critique of Research Methodologies: A guide to Indigenist Research Methodology and its Principals. Emergent Ideas in Native American Studies Autumn pp 109-121.

265 Rigney, L. I. (1997) Internationalism of an Aboriginal or TorresStrait Islander anti-colonial cultural critique of research methodologies: a guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. Research and Development in Higher Education: Advancing International Perspectives, HERDSA Annual International Conference, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, conference paper. pp 632-639.

Rittell, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 41, pp 155-169.

Rose, M. E. (1972) The Relief of Poverty, 1834-1914. The Macmillian Press Ltd, London.

Rowley, C. D. (1972) Outcasts in White Australia. Penguin Books Ltd, Victoria.

Rowley, C. D. (1972) The Destruction of Aboriginal Society. Penguin Books, Victoria.

Russell, P. H. (2005) Recognizing Aboriginal title: The Mabo case and Indigenous resistance to English-settler colonialism. University or Toronto Press, Toronto.

Ryan, L. (2012) Tasmanian Aborigines. A History since 1803. Allen & Unwin, NSW.

Saavedra, C. M. & Nymark, E. D. (2008) Borderland-Mestizaje Feminism: The New Tribalism in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc, California. 13.

Said, E. (1993) Overlapping Territories, Intertwined Histories in Culture and Imperialsim. Vintage, London.

Said, E. (1989) Representing the Colonized: Anthropology’s Interlocutors. Critical Inquiry Vol. 15, No. 2, Winter.

Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. Western Conceptions of the Orient. Penguin Books, London.

Sarantakos, S. (1998) Social Research. Macmillian Education Australia, South Melbourne. 2nd edition.

Semali, L. M. & Kincheloe, J. L. (eds) (1999) What is Indigenous Knowledge and Why Should We Study It? In What is Indigenous Knowledge? Voices from the Academcy. Falmer Press, USA. Chapter 2.

266 Semmel, B. (1970) The Philosophic Radicals and Colonialism in Shaw, A. G. L. (ed) Great Britain and the Colonies 1815-1865. Methuen & Co Ltd, London. Chapter 3.

Shaw, A. G. L. (ed) (1970) Introduction in Great Britain and the Colonies 1815-1865. Methuen & Co Ltd, London.

Shaw, A. G. L. (1992) British Policy towards the Australian Aborigines, 1830-1850 in Australian Historical Studies Vol 25 pp 265-285.

Sheehan, P. (2014) Dropping bombs and stoking feuds: the other side of Noel Pearson. The Canberra Times August 18th. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/dropping-bombs-and-stoking-feuds-the -other-side-of-noel-pearson-20140817-1053ie.html viewed 19/08/2014.

Sherwood, J. (2010) Do No Harm: decolonising Aboriginal health research. Thesis – UNSW.

Skelton, R. Confronting a culture of dependency, The Sydney Morning Herald August 15, 2011 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/confronting-a-culture-of- dependency-20110814-1isxo.html viewed 19/08/2014.

Smith, C. (20113) Becoming a Kaupapa Maori Research in Mertens, D. M., Cram, F. & Chilisa, B. (eds) Indigenous Pathways into Social Research. Voices of a New Generation. Left Coast Press Inc., USA. Chapter 5.

Smith, D. (2014) Forrest report the way to go. Opinion, The Australian. August 14. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/forrest-report-the-way-to-go/story-e6frg6 zo-1227023496744 viewed 16/08/2014

Snow, A. H. (1921) The Question of Aborigines in the Law and Practice of Nations. The Knickerbocker Press, London.

Stasiulis, D. & Yuval-Davis, N. (eds) (1995) Introduction in Unsettling Settler Societies. Articulations of Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Class. Sage, London. Sage Series on Race and Ethnic Relations Vol II.

Stone, S. (1974) Aborigines in White Australia. A Documentary History Of The Attitudes Affecting Official Policy And The Australian Aborigine, 1697-1973. Heinemann Educational Books, Victoria.

Stringer, R. (2007) A Nightmare of the Neocolonial Kind: Politics of Suffering in Howard’s Northern Territory Intervention in boarderlands e-journal Vol. 6, No. 2. http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no2_2007/stringer_intervention.htm viewed 10/08/2014.

267

Sutton, P. (2009) The politics of suffering: Indigenous Australia and the end of the liberal consensus. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. Szeman, I. (2001) Marxism in Hawley, J. (ed) Encyclopedia of Postcolonial Studies. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. pp 293-296.

Swadener, B. B. & Mutua, K. (2008) Decolonizing Performances: Deconstructing the Global Postcolonial in Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (eds) Handbook of Critical Indigenous Methodologies. Sage Publications Inc., California. Chapter 2.

Swain, S. (1996) Women and philanthropy in colonial and post-colonial Australia in Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 7, No. 4 pp 428-448.

Swisher, K. (1998) Why Indian people should be the ones to write about Indian education in Mihesuah, D. (ed) Natives and academics: Researching and writing about American Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. pp 190-199.

Taylor, R. (2003) Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Sydney Morning Herald 25/10/2003 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/24/1066631621572.html viewed 05/02/2014.

The Australian Department of Territories (1967) The Australian Aborigines. Department of Territories, Canberra.

Tink, A. (2009) Arthur Phillip in Clune, D. & Turner, K. (eds) The Governors of New South Wales 1788-2010. The Federation Press, NSW. Chapter 1.

Thompson, M. M. H. (2006) The Cast Assembles in The Seeds of Democracy. Early Elections in Colonial New South Wales. The Federation Press, NSW.

Townsend, P. (1981) The Structured Dependency of the Elderly: A Creation of Social Policy in the Twentieth Century. Ageing and Society, 1, pp5-28.

Troy, J. (1993) King Plates. A History of Aboriginal Gorgets. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Trench, W. (1961) Sydney’s first four years: being a reprint of A narrative of the expedition to Botany Bay and A complete account of the settlement of Port Jackson. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies. Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books Ltd, London.

268

Turbet, P. (2011) The First Frontier. The Occupation of the Sydney Region. 1788-1816. Rosenberg Publishing Pty Ltd, NSW.

Turner, M. & Hulme, D. (1997) The International Environment: External Influences and Governance in Governance, Administration & Development. Making the State Work. Palgrave, New York.

Van Krieken, R., Habibis, D., Smith, P., Hutchins, B., Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. (2006) Sociology. Themes and Perspectives (3rd ed). Pearson Longman, Australia.

Victoria Legislative Council (1849b) Report of the Select Committee on the Aborigines. Jeoh Ferres, Government Printer, Melbourne.

Vincent Smith, K. (2009) Bennelong among his people in Aboriginal History Vol. 33, pp 7-30.

Vincent Smith, K. (2001) Bennelong. The Coming in of the Eora. Sydney Cove 1788-1792. Kangaroo Press, NSW.

Yarwood, A. T. (1977) Samuel Marsden. The Great Survivor. Melbourne University Press. Victoria.

Walters, M. (ed) (2010) The Nature of Social Science Research in Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Victoria. 2nd edition. Chapter 1.

Walters, M. & Moreton-Robinson, A. (2009) Indigenous methodologies in social research. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Australia pp 1-18.

Ward, R. (1969) Australia. Walkabout Pocketbooks. Ure Smith Pty Ltd, North Sydney.

Weber, M. (2003) The Protestant Ethic And The Sprit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. Dover Publications, Inc. New York.

Willey, K. (1979) When the Sky Fell Down. The Destruction of the Tribes of the Sydney Region 1788-1850s. Collins Pty Ltd, Sydney.

Wilson, S. (2008) Research is Ceremony. Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishing, Canada.

Winch, D. N. (1970) Classical Economics and the Case for Colonisation in Shaw, A. G. L. (ed) Great Britain and the Colonies 1815-1865. Methuen & Co Ltd, London. Chapter 4.

269 Windschuttle, E. (1982) ‘Women and the Origins of Colonial Philanthropy’ in Kennedy, R. (ed) Australian Welfare History. Critical Essays. The Macmillian Company of Australia Pty Ltd. South Melbourne. Chapter 1.

Windschuttle, K. (2009) The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three: The Stolen Generations 1881-2008, Macleay Press, Sydney.

Windschuttle, K. (2004) The White Australia Policy, Macleay Press, Sydney.

Windschuttle, K. (2002) The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847, Macleay Press, Sydney.

White, H. (1973) Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in 19th-century Europe.

Wood, M. (1998) Constructions of Indigenous Identities in NSW in Peterson, N. & Sanders, W. (eds) Citizenship and Indigenous Australian. Changing Conceptions and Possibilities. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Woolmington, J. (19880 Aborigines in Colonial Society: 1788-1850. From ‘Noble Save’ to ‘Rural Pest’ (2nd ed). The University of New England, Australia.

Yantio Yantio, D. (2013) Drawn from the Traditions of Cameroon: Lessons from Twenty-One Years of Practice in Mertens, D. M., Cram, F. & Chilisa, B. (eds) Indigenous Pathways into Social Research. Voices of a New Generation. Left Coast Press Inc., USA. Chapter 7.

Yarwood, A. T. (1977) Always in a Bustle in Samuel Marsden. The Great Survivor. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. Chapter 9.

Young, S. (2007/08) Manning Clark. Writing history to understand the world we live in. Double Dialogues. Issue Eight, Summer 2007/08. http://www.doubledialogues.com/archive/issue_eight/young.html viewed 07/02/2014

270