University of Notre Dame Australia ResearchOnline@ND
Theses
2008
Too white to be regarded as Aborigines: An historical analysis of policies for the protection of Aborigines and the assimilation of Aborigines of mixed descent, and the role of Chief Protectors of Aborigines in the formulation and implementation of those policies, in Western Australia from 1898 to 1940
Derrick Tomlinson University of Notre Dame Australia
Follow this and additional works at: http://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
WARNING The am terial in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further copying or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice.
Publication Details Tomlinson, D. (2008). Too white to be regarded as Aborigines: An historical analysis of policies for the protection of Aborigines and the assimilation of Aborigines of mixed descent, and the role of Chief Protectors of Aborigines in the formulation and implementation of those policies, in Western Australia from 1898 to 1940 (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)). University of Notre Dame Australia. http://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses/7
This dissertation/thesis is brought to you by ResearchOnline@ND. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@ND. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Conclusion AUSTRALIA’S COLOURED MINORITY REVISITED
Don’t get the idea I want to encourage inter marriage between us and the aborigines—that’s not it at all. I want the coloureds to get the same chance as ourselves and if they intermarry with us it won’t matter. I have tried to show how the coloureds should be treated to make them acceptable as a people not so very unlike us in many ways. Of course as they are now no one wants to mix with them—or very few—but the time will come when they will merge into the whites and be no longer a people apart as now. The aborigines, that is the full bloods, will either die out or reach a higher state of civilisation very like our own. My book deals with the descendants of the aborigines, i.e. the coloured folk. Letter from A.O. Neville to daughter Anne, 17 September 1947.1 It has been argued in this thesis that even though as Chief Protector of Aborigines and subsequently as Commissioner for Native Affairs, A.O. Neville and his predecessors, Henry Prinsep and Charles Gale, exercised considerable power and authority over the lives of Aboriginal people in Western Australia, public policy and, in particular, the allocation of public resources for Aborigines were not decided at their dictate. Neville, in particular, was not the policy demagogue that writers such as Biskup, Haebich, Anderson, McGregor and Sir Ronald Wilson might suggest. Policy was controlled and shaped by multiple players and influences within the political, economic, social, and intellectual milieu in which he functioned. Those policies also had an historical context with embedded precedents which were built upon as each initiative for the treatment of Aborigines was endorsed by political procedures. Because policy for Aborigines was electorally sensitive, it also was exposed to circumstantial opportunism. New initiatives were endorsed by successive executive governments only when they judged it was electorally safe for them to act. Neville came to the role of Chief Protector with little knowledge of Aborigines and even less enthusiasm. He was appointed for his acknowledged administrative competence. Policy was
1 J.S. Battye Library, Western Australia, A.O. Neville Collection, Acc, 4691 A/3, Correspondence, C. Stitfold, Department of Native Affairs, to A.O. Neville, 17 August 1950 to 4 March 1953. Only this fragment of Neville’s letter to his daughter is included in the collection. 273 ‘Too White to be Regarded as Aborigines’ not intended to be his concern; that belonged to his minister. Neville’s task was to give administrative order to programs initiated by Charles Gale, namely, to ensure that Moola Bulla Native Cattle Station succeeded in reducing the incidence of cattle killing in the East Kimberley by containing tribal Aborigines; to set up the Carrolup River Native Settlement so that the half caste presence might be removed from towns along the Great Southern Railway Line; and to better manage the distribution of rations, blankets and clothing among indigent Aborigines across the state. These things occupied the first phase of Neville’s tenure from 1915 to 1920 and he succeeded. He also emerged as an important source of policy advice, but he could only advise. He understood the policy process and the power structures of government and put forward only those recommendations he thought might be accepted by the responsible minister and the Cabinet of the day. Even then he had to wait eighteen years for legislative reforms he first recommended in 1919 to be agreed to by Parliament, to be proclaimed and to commence, by which time Neville was in the twilight of his career. .2 As a public servant honest to the conventions of public administration then prevailing, Neville did what relevant law required and, with few exceptions, what the law allowed. He may have preferred to do otherwise, as he exposed in Australia’s Coloured Minority , or at the Initial
Boys Outside the Dormitory, Moore River, c.1930s. Berndt Museum of Anthropology, University of Western Australia, WU P113
2 The Aborigines Act Amendment Act 1936 passed all stages of Parliament on 10 December 1936, was assented to on 11 December 1936, but did not commence until December 1937. 274 Conclusion
Conference of Commonwealth and State Authorities , but as Chief Protector of Aborigines he administered his department and ministered to the needs of Aborigines to the extent allowed by statute, responsive to political will and within the limits of the public resources allocated by governments from time to time. They never were adequate: I remember the time when the dining tables at one institution having become insanitary, (sic) I sought for timber to replace them. This was refused because of the cost, but nice white timber was then being supplied for coffins. It was of the type suitable for table tops, and I instructed that there should be a substitution of one for the other. I often wondered if the apparent increase in burials was noted by the holders of the privy purse! To such subterfuges we were sometimes reduced. All these things which go towards the sum of the impossible conditions under which we had always to work. 3 The damage to many Aboriginal people caused by government programs pursuant to principles embedded in the Aborigines Act 1905 and its successor the Native Administration Act 1936 was enduring and irreparable. Aborigines already were a damaged people before the first of those laws was enacted. In the north of the state some survived in their customary manner— bush blacks or myalls avoiding contact with white pastoralists, pursuing their nomadic traditions, cosseting their cultural values, and protecting themselves from white interference by retreating to inaccessible reserves north of the Leopold Ranges or to inhospitable country that offered no financial return for white pastoralists who might otherwise have partitioned it. Even many of those living on the native cattle stations at Moola Bulla and Munja retained their cultural identity, only occasionally approaching the settlements for beef and medical attention. Some, especially the relatively small number of half castes, preferred the predictability of station life. Full bloods who adapted to living and working on cattle and stations in the East and West Kimberley and on sheep stations in the Pilbara observed native custom during their wet season pinkeye. For most of the year they lived in villeinage, camped beside the wood heap within hearing distance of the station homestead, bound to their land by tradition, but bound also to station owners or managers for their tucker. They surrendered custom for beef, flour, sugar, tea and tobacco and the patronage of the station overseer. They were regarded as useful, but only for as long as they were deferential to the boss and their cheap labour sustained the pastoral economy. In the south Aborigines were dispossessed of their land, alienated from their traditional culture and unwelcome in the European which displaced their own. They were British subjects without rights of citizenship, and therefore without political significance, an anomic group not entrusted with power even over their own lives. Public opinion at the turn of the twentieth century assumed the demise of the distinctive full blooded Aboriginal race was inevitable. In large
3 A.O. Neville, Australia’s Coloured Minority , p.85 . 275 ‘Too White to be Regarded as Aborigines’ tracts of country, particularly in the South West region, whole tribes of traditional Aborigines already had died out and those who remained elsewhere lived at the fringe. Family groups and clans were transformed by three generations of cross cultural breeding. The white community rejected and feared mixed race Aborigines for their supposed iniquity. The solution devised by public officials, notably the first two Chief Protectors of Aborigines, Henry Prinsep and Charles Gale, was to remove half castes to reserves, native settlements, or missions where they might be watched over and be out of public sight and out of public mind. The only hope entertained in that policy was that half caste and quarter caste children, separated and segregated from their parents and extended families, might be trained and educated to take a subordinate economic place as adults in the mainstream community, a useful but not competitive unskilled agricultural and domestic workforce. Under provisions of the Aborigines Act 1905, the Chief Protector of Aborigines had legal power to remove any Aboriginal or half caste child under the age of sixteen from home and family to be detained in an Aboriginal institution for ‘care, custody and education’. That was the policy inherited by A.O. Neville when he reluctantly accepted the mantle of Chief Protector. He acknowledged the process of removing half caste children from their families was cruel, commenting ‘we try to avoid it, but no doubt for the future of the race it is a necessity’. 4 The consequences for the future of the race were profound. Children lost their families, their Aboriginal heritage and their identities, and mothers lost their children. Aboriginal peoples were subjected to the will of the dominant white majority. Policies of child removal and state wardship were consistent with attitudes then prevailing about the treatment of orphans, bastards, and destitute or neglected children. There were parallels between the Aborigines Act 1905, the Bastardy Laws Act 1875, and the State Children Act 1907. Because of a commonly agreed proposition that they had been conceived though illicit unions of degenerate Aboriginal women and amoral non Aboriginal men, most half castes were regarded as bastards and were treated as such both socially and in public process. There were, however, significant differences among the treatment of illegitimate and neglected half caste, and illegitimate and neglected white children. The latter seized under bastardy laws or the State Children Act , and their parents, had protections of due process. Just cause had to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a Children’s Court. Parents had rights of appeal, statutory rights of access, and legal rights to apply to a Children’s Court for the return of their children. The powers of the Chief Protector were constrained only by the authority of his Minister. Orders under section 12 of the Act for the apprehension and detention of Aboriginal children could be issued only on the signature of the Minister. Once issued the warrants were legal and binding and once executed the
4 Moseley Royal Commission, Transcript of Evidence, A.O. Neville, 14 March 1934, p.120. 276 Conclusion guardianship of the Chief Protector was to the exclusion of all other rights of parents. Aborigines had no rights of redress; theirs was only to submit passively or hazard prosecution and imprisonment for disobedience. The discretion to recommend removal ‘in the best interests of the child’ reposed with Neville. Consequently, history has judged him, in too many respects perhaps unfairly, as responsible for many of the unintended and unanticipated consequences of the programs he administered. The Policy Process It is hazardous to attribute the origin of public policy in democratic systems to the writings of single philosophers or scholars or even of schools of thought. Policy formulation usually is a much more complicated and complex process than the mere conversion of ideas from political philosophy to public policy, from policy to program, and from public program to operational procedure. In liberal democracies public policy does not derive from discrete or unalloyed political philosophies or social theories, nor is it decided by individuals acting alone. It usually represents compromises of competing beliefs and values. Similarly, even though individuals such as ministers of state or designated public officers might be accountable for policy and practice and might occasionally claim personal credit, how policy is implemented or applied, the manner of translating policy from theory to practice, seldom is determined by them alone. Competing interests within pluralistic societies intrude at every stage of the process either to frustrate or modify their intent. Political experience demonstrates that the more pluralistic the society a policy is intended to serve the greater is the diversity and variance of values within it. In that context, public policy tends to reflect negotiated agreements or various combinations and permutations of ideas and values. Hence, to say that policy for Aborigines in Western Australia in the first half of the twentieth century was derived from evolutionary theories or prognostications about eugenics derived originally from writings of the likes of Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer or Francis Galton ignores political realities. They may have had some influence, but if so, it would have been more tangential than direct. Such theories were dynamic elements of intellectual endeavour and academic dialogue in Britain and elsewhere at the relevant time. They helped give direction to beliefs then emerging about man and his place in the cosmos, or at more mundane levels, reaffirmed British opinions about themselves and the ‘savages’ of the territories they colonised. The influence of political philosophy is not in its direct manifestation as policy and practice, but rather through its capacity to shape the values by which societies define themselves. Particular philosophies are discernible in public policy not because they have irrefutable intrinsic