THE TREAD OF A WHITE MAN'S FOOT THE TREAD OF A WHITE MAN'S FOOT AUSTRALIAN PACIFIC COLONIALISM AND THE CINEMA, 1925-62 JANE LANDMAN PAN DANUS BOOKS Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Cover image: Film still from Walk Into Paradise. Courtesy of National Film and Sound Archive. ©Jane Landman 2006 This book is copyright in all countries subscribing to the Berne convention. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Typeset in Goudy 11 pt on 14pt and printed by Pirion, Canberra National Library of Australia Cataloguing,in,Publication entry Landman, Jane. The tread of a white man's foot: Australian Pacific colonialism. ISBN 1 74076 206 1 978-1-74076--206--1 1. Motion pictures, Australian- Oceania. 2. Motion pictures - Censorship-Oceania. 3. Motion pictures- Political aspects­ Oceania. 4. Imperialism in motion pictures. I. Title. 791.430995 Editorial inquiries please contact Pandanus Books on 02 6125 3269 www.pandanusbooks.com.au Published by Pandanus Books, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Pandanus Books are distributed by UNIREPS, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052 Telephone 02 9664 0999 Fax 02 9664 5420 Production: Ian Templeman, Duncan Beard and Emily Brissenden For Marjorie Alison Landman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Faculty of Arts at Victoria University granted various periods of study leave to enable the research and writing of this book, while resourceful staff at the National Archives of Australia and Papua New Guinea, the National Libraries of Australia and PNG, the State Libraries of Victoria and New South Wales and the National Film and Sound Archive provided valuable assistance. I would also like to thank Barbara Creed and Ina Bertrand for their support and advice, as well as family, friends and colleagues whose feedback and encour, agement sustained me over the time it took to complete this work. PREFACE This book explores Australia's cinematic engagement with the To rres Strait, Papua and New Guinea in the light of Australia's colonial project within these territories from 1925 to 1962. It is concerned with the part played by the cinema in imaging Australia's emerging colonial nationhood in relation to the Torres Strait, Papua and New Guinea, as well as the ways in which colonial attitudes and anxieties played out in the regulation and censorship of cinema in the nation and its territories. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, colonial, then feder, ated Australia expanded into the 'attainable Pacific', that is, into those territories that were neither already too powerful in their own right, nor already colonised by the British or the Dutch. 1 Colonial Australia sought furtherterritory for three interrelated purposes that shifted in priority: defence against Asian powers and the colonial ambitions of rival European countries; resources; and national self, realisation. 2 For the last, Australians were, on the one hand, fulfilling the heritage of the British 'imperial race' and on the other borrowing 'the Monroe Doctrine and manifest destiny ideas from their American cousins'.3 Roger Thompson describes such expansionary activity as 'a reflection of Australian patriotism within an Empire nationalism'. In his study of Federation, John Hirst grants territorial expan, sion a significant motivating role, as the colonies needed to combine their lobbying power to force an (often reluctant) Britain to uphold their commonly supported imperial Pacific interests against those of the Germans and the French.4 By 1918, however, this expansionist drive had lost much of its force, for reasons including Australia's x already stretched resources (linked to fears about the so,called 'empty north'), the ideal of 'continentalism' (a nation for a continent) and the 'White Australia Policy'. 5 Pacific territorialisation begins with the colony of Queensland, which formally annexed contiguous To rres Strait islands in the late 19th century, regarding the Coral Sea, in Clive Moore's view, 'as a Queensland lake, quite central to ... economic and political develop, ment'.6 Acts of annexation in 1872 incorporated islands within 100 kilometres of the coast, and, in 1879 , the remaining islands as far as the Papuan shoreline. A government post was established on Thursday Island in 1877, which was the commercial centre of the marine indus, tries and a major shipping port of call. 7 Nestled among a cluster of islands just off the northern tip of Cape York Peninsula, Thursday Island was a relatively accessible Pacific location for Sydney,based film producers, via the regular service provided by the steamship company Burns Philp, and was the site of three Australian 'South Seas' films set around the pearling industry. To rres Strait Islanders, administered initially by the London Mission Society, were brought under the 'protection' of the same regime as that governing mainland Queensland Aborigines in 1904.8 In his history of the Torres Strait, Jeremy Beckett argues that the islands were administered in a 'colonial mode', with Islander popula, tions separated fromnon, Islanders and subject to a surveillant regime of everyday interference, including the restriction of traditional movement between islands. Islander populations were devastated by early contact, and were not sufficiently recovered to furnish the labour needs of the pearling industry until the 1930s.9 The desire to exert influence over the lucrative marine indus, tries for beche,de,mer, pearl and trochus shell was an important motivating factor in the colonisation of the strait. Exempted, at the industry's special pleading, from the racially restrictive labour act enacted soon afterFederation, the pearl,shell industry continued 'for decades as an enclave of multiracialism and nineteenth,century colonial labour practices'.10 Ethnic divisions organised clear racial hierarchies among the multiracial and racially intermingled xi populations in the strait islands, which Beckett describes as 'stepping stones in a two,way genetic and cultural traffic' between Asia, New Guinea and Australia. Regina Ganter points out that the State, often represented by men with an active financial interest in the industry, 'aided the construction of ethnic group differences', generating an expedient racial order justified by 'scientific' doctrine. Differentiated modes of employment and remuneration were established for Papuans, Aborigines, To rres Strait Islanders, South Seas Islanders and Asian workers fromJa pan, Malaya and the Philippines.11 'Protected' Islander workers did not deal directly with boat owners but instead were required to go through government agents, who also banked their wages and regulated their spending. 12 Displaced European rivalries made a significant contribution to the colonisation of Papua, along with the same general interest in resources and defence that drove Australia's expansion into the To rres Strait.13 Papua and New Guinea, in fact, were seen as an essential part of Australia's defence until the 1960s.14 On federating, Australia expressed willingness to assume responsibility for British New Guinea, which was a protectorate of Britain from 1884 until 1888 (established at Australian urging), and a colony from 1888 until 1906. When the Australian Government's Papua Bill was passed, Lieutenant Governor (Sir) John Hubert Murray was appointed Proconsul of Papua, a position he held until his death in 1940. Hank Nelson underlines the national importance of Papua by locating Australian colonial policy within the context of domestic race relations. That Murray, a humani, tarian with a commitment to protectionist policies, was selected for this post reflected at least in part the concerns debated in discussions of the Papua Bill: that in Papua, Australians could prevent the injustices perpetrated against Aborigines and that in 'providing [this] example to the rest of the world they would earn expiation'. This concern was evident in policies restricting the alienation of land, the sale of alcohol and regulating the indenturing of labour. 1 5 Ye t the colony was poorly funded, and proved a disappointing investment. The white population, which had increased to 1,219 in 1913, stagnated at this level until 1939. The Asian labour that some colonists feltwould help advance xii the unprofitable colony was prohibited by an extension of Australia's own restrictive labour policies. The expropriation of German New Guinea, on behalf of the British, was the first Australian military action of World War I, and retaining control of New Guinea was a national priority in the settle, ment negotiations after both world wars. 16 In the Versailles peace settlements, Australia was granted New Guinea as a C,class mandate under the supervision of the League of Nations. While granting virtual legislative freedom, the mandate stipulated that Australia should 'promote to the utmost the material and moral well,being and social progress of the inhabitants of the territory' .17 In this instance, Australia assumed control over a prosperous colony that differed from Papua in having a significant Chinese population. Economic consid, erations drove policy in New Guinea, where pay rates were half that of Papua and working hours were longer. 18 Nelson makes the signifi, cant point that afterWorld War I New Guinea developed as a 'virtual suburb of ANZAC' (that is, it was settled almost exclusively by veterans). As it was seized not merely as part of the spoils of war, but on the moral grounds of asserting a more humane colonial regime than that of the brutal German administration, criticisms of its administration were seen as directed at the 'very foundation of Australia's right to rule' and were treated as sedition.19 After World War II, New Guinea became a 'Trust' territory of the United Nations, and its administration was substantially merged with that of Papua. Neither Papua nor New Guinea was designated officially as a 'colony'.