For anyone interested in the intentions behind the Aboriginal Protection Act, I suggest you read the W.A. Royal Commission into the Condition of the Natives 1905.
Testimony given there shows how concerned many people were about the exploitation of vulnerable aboriginal people, from white station masters to Asian pearling masters.
The sexual exploitation of young girls was so bad that STDs had become such a community health problem a special hospital had to be built on an island off the NW coast to treat these girls. And no, this was not all forced sex. Many of the girls were traded for goods by their husbands and many other girls discovered they were treated better by white and Asian men so they prostituted themselves to gain favours.
And who of you knows that Asian pearling masters used aboriginal women to dive for pearl shell because that's a Japanese tradition. They believed pregnant women were the best because they felt they had a better lung capacity! The result of this was that many aboriginal women were worked until they died underwater!
So the W.A. Government passed a law forbidding the employment of aboriginal women in the pearling industry.
So, for all that people rage against what seems like draconian and cruel laws for aboriginal people, when put in context of the time, it was an attempt to protect aboriginal people from themselves and others because the change from Stone Age life to the Industrial Age happened overnight for them and they didn't have the skills to cope at that stage

Big Nana,

The following is also worth a read:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/a-guide-to-australias-stolen-generations#toc6

Thanks Big nana,

That WA Royal Commission (the 'Roth' Commission) in 1905 is on my web-site: www.firstsources.info on the WA Page. Easy-access :)

The Commission also recommended that young boys not be allowed on luggers, to thwart what they called the 'Mahometan vice' (p. 11).

Dear Foxy,

With the greatest respect, I'm sure Big Nana would be too diplomatic to let you know that your advice to her is like a primary school kid advising a rocket scientist how to land on the moon.

If I live another fifty years, I won't have as much expertise and experience of Aboriginal people as Big Nana has.

Love,

Joe

There is some very clever sophistry and propaganda on that site, Foxy. Not 'good hearted' stuff by any means, but cold hard spin.

There is an attempt to piggyback on the 'white stolen children' and 'stolen children' elsewhere. They should get some propaganda prize for that alone.

Plenty of 'infographics' (that's a good one!) for schoolchildren and students who are being obliged to write reports and assignments on fables like 'The Rabbit Proof Fence'.

Joseph Goebbels would be relegated to sporting a provisional 'P' plate.

Tell us all Foxy, do you believe that the stolen children problem affecting indigenous continues unabated and is worse than ever? Wow! -From your recommended site of course.

Dear Loudmouth,

Not addressing my challenge to your assertion that the views of Mosley and Bryan about casual liaisons between identified racial groups were not 'translated into legislation'?

Mate you may well be and excellent transcriber but your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

One of the amendments to Section 43 the 1905 Aboriginal Act after the Commissioner's report included the words;

“Any person (except a native) – (b) who cohabitates with or has sexual relations with any native who is not his wife nor her his husband shall be guilty of an offence against this act.”
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:12388P/$FILE/AborgnActAmAct1936_00-00-00.pdf?OpenElement

Perhaps taking a break in your transcription task and concentrating on what you are reading might be beneficial. I will help where I can.

Look, you claim to have judged the RPF event in the light of the 'balance of probabilities' even though extraordinary feats are not without precedence.

But on the other hand you are asserting that of the thousands of half-caste aboriginal children who were taken from there families under a regime where the Protector's rights completely obliterated those of the mother, where the colour of the child's skin and their location were the over riding reasons for removal, and where the attitudes and laws regarding liaisons between Aboriginal and whites cast a pall of default criminality over mixed families that not a single child was taken for reasons other than dire neglect and abuse?

Can't have it both ways my friend.

Dear Big Nana,

You are continually making broad brush statements in an effort to legitimise the wholesale removal of children from their families based mainly on the colour of their skin.

Neville clearly states in 1936;

“There are growing up in the native camps and on stations a considerable class of people who are too white to be regarded as aboriginal at all, and who ought to have the benefit of white education and training, with complete separation from the natives after they reach mature years, say 21. That is to say, the Department should be able to take these white children from the camps and other native surroundings, and bring them up in special institutions for their kind.”
Clearly this was not about just rescuing those abused, starving and in pain. It was to remove a whole class of children because of their colour. And where were they removed to? Moore River where they slept 3 to a bed on urine soaked straw mattresses, in dormitories so filled with vermin the commissioner thought they should be demolished, where the nutrition was identified by him as vastly inadequate and where disease epidemics, general ill-health and malnutrition were the norm rather than the exception.

Are you seriously making the case that all these little children were better off than remaining with their mothers and receiving assistance where they lived if needed?