Paul,

Again and again, in the mission and protector reports (check out my web-site: www.firstsources.info ), it was assumed that people would get rations when they were not working. But ...

One universal problem was that the men might go away, say, to work on the shearing, but that the station owner might pay them in cash directly - and meanwhile, the mission/settlement was providing their families with rations. Double pay, oh frabjous day ! The missions often complained that this allowed the men to blow all of their pay on grog while their families would still be supported regardless.

Rev. Taplin at Pt McLeay came to an agreement early on with station owners to send the cheques directly to him, so that

(a) he could deduct the cost of rations from the men's wages and pay them the balance; and

(b) discourage drinking.

The missions in Victoria urged this policy in the 1872 Royal Commission (web-site, Victoria page).

Is it possible that much of the supposed 'stolen wages' were, in fact, reimbursement for missions for the supply of rations to families ? And did stations up in the north similarly provide rations as well as very basic accommodation, not just for their workers but for their families as well ?

I would love to see the account books of a mission around, say, Derby, or Daly River, or Doomadgee, during the pastoral period before welfare payments, to see if there were regular reimbursements from stations which the missions used to set against the cost of rations, and then give the balance of wages to the working men.

But the men and their families would not understand the process as equitable and efficient in any way, and always believed they have been robbed of wages, passing that 'true story' down through the ages.

Of course, what happens these days ? If nobody in a family is working, okay, they get so much welfare payments. If someone IS working, and declares it, then the family will most likely get reduced welfare payments, if anything. Same-same.

Move on.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

This claim makes specific reference to the Western Australian Native Administration Act 1936, and Native Welfare Act 1963. Do you have any information as to exploitation of indigenous people in WA as a direct result of those particular acts of parliament. Its been well documented that Aboriginal people working as stockmen, station hands, domestic servants etc were exploited and often pain in kind, or not paid, or poorly paid for their work.

If the good reverend was deducting payment for rations, was that deduction at a discount as were the wages? We don't really know do we. Maybe the good reverend was charging a pound for a pound of flour, when wages were doled out at five bob a week.

Exploitation of indigenous workers is nothing new, its been the practice since the days of the slave trade. The wife tells me her first job in a shoe factory in Auckland, she was paid a pound a week less than a European girl the same age, doing the same job. In those days Maori people expected to be paid less for their labour. Her father would not allow her to stay in the big city over the weekend, she and her sister lived there with relatives, too many dangerous people for young girls he said. Te and her sister had to get the train home up north on Friday afternoon, and return to Auckland Sunday arvo, for work Monday, very moral people.

In remote communities in Australia, most non-resident staff get paid locality allowance including indigenous. No difference is made for anyone by ethnicity ! I recall some locals striking for a day because they thoght they should receive the same pay as the outsiders. When I explained to them that if they chose to work in another community, away from home, they too will receive this allowance.
No, that's not fair to have to work away from home was the reply but still, they wanted the same as the non-locals ! The stolen wages gained momentum by similar claims of 'hard work' for less pay ! The fact that all schooling & school holiday travel, health services, low rent etc. etc. was provided never entered the equation.

Paul,

Perhaps you can answer that question yourself, with evidence, not just hearsay generations later:

"Do you have any information as to exploitation of indigenous people in WA as a direct result of those particular acts of parliament ?"

And we could well do without the paranoia.

Joe

Some of those "slaves" did OK on Oz.

A mate of mine flew Meteor jet fighters in Korea. I had a holiday with him once on the family property in the back blocks of the Clarence river, where I met his father. He was blackbirded from the Solomons, repatriated, & then volunteered to come again. He preferred life in Oz.

When I was sailing around the area the mate flew into Gizo airport, the nearest airport to where we think his father came from. His father wasn't sure of the English name of his small home island, & had never been interested enough to bother finding out.

The mate reckoned his father must have been crazy to want to leave such a beautiful area, but I think the Solomons were a much better place for the locals to live in 1976 than they had been in the early 1900s.

I've become a slave to The Forum Online Opinion.

Does that count?