End of Indenture? Asian pearling workers

The End of Indenture? Asian workers in

the Australian Pearling Industry,

1901–1972

J. Martinez

University of Wollongong, juliam@uow.edu.au

This paper is posted at Research Online.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/artspapers/104

The End of Indenture? Asian workers in the

Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972

University of Wollongong

The historical circumstances which led to the end of the indentured labor trade suggest

that its abolition was only partially the result of humanitarian concern for the welfare of

workers. It was the development of nationalism, both in sending and receiving countries,

that prompted a rethinking of the racialized labor organization of indenture. In Australia,

the introduction of the White Australia policy in 1901, with its restrictions on non-white

immigration and employment, is usually thought to coincide with the abolition of the

indentured labor trade. But the Australian pearl-shelling industry continued to employ

indentured Asian workers up until the 1970s. This case study extends the historical analysis

of indenture well beyond its supposed international abolition. In doing so, it demonstrates

a degree of continuity of colonial thought and practice which persisted in the face

of global decolonization.

The international debate over the abolition of the indenture system began in the

nineteenth century and reached its peak in the early twentieth century. Despite

protests that indenture was little better than a new system of slavery, indenture

was only gradually phased out over a period of several decades. By the 1930s,

the International Labor Organisation (ILO) had expressed its determination to

abolish all forms of unfree labor and by 1940 it appeared that indenture was at

an end. But some countries saw fit to continue the practice. Australia, a supposed

leader in the international labor reform movement, continued to import indentured

Asian labor for the pearl-shelling industry until the early 1970s. The case

of the Australian pearling industry is one which will undoubtedly revise current

understandings of the history of indenture.

The general literature on indenture seems to suggest that the indenture system

did not survive past the first two decades of the twentieth century. David

Northrup’s study of indentured labor covers the period from 1834 to 1922 as does

Kay Saunders’ edited collection on indentured labor in the British Empire.1 Neither

book claims that indenture was abolished within this period, but the dearth

of studies which reach beyond the 1920s would suggest that it did. A 1994 ILO

publication states that indentured labor survived the longest “in the Dutch

colonies where the Coolie Ordinance remained in force until 1941”.2 As this paper

demonstrates, however, even this ILO publication has seriously underestimated

the duration of indenture.

It is not possible to set a single date for the abolition of indenture because

the indenture system was dismantled in a piecemeal fashion. In British Malaya,

for example, indentured labor was abolished for Indians in 1910 and for Chinese

No. 67, Spring 2005, pp. 125–147

© 2005 International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc.

in 1914. But Javanese laborers were still subject to penal sanctions in the 1920s.

Bruno Lasker notes that the “ordinance permitting the infliction of sanctions

was repealed in the various parts of Malaya from 1932 on,” suggesting a drawnout

process. Even then, the employment of contract labor continued in Malaya

with only slight modifications, leaving open the question of the effectiveness of

abolition.3

Studies of labor practices in the United States point to a continuation of a

form of indenture, albeit under a different title. Fred Krissman’s study of California’s

agricultural workers examines the period from 1942 to 1964 when the

State became involved in regulating Mexican labor under the bracero program.

Like indents, braceros were assigned to employers without choice and were

forced to work under threat of deportation.4

In Dorothy Shineberg’s The People Trade, which covers the period up to

1930, the editor writes “the labor trade in New Caledonia was the longest lasting

and the third largest in the Pacific. It began in 1865 and lasted well into the

1930s”.5 In fact, Javanese men and women were brought to New Caledonia as

late as 19496 and in 1955 the French negotiated a new contract agreement with

the independent Indonesian government. This later period of indenture is yet to

be studied in any detail.

For those familiar with Australian labor history, the primary example of indentured

labor is the employment of Melanesians and Asians in the Queensland

sugar industry between 1863 and 1904.7 This example relegates the history of

Australian indenture to the dark past, with little connection to modern Australia.

Raymond Markey, for example, talks of the “phasing out of unfree labour

systems in Australia” brought about by the political organization of the labor

movement in the late nineteenth century.8

The advent of the federated Australian nation in 1901 coincided with the

abolition of indentured labor in the sugar industry, formalised in the Pacific

Islanders Act of 1901. In addition, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, commonly

referred to as the White Australia policy, was intended to restrict “colored”

labor from being introduced into Australia. Because of the 1901 legislation

it is generally believed that indenture was an anathema to the Australian

nation. The pearling industry was a noted exception, but there were other examples

of unfree labor in post-Federation Australia.

Though not described as indenture, the system of employment of Aboriginal

workers in Australia was a form of unfree labor which closely resembled indenture

and has often been likened to slavery.9 Aboriginal workers were frequently

forced into employment and failure to comply with employers could

lead not only to penal sanctions with hard labor, but to unofficial corporal punishment

meted out by employers. In the first half of the twentieth century state

governments oversaw Aboriginal employment, selling licences to employers, organising

recruitment and retaining workers’ wages “in trust.” Aboriginal labour

126 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

was employed in two key areas: in domestic service and in the northern pastoral

industry.10 The well-documented history of abuse and exploitation which occurred

with government sanction provides a standard by which we can judge

Australian attitudes towards non-white labor in this period.11

A classic example of indenture can be seen in Australia’s colonial administration

of Papua New Guinea, where the indenture system remained in place until

1950. Peter Fitzpatrick argues that even the “agreement system” which replaced

indenture, was essentially the same system by a different name. The only

significant change was that the penal provisions were repealed, but these were

replaced with alternative sanctions whereby absence from work could result in

court action to terminate the contract and have “damages” paid to the employer

out of the worker’s deferred pay. With an average of 549 court orders per

annum in Papua New Guinea, there was no doubt that employers retained effective

control over their employees. In 1963 restrictions on entering into employment

outside the agreement system were abolished, but even so the agreement

system survived into the 1970s.12

The pearling industry has attracted attention from historians such as Regina

Ganter, David Sissons, and J. S. Bach13 who have recognised its unique position

in the history of Australia, particularly in terms of immigration history. Even so,

very little emphasis has been given to the labor issues raised by the continuation

of the indenture system. Adrian Cunningham’s unpublished 1992 Masters’ thesis

was the first to examine the question of indenture up until 1962. At that time

1962 was the last year of open archival records, under the thirty-year restriction

applying to all government files.14

This paper presents two new aspects of pearling history that have hitherto

remained unexplored. First it demonstrates that the practice of indenture extended

far beyond the usual period, surviving into the 1970s. Second, it demonstrates

that the Australian government continued to condone indenture even in

the face of international criticism and that it was not alone in its stance.

Unlike the employment of Aboriginal and Papuan workers, the indenture

system used in the Australian pearling industry was a classic form of colonial indenture,

designed to facilitate the importation of labor. Japanese, Indonesian,

Filipino, Malay, and Chinese indents were employed in the north Australian

ports of Darwin, Broome, and Thursday Island from the late 1800s. The pearlshell

industry was the only industry to be exempted from the Immigration Restriction

Act of 1901, which prohibited the immigration of colored labor.

Pearling masters were permitted to import Asian divers, tenders, and crew under

indenture contracts. The exemption was controversial at the time given that

both colored labor and indentured labor were contrary to overtly exclusionary

policies of the new Australian nation. 15

Under the Fisher Labor government this exemption was revoked. New legislation

decreed that no licences would be issued after December 1912, unless

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 127

both the divers and tenders were European.16 After protests from the pearling

industry, extensions were granted and Prime Minster Andrew Fisher appointed

a Royal Commission headed by F. W. Bamford to investigate. Initially, the commission

began with the intention of supporting a white labor policy. In 1913,

however, the Liberal government appointed a new commissioner. The final report

in 1916 came down in favour of the continued use of indentured labor.17

The 1916 report argued that the pearl-shell industry was not suitable for

white divers, stating:

The life is not a desirable one, and the risks are great, as proved by the abnormal

death rate amongst divers and try divers. The work is arduous, the hours long, and

the remuneration quite inadequate. Living space is cramped, the food wholly preserved

of its different kinds, and the life incompatible with that a European worker

is entitled to live.18

J. S. Bach, writing in 1956, argued that by continuing to allow “coolie” labor the

federal government had undermined the moral authority of White Australia.19

Certainly the exemption demonstrated that White Australia’s real concern was

to exclude colored immigrants rather than to abolish exploitative labor practices.

The supporters of indentured labor used the argument that there was no

danger of “racial contamination” as the pearling crews spent little time on shore

and repatriation would prevent them from becoming permanent residents.20 Labor

interests were assured that the controls built into the system would prevent

Asians from competing with white workers in other fields.

For the Australian government, the exemption was ultimately a pragmatic

concession to the master pearlers who had threatened to leave Australia if they

were denied access to Japanese divers. Clark, who had already moved a large

fleet in 1905 from Thursday Island to the Dutch East Indies, had demonstrated

that this was a very real threat.21 The politics of the pearling industry was heavily

influenced by the proximity of Australia’s northern pearling beds to the eastern

islands of the Dutch East Indies, where indentured labor was readily available.

In 1925, when the pearling industry in Darwin began to expand, the federal government

sent the Sub-Collector of Customs instructions for dealing with the employment

of indentured labor.22 The regulations remained essentially the same

as earlier versions. Pearling masters were obliged to buy permits and to pay a

bond of £250 for up to 10 men, to be repaid only after the indents were returned

to their country of origin. Each indent was required to have a medical certificate

and an identity card which included two thumb-prints and two photographs.

The period of engagement was initially for three years, during which time

indents could only change employers with permission from their original employer.

After six years the original employer no longer had any special claim over

128 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

their services. Many indents remained in Australia for the majority of their

working lives.

Registers were kept detailing the date of employment, the number and nationality

of indents, deaths and causes, and prosecutions. These were ostensibly

intended to monitor and protect the working conditions of the indents. The

recording of prosecutions, however, was designed to reassure the prejudiced

fears of the white community. At the first sign of “racial” conflict or “undisciplined”

behavior, the government could order the repatriation of the indents in

question.23

According to Michael Quinlan and Constance Lever-Tracy, there were three

possible union reactions to Asian workers: solidarity, where they would be welcomed

by the union; segregation, where they would be corralled in a limited

range of undesirable jobs; or total exclusion from the labor market or country.24

Unionist demands for exclusion had led to the White Australia policy in 1901.

The pearling industry represented the second approach. Ironically, it was the demand

for segregation by Australian unionists that made indenture the appropriate

means of employing Asian workers. Free labor would not have remained

segregated, but the indenture system allowed the government to maintain complete

control over the range of employment and even the freedom of movement

of workers.

Of the pearling ports in northern Australia, Darwin had the most significant

union movement, being the headquarters of the North Australian Workers’

Union (NAWU) which covered the Northern Territory. In 1928, as unemployment

increased and the pearling industry expanded, the NAWU officials began

to lobby for stricter supervision of indentured workers in relation to onshore

work. The Pearling Ordinance stated:

During the layup season the men may live ashore and engage in such work as is

ordinarily connected with the boats at that period, such as overhauling, painting,

repairing, refitting, etc. but they are not to be allowed to engage in other occupations

on shore.25

Nevertheless, indentured crews were employed in other jobs such as unloading,

weighing, sorting and packing shell. Over the next ten years the NAWU noted

every incident of illicit employment of indentured crew and accused the government

of not taking steps to uphold the White Australia policy.26

In January 1930, Robert Toupein, secretary of the NAWU, sent the Minister

a list of jobs which he argued should be reserved for white labor. He included

chipping, shell-packing, box-making, loading and unloading shell, and cutting

timber. He further suggested that such restrictions should be enforced by the

“immediate deportation of the labourer” and a penalty upon the Master Pearler

if the latter was the offender.27

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 129

While the NAWU was initially antagonistic towards the pearling indents,

the attitude of some Darwin unionists had shifted towards solidarity in the 1930s,

encouraged by the introduction of the Communist Party’s campaign against

racial discrimination in 1928.28 In 1930 a correspondent for the communist journal

the Workers’ Weekly, remarked that:

These indentured laborers are compelled to work under coolie conditions and are

bound to the pearling masters in a manner similar to slaves. A young Malay worker

who decided to have a day away from work was fined £3/15/ for refusing to

work . . .29

In Darwin, the NAWU retained a discriminatory membership rule which

excluded Chinese, Japanese, Kanaka, Afghan, and “any colored race”.30 Attempts

to remove the “color bar” on NAWU membership led to a split between

labor and communist unionists.31 At the 1930 annual meeting communist members

proposed a new membership rule to allow “all bona-fide workers irrespective

of color” into the NAWU but their proposal was rejected.32

Criticism of the indenture system appeared frequently in the local Darwin

newspaper, which was owned by the NAWU. A letter published in the Northern

Standard, stated:

These Darwin pearlers seem to be on a great wicket. They are allowed what no

other industry is: Indentured coolie labour—in a country that boasts of its White

Australia policy. If any of their coolie workers refuse work all the master pearler

has to do is to inform the Customs Department and they do the rest—jail him at

the taxpayers’ expense.33

But the administration made no secret of the fact that indenture conditions were

poor. In 1933, when it was suggested that local labor might be employed as crew

on the pearling luggers, Stanley, Chief Pearling Inspector wrote:

On the pearling vessels work begins at 5 a.m. and ceases at 10 p.m. or later. . . . The

Asiatics live almost exclusively on a diet of rice, eked out with fish, Chinese “Soy”

and the Miso bean. A new scale of diet would have to be provided for Europeans.34

Stanley was clearly aware that any breach of segregation of employment might

ultimately make it impossible for the pearlers to continue exploiting indentured

labor.

During the 1930s, the NAWU increasingly portrayed itself as the protector

of Malay indents. In 1936 the new secretary of the NAWU, J. A. McDonald,

wrote regarding shore work:

The men used are mostly Malays, and it may be said in passing, that they are used

for shore work, very much against their will. When they join a pearling lugger, their

wages are fixed at 25/- per month, and they are given to understand that they have

130 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

only to work on the boat. They are told that the Australian law does not allow

them to work on shore, but they are soon disillusioned when the boat reaches Darwin.

Under threats of being sent to Fanny Bay gaol, they are compelled to load

the shell on to lorries, and unload it when they reach the sheds.

McDonald described the indents as “sweated alien labour,” and explained that:

“They know that they are being exploited and have no other way of seeking redress.”

35

In February 1936, as a result of union protest, it was proposed that pearlshell

would be taken to the jetty and handled by white labor.36 The Pearling Ordinance

of 1936 extended the restrictions on shore work, but an exception was

made where there was no suitable (skilled or experienced) labor available.37 The

effect of the amended Ordinance was to allow skilled tasks, such as shell sorting

to be performed by indentured workers, while reserving the unskilled job of

packing for white workers.

Thursday Island, Queensland’s major pearling centre, differed from Darwin

in that it did not have a strong union movement. At Thursday Island the

work of sorting and packing pearlshell was done by Malays or Papuans.38 A 1930

report stated that local European workers did not want “this class of work” but

that the local “half-caste” population might be trained in the job to replace the

Malays who were described as “indolent.” The writer reflects the lingering colonial

attitudes whereby certain jobs were deemed to be the province of colored

labor and therefore unsuitable for white labor.

The results of union protests became most obvious in the postwar period.

In 1948 the NAWU applied to have its membership rules revised to remove the

racial discrimination clause. This, in theory, allowed indentured Asian workers

to become members. In 1955, the Conciliation commissioner found in favour of

the NAWU and instituted the Northern Territory Pearl Fishing Award of 1955

which determined that the crew of pearling luggers were guaranteed the basic

wage and were made eligible for full membership of the NAWU. The victory

was limited, however, as the Award applied to the Northern Territory, leaving

Thursday Island and Broome unaffected. In addition, the Award did not address

issues of lack of citizenship rights or restrictions on the movement of indents.

39

It is not possible to discuss the actions of Australian trade unionists without taking

into account the organization of the indents themselves. An Australian visitor

to Japan in 1921 wrote in the Communist:

Because of our white Australia policy, because of our boast of our liberties, freedom,

and democracy, we imagine that the workers of other countries, especially

Asiatic workers, are absolutely ignorant, have no organisations, hold no meetings,

and in short are simply slaves, far from being even human beings.40

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 131

This image of Asian workers as “slaves” was only encouraged by the continued

practice of indenture, but in fact indenture did not preclude organization.

Regina Ganter, writing about Thursday Island, demonstrated the range of

bargaining methods used by Japanese pearling indents, particularly divers, who

were well-organized.41 In Broome most divers operated under a system known

as “dummying” where divers were effectively captains of the their own luggers,

but officially employed by a white Australian owner in order to satisfy Western

Australian government regulations.42

When Broome divers transferred to Darwin in the 1920s they worked for

white pearling masters, but again they were able to demand high wages. In 1928

divers were paid £100 a ton for shell raised, on the condition that the diver paid

for the expenses of the boat after it had been made ready at the beginning of the

season.

In 1929, in order to entice divers from Broome, the Darwin master pearlers

offered to pay divers £130 per ton for shell. Pearling master V. R. Kepert complained

that at that rate the divers would be able to retire in one or two years

and leave them without divers.43 At £130 the divers’ share of the profits was high

if one considers that in 1929, the principal New York buyer, Otto Gerdar, was

offering £180 per ton for shell.44 A diver’s annual income was approximately

£470 for the year, out of which they had to feed the crew.45

In 1931, a Japanese Divers’ Society and a Divers’ Tenders’ Society were

formed in Darwin. According to the Chief Pearling Inspector, “the formation of

these societies, coupled with the pernicious activities of local communistic

agents” had resulted in “unrest in the pearling industry.”46 In 1932 when the

divers went on strike, the Northern Standard commented that this was the “annual

bluff put up by the divers, who were, of course, out to secure the best possible

conditions for themselves.”47

Wages for Japanese divers, tenders and engine attendants remained high

up until the late 1930s. On top of their base wage of £3 per month, divers were

paid a bonus of £25 per ton, enabling them to make several hundred pounds per

season. Tenders and engine attendants were paid approximately £9 per month

and keep.48

It is difficult to reconcile the circumstances of Japanese employment with

the usual exploitative conditions associated with indenture. The fact that Japanese

divers controlled all aspects of work on luggers, including the food supply

to crews, meant that they were responsible for the working conditions of other

indents. From the perspective of Indonesian crews the Japanese were little different

from their white Australian employers. It might even be argued that the

divers were only nominally under indenture, while it was the crew members who

suffered the full force of the indenture system.

The relative wealth of Japanese indents did not make up for the fact that

the work was extremely dangerous. As the advances paid to divers increased, so

did extent of their indebtedness.49 This obliged them to work longer hours,

which in turn endangered their health and increased the risk of a diving fatality.

In other countries, the creation of debt amongst indentured workers was a recog-

132 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

nised problem. In New Caledonia, for example, debt allowed employers to insist

that indents continue working past their original contract period. The French

government banned this practice in 1920 but a 1928 report indicated that debt

continued nevertheless.50 No-one in the Australian government commented on

this practice.

It would be difficult to argue, however, that it was the indenture system itself

which was responsible for the deaths of divers. Divers were valued workers

and every precaution was taken. A 1931 article titled “Pearling tragedy, Death

of Diver” told of the death of Kimoto, “an old and experienced diver” who had

worked in Australia for twenty years. The crew spent sixteen hours trying to save

him after he became paralyzed.51 When diver Keikichi Yamada died in 1937, the

newspaper reported that he was fifty-two years old and had been working in

Broome for seventeen years. He had recently been brought to Darwin to replace

another diver who had died from fever.52

By the mid-1930s there were many Japanese-owned luggers operating on

the same pearling beds as the Australian-owned luggers. The divers on these luggers

worked for a share of the profits.53 In 1939 the newspaper reported the

death of Makote Maeda, an eighteen-year-old diver on the Japanese lugger

Daikoku Maru. His was the ninth death that season and the year before eighteen

divers from the Japanese-owned fleet had been killed by paralysis.54 In contrast,

the Darwin-based luggers which employed indentured workers had entire

seasons without fatalities. This was partly because they worked under the strict

supervision of Chief Pearling Inspector, Karl Nylander.

The presence of Japanese-owned luggers gave the Japanese divers in Australia

even more bargaining power because pearling masters knew that divers

had an alternative avenue of employment. In Broome in 1937 the divers went

on strike, demanding an advance of £300 on their wages. As the lugger owners

were completely dependent on their divers, they agreed to their demands.55

Despite the financial successes of Japanese indents they remained unfree

labor in the sense that penal provisions were maintained. When master pearler,

V. R. Kepert transferred from Broome to Darwin in 1929, he complained to the

government about the degree of control that the Japanese divers had over

them.56 He asked the Northern Territory Commission to consider bringing the

pearling crew under the Masters & Servants Act as was the case in Western Australia.

This would enable pearlers to send employees to gaol for “disobedience

and refusal of orders.” He considered this appropriate rather than the Darwin

system whereby they could only fine the employee a day’s wages.57 The Western

Australia Pearling Act of 1912 included penal provisions for breach of agreement,

desertion and insubordination with desertion punished by three months

imprisonment.58

The penal provisions entailed in the Masters & Servants Act also applied

to so-called free labor in Australia, a fact which has prompted historian Clive

Moore to argue that there was little difference between indentured labor and

free labor.59 The difference lay, however, in the way in which the Act was applied.

The master pearlers firmly believed, as did the Australian government,

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 133

that force was a necessary and everyday tool when dealing with non-white workers.

Another negative aspect of indenture which was retained from early colonial

practice was the insistence on preserving social distinctions based on

“racial” hierarchy. In 1933, the Japanese International Development Co. in Darwin,

which controlled the importation of indentured labor, was forced to intervene

after an incident involving pearling master, V. J. Clark. He had made

arrangements for his Japanese indentured crews to be shipped with deck passages

on the SS “Mangola.” The Japanese insisted that they be given second class

passages on the SS “Marella” instead. At that time, it was standard practice for

Burns Philp steamers to place white passengers in the cabins and colored passengers

on the deck. The Sub-Collector of Customs in Darwin ignored the Japanese

protests and had the police deport them by force. In response, the Japanese

labor agents refused to secure further indentured labor for Clark and he

was forced to apply to the Minister for permission to employ Malay indents.60

After the Japanese, the next largest ethnic group were Malays. The general term

“Malay” encompassed a number of different ethnic groups including peoples

from present-day Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia. The majority were from

the Netherlands East Indies, including Java, Maluku, Timor, and Sulawesi. In

some cases the term “Koepangers” was used as a separate category, referring to

the port of Kupang on Timor. Even so, crews from Dobo in the Aru Islands, who

termed themselves Dutch Malays, were often referred to as Koepangers.

Unlike Japanese indents, the Malay crews did not have a strong organization

of their own in prewar Australia. This was not due to lack of numbers; in

1936, there were 130 Japanese and 103 Malay indents in Darwin, not including

Koepangers who were listed separately. In comparison with Japanese, Malays

and Koepangers were more often represented as subservient “coolie” labor, a

symptom of the racial hierarchy which governed the indenture system. Nevertheless,

there is ample evidence of Malay protest.

In 1929, two Koepangers, Mateas Lili and Martin Bela, indentured by Master

Pearler Clark, were deported from Australia after refusing to work carrying

mail and stores to the Cape Don lighthouse.61 They argued that they had signed

on to engage in the pearling industry and not to carry cargo. They were prosecuted

under Section 390 of the Navigation Act and sentenced to twenty-eight

days of imprisonment. They were released on the recognizances of Don McKinnon,

editor of the union newspaper, the Northern Standard. Finally the two were

declared “prohibited immigrants” under the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901

and deported.

The following year, Clark asked the government for permission to replace

his Malay and Koepanger crews with Papuans, arguing that they were regularly

employed at Thursday Island. He was refused permission after the Governor at

Port Moresby reported that “not many natives would satisfy the Endemic Dis-

134 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

eases Ordinance 1928 as to Malaria Fever.”62 While it was not stated, one could

assume that Clark’s motive for this request was that the Koepangers were no

longer sufficiently submissive for his purposes.

In 1931, three Malays from Singapore approached the NAWU asking for

help. They were to be repatriated to Singapore but had not been paid for three

months and were owed £9. The NAWU Secretary, Toupein, took up the matter

with the Customs and Fisheries Office and approached the manager for Gregory

and Co., who agreed to pay the workers’ wages. The problem had arisen because

the contracts had expired but the indents had been forced to wait for three

months for the arrival of the next suitable steamer to transport them home.63

During the 1930s, as Japanese divers became difficult to secure, more

Malays were employed as divers in the pearling industry and this shift in status

led to an increase in worker protests.64

In 1938, fourteen indents from Dobo went to the NAWU, complaining that

their wages had been stopped for three days and their rations cut. McDonald interviewed

their employer, Clark, who claimed that the rations were in accordance

with the contract he had with the Dutch Comptroller at Dobo. McDonald

reported the matter to the Chief Pearling Inspector, Nylander who in turn

wrote to Clark stating:

There seemed to prevail a certain dissatisfaction amongst the men about rations

at the camp. This would be a matter of settlement between you and the men . . .

As a matter of course I inspected the camp in the afternoon, everything was clean

and tidy. . . . The crew told me they had no salt, milk, tea (there was coffee) curry

or sauce. Their maintenance is a matter for the employer, and perhaps you will

look into this matter, as I naturally felt restrained to discuss this phase of your

camp arrangements with your crew.65

The reprimand was effective and the crew wrote to the Northern Standard to express

their appreciation of the union support: “especially to Mr. J. A. McDonald,

the Secretary, and thank him for the trouble he took in fighting on behalf of

us . . .” They were scathing in their criticism of indenture, writing: “Fancy the

capitalist Government helping the slave labour industry! We do not think Hitler

could do worse things in Germany than the way we are treated here.”66

Despite this assertion, it appears that the Dutch colonial government believed

the Australian system to be too lenient. In 1937, a complaint was received

from Dobo indicating that the Dutch administration disapproved of the freedom

allowed Aru Islanders in Darwin. It was suggested that the Australian government

should take action to regulate the behaviour of indents and to prevent

them from entering hotels. The correspondent noted that the Dutch at least

knew how to “manage and administer their native population.” Commenting on

the difference between the Dutch and Australian systems, he argued that

it does not matter what position in life a white man holds—he is always a “Toean”

and is respected as such, and it is to be hoped that those “Whitemen” of Darwin

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 135

who mix and associate with the native indents, will try and uphold their prestige

as a white man, and not forget that Australia is proud of her “White Australia.”67

The close relationship between the pearling masters and the Dutch administration

meant that these colonial attitudes of racial superiority remained prevalent

in the Australian pearling industry.68

During the Second World War the pearling industry was temporarily abandoned.

In 1946 Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, officially opposed the resumption

of indenture. Nevertheless in 1947 he allowed pearl-shell company,

Streeter and Male, in Broome to import fifty-seven indents from Malaya, Indonesia,

and Timor.69 The Western Australia government supported indenture,

but the Queensland government remained strongly opposed. Darwin in the

Northern Territory remained under Commonwealth administration and the

Federal government was more cautious in its approach.

The Chifley Labor government was intent upon investigating the conditions

of indenture. A 1949 report concluded that current treatment was in breach

of the Draft Covenant of the International Commission on Human Rights,

which Australia had helped to draft. This report might have signalled the end of

indenture, but for the fact that Labor lost government soon after the report was

submitted.70 The incoming Menzies’ Liberal-Country Coalition government

seemed prepared to continue this outdated colonial form of labor practice. In

the 1950s Australia’s indenture system drew international criticism. More surprising,

however, was the fact that there was also some international support for

Australia’s stance.

The newly-formed, independent government of the Republic of Indonesia was

particularly sensitive to the continued practice of colonial-style recruitment. In

August 1950 the Indonesian Embassy contacted the Australian Department of

the Interior to express concern that Indonesian nationals in Darwin were being

paid less than the official basic wage. Since the 1920s in Australia there had been

a general acceptance of a minimum wage based on the cost of living. In an early

formulation in 1906, H. B. Higgins, president of the Commonwealth Arbitration

Court, determined that the minimum wage was necessary to ensure that a

worker could live as a “human being in a civilized community.”71 By denying Indonesians

the basic wage the pearling industry was effectively excluding them

from that “civilized” community.

The Australian government took no action to address Indonesian concerns.

Frank Anderson in the Fisheries Division argued that an increase in wages was

not advisable and that there was no need for any official regulation of wages.

In January 1952 the Indonesian government appointed Mr. Ohh Sien Hong, a

136 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

UNESCO Fellow conducting research into industrial arbitration in Melbourne,

to investigate working conditions in Broome and Darwin. His report concluded

that conditions were “shameful,” that indents were living in over-crowded camps,

and were the virtual prisoners of their employers. Public reporting in Indonesia

emphasized the discrimination and victimization of indents in Australia, particularly

criticizing the restrictions placed on the movements of workers.72

By March 1952, the Indonesian Government was considering banning Indonesian

indents from working in Australia. The Indonesian government was

similarly reluctant to permit indenture to New Caledonia until a more humane

code of labor was established there.

In an effort to prevent illicit recruitment by Australians, the Indonesian

government arrested a man called Tatipata, who was suspected of being engaged

in recruiting in the South Moluccas, a major source of labor for the Australian

pearling industry.73 Johannis Tatipata had worked under indenture on Thursday

Island since 1925. In an unusual request, he applied to return to Ambon with his

Australian-born wife and children for a short visit in 1951. The Bowden Pearling

Company paid for him and his family to return to Australia in September 1952.

In its continued efforts to improve conditions of indenture, the Indonesian

Embassy contacted the Department of Immigration in 1952 to request that indents

be permitted a short period away from the pearling bases during the layup

season. There was cautious approval from the Department of External Affairs

and most of the pearling masters, but opposition from local officials in

Darwin and Broome. The Commonwealth Migration Officer in Darwin argued

against holiday leave, describing the indents as “persons of low mentality” who

would be unable to comprehend that they must abide by the set conditions of

leave. It was also argued that if some indents were granted permission while other

were rejected this would only “add to the already existing discontent and difficulty

of control and administration of the industry.”74 The master pearlers and

the Sub-Collector of Customs in Broome argued that the indents could not be

trusted to return and that their services were required for the painting and careening

of pearling luggers.

The Immigration Department finally agreed that leave would be approved

on the basis of the individual merits of the applicant and only with the approval

of the local Immigration official. The resulting decision was sufficiently vague as

to make it unlikely that pearling indents would be granted leave. As a result of

the Australian government’s response, the Indonesian government imposed a

ban on the importation of indents from Indonesia to Australia.75

A confidential report to the Australian Cabinet in 1954 indicated that the

government still hoped to gain access to Indonesian indents, particularly as the

other source countries were also reluctant to provide labor. The Indonesian Embassy

informed the Department of Commerce and Agriculture that the existing

ban was being amended to allow Indonesians to work in Australia.76

Unwilling to allow the resumption of the previous mode of indenture, the

Indonesian government requested that a formal agreement be entered into between

Australia and Indonesia in February 1955. This was to be modeled on the

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 137

agreement they had made with the French government in relation to Indonesians

working in New Caledonia. But the Australian government protested that

the New Caledonia agreement had a range of provisions which were “not applicable

to Australian conditions.” In particular, the provisions for family migration

and permanent settlement went against the White Australia policy.77

The opinion of the Administrator of the Northern Territory in Darwin was

that if Indonesians were to be engaged, it would be as crew members and it

would be “unreasonable to expect the Master Pearler to guarantee them salary

and bonuses . . . equal to the local basic wage.”78

With the two governments unable to come to an agreement, the matter was

closed and Indonesian indenture to Australia was ended. The demise of indenture

in this case was brought about by the irreconcilable differences of attitude

between the Australian and Indonesian governments. Independent Indonesia

would not tolerate the continuation of colonial-style indenture, while Australia

remained bound by the White Australia policy and its assumptions of racial difference.

With Indonesian indents no longer available Malay indents were in a position to

bargain for better working conditions. In early 1952, the Malay workers at

Broome wrote a letter of complaint to the Malay Seamen’s Union in Singapore.

By May 1952 the Department of External Affairs was informed that the Malay

Seamen’s Union had no workers available to take up work in Australia. The government

was obliged to deal directly with the Malay Seamen’s Union because

the recruiting agent in Singapore, Guthrie & Co., was reluctant to continue handling

the dispatch of pearling indents. The Malay Seamen’s Union requested

that conditions for deck hands include transport to and from Australia, a salary

of £20 to £25 per month to be paid during the whole period away from Singapore,

and $2.00 per day subsistence while waiting to leave Singapore.79 The wage

scale set by the Malay Seamen’s Union was still only half of the Australian basic

wage which, at that time was approximately £13 per week.

The Malay workers continued to agitate for reform. From September 1954

to March 1955 the Malay indents in Broome went on strike. Five strike leaders

were jailed for one week and then repatriated in October 1954. They returned

to Singapore and contacted the Malay Seamen’s Union which in turn wrote to

Singapore’s Colonial Secretary. This incident resulted in bad publicity in Malaya

for Australia.80

The Australian Commission contacted the Department of External Affairs

again in March 1955, having received representations from the Malay Seamen’s

Union and from the Malaya newspaper Utusan Melayu regarding six Malay

pearl divers who were stranded in Broome. The indents were waiting to be repatriated

as punishment for their participation in the strike of November 1954 and

had been left without financial support for the intervening period.81

138 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

Unlike the Indonesian government, the British colonial government did

not respond to the concerns voiced by the Malayan unions and took no steps to

end the indenture of Malays to Australia. During this period, the British colonial

government was tolerant of the Malay union movement but only within

strictly-controlled parameters.82 The Malay strikes would have drawn criticism

from the British, particularly given the anti-colonial overtones of their protest.

With the transition to an independent Malaysian government in 1957 there

was no immediate action taken to abolish indenture to Australia. The first correspondence

came in 1962 when Malay divers returned to Malaya complaining

of poor working conditions. A letter was sent to the Australian High Commission

in Kuala Lumpur from a diver in Broome who claimed that wages had been

cut from 1960 to 1961 and that they had been retained in Australia for several

months without pay after completing their contract.83 An inquiry into the pay

scale in Broome found that pearling crews were paid a starting wage of £17 per

month plus additional amounts of “lay” calculated according to the catch size.

For twenty tons the wage was £24 per month, still less than half the basic Australian

wage.84

Despite these protests, the Malaysian government did not put an end to the

indenture system and Malaysians and Singaporeans continued to be recruited to

Australia into the early 1970s. In December 1970 the Australian government

noted that while Malays were no longer employed in Darwin, they had become

the main source of labor for Broome. The pearling company, A. S. Male & Co.

was reported to have employed fifteen Japanese and forty-five Malays in 1970.

This was the same company that had been criticized in worker protests in 1954

and 1962.85

While the British colonial government of Malaya had kept remarkably silent on

the issue of pearling indents, the British government of Hong Kong was more

critical of the Australian government. In 1955 seventeen Chinese pearling indents

in Broome sent a letter to the Commissioner of Labour in Hong Kong.

They complained that after three months in Broome they had been given no

copy of the written contract, though they had signed up for a two year contract.

They were forced to work nine months at sea and during that time were woken

at four a.m. to start at five a.m. and continued without break until six p.m. They

were also made to work on Saturdays and Sundays. They also claimed that the

pearling companies did not provide food on a regular basis.86

The Hong Kong Commissioner of Labour, P. C. M. Sedgwick responded immediately,

writing to H. C. Menzies, the Australian Government Trade Commissioner

in Hong Kong. Sedgwick pointed out that the United Kingdom had

ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions No. 50 (Recruiting

of Indigenous Workers), No. 64 (Contracts of Employment (Indigenous

Workers) and No. 86 (Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) and that

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 139

these applied to Hong Kong without modification. He wrote: “It is understood

that none of these Conventions has yet been ratified by the Australian Government.”

He listed the required conditions for Hong Kong contracts which included

reasonable working hours; overtime and holidays; and workers’ compensation.

87

The Australian government simply dismissed the complaint. The Department

of Commerce and Agriculture stated that labor conditions in the pearling

industry were “a matter for negotiation between the master pearlers and the

operatives concerned.” The Commonwealth laid down certain conditions regarding

the introduction of Asian pearling operatives, it did not “under any circumstances,

negotiate with any overseas Government or Government representatives

regarding the wages or conditions of the operatives.”88

The next communication with Hong Kong came in 1957 after the Hong

Kong government was itself criticized by the ILO regarding the extension of

contracts to North Borneo and Sarawak from two to three years. The ILO Committee

had drawn attention to Article 86 of the Convention, which limited employment

to two years if workers were unaccompanied by their families. The

Commissioner of Labour in Hong Kong sought clarification from London as to

the extent to which he might “exercise his discretion” in observing the ILO Convention.

A Department of External Affairs’ memorandum noted that “Australia

is not the only country where this problem has arisen.”89 It should be noted that

this discussion about ILO regulations took place only one month after Harold

Holt, the Australian Minister for Labour and National Service, had been elected

president of the ILO.90

In October 1951 the master pearlers of Broome, Darwin, and Thursday Island

jointly petitioned the Australian Commonwealth government for permission to

resume recruiting Japanese indents. Initially thirty-five permits were approved

for Broome. The Darwin pearlers were refused permission for fear of stirring up

public resentment. Local Darwin residents had expressed considerable antipathy

towards Japanese as a result of wartime bombing of the port. Thursday Island

in Queensland was also refused permission because the Queensland State

government was strongly opposed to indentured Asian labor. Since the Second

World War, the Thursday Island industry had become dominated by the indigenous

Torres Strait Islanders and the government did not wish to replace this

workforce.

The Australian government may have been cautious about accepting Japanese

indents, but the Japanese government was equally hesitant about allowing

their nationals to work in Australia. This issue, however, was not one of concern

over working conditions, but one of competition for pearling resources. The

Japanese had been fishing in the Arafura Sea to the north of Australia since the

1930s, and they resumed fishing in June 1953. In September 1953 the Australian

140 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

government attempted to deny the Japanese luggers access to these waters by

proclaiming the continental shelf as Australian waters in an amendment to the

Pearl Fisheries Act. The Japanese government responded by challenging this

legislation in international court.91 This conflict over territorial boundaries

made the Japanese government understandably reluctant to support the Australian

pearling industry with regard to labor.

In January 1954 the Department of Commerce and Agriculture was advised

that an alternative to Japanese divers could be obtained through the US

Administration at Okinawa. General Ogden was apparently anxious to find

work for the men previously engaged in pearling and the Fisheries Chief Taggart

was said to be “very enthusiastic” at the possibility of sending Okinawans

to Australia.92 There was no suggestion that the indenture system was regarded

as inappropriate, despite the fact that it seemed to confirm the status of the

Ryukyuans as a colonial people. In 1957, Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary

of State for Far Eastern Affairs stated: “We should make the Ryukyus a

showcase for American democracy in the Pacific.”93 The support for indenture

suggests that such aspirations were not achieved.

While the Queensland government had initially been loath to allow the

reintroduction of indentured Asians at Thursday Island, in 1958 approval was

given and 162 Ryukyuan “specialists” were introduced. A report by the Department

of Primary Industry in 1960 stated that of that number two had died

while diving, seventy had been returned to Okinawa shortly after arrival because

they were deemed unsuitable for the work and thirty-three had returned to Okinawa

in early 1960 at the end of their contract.94

In 1960 the traditional pearl-shelling industry had all but ended. With the introduction

of plastic buttons, it had become increasingly difficult to make a profit

on pearl-shell.95 The employment of indentured workers continued, however, in

the newly introduced pearl-culture industry. The production of cultured pearls

relied primarily on technicians who worked onshore, but it also required divers

to supply the technicians with live pearl-shell. Almost all workers employed in

pearl culture were indentured Asians. Those employed on pearling luggers remained

under essentially the same system as had prevailed since the inception

of the pearl-shelling industry.

At the end of 1969 a review of the immigration regulations relating to the

engagement of indentured laborers dealt a final blow to the remaining pearling

masters. The new regulations made two important changes. Firstly, it was recommended

that all indents who could satisfy the criteria should be granted resident

status. The requirements were residence in Australia for five years and

proof of good character. Many experienced pearling indents were able to gain

residency and were no longer obliged to remain in the pearling industry.

But at the same time, the Department of Immigration took steps to ensure

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 141

that no future indents could become eligible for resident status. The new regulations

limited contracts to four years, after which indents were to be repatriated

and not reengaged for another four years.

The general immigration policy regarding Asians in 1969 was that migrants

should be “well qualified and readily integrated.” Manual workers were regarded

as unsuitable migrants, being supposedly less likely to “assimilate” into the

Australian way of life. According to the government, pearling indents were not

“the type of persons who would come within the revised non-European policy.”

The only exception suggested was if a pearling indent had married an Australian

resident.96

In protesting the new policy in April 1970, Mr Haynes of A. C. Morgan Pty.

Ltd. in Broome, argued that the Malays he recruited were without training and

that it took a minimum of three years for them to become efficient divers. Regarding

the offer of permanent residency, Haynes noted that life at sea was “rigorous”

and with job opportunity ashore “almost boundless in Australia” why

would they not take the chance to leave.97 As Fred Krissman notes in connection

with Californian railway labor, the use of indentured immigrant labor was

meant to ensure that employers had a captive labor force, “unable to escape the

wretched conditions.” Krissman argues that Chinese workers in the late nineteenth

century were forced to work for low wages because they were denied citizenship

rights and were obstructed by white workers from legally engaging in

independent economic activities.98 By removing these restrictions in 1969 the

Australian government made the indenture system redundant. The Immigration

Department report concluded that “what the pearlers really want is a stable,

docile, and obedient work force.”99

In response to protests from pearling masters, the Department of Immigration

held an interdepartmental meeting in July 1970. It was concluded that

the industry in Broome warranted special consideration because Broome was

economically dependent on pearling for its existence. The report noted that

pearl culture could represent an industry worth up to $10 million per annum and

that it depended upon traditional pearl shell diving for its live shell. But while

acknowledging these economic benefits, the meeting was unable to agree to the

resumption of the previous system, in view of the “outdated” nature of indenture.”

The report of the meeting stated:

It is clear that employees in the pearling industry generally work long hours, under

arduous conditions, in isolated areas under what would generally be regarded

as unsatisfactory living conditions.

Furthermore it was acknowledged that some indents were still receiving rates

below the minimum adult wage. The Western Australian port of Broome was

regarded as the worst offender, but in the Northern Territory, where indents

were supposedly covered by the 1955 Northern Territory Pearl Fishing Award,

employers were also failing to pay Award wages. An Arbitration Inspector sent

to investigate reported back that the Award was being taken to refer only to crew

142 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

members in the narrowest sense; other indents, such as divers, were not covered

by the Award. The report concluded that

employment contracts under which overseas workers are introduced are well out

of date and include a number of restrictions on the freedom of the individual which

would attract criticism in the light of present day attitudes.100

It was recommended that an extensive investigation be undertaken.

By 1970 the number of Asian employed under indenture was very small.

There were 101 indents employed in pearl-fishing in December 1970.101 Immigration

officer, B. H. Barrenger, wrote in 1971 that he had no doubt “that Europeans

would not accept the employment conditions even with a substantial increase

in pay rate.” He acknowledged that the new immigration rules would

mark “the finish of the previous era” in which overseas workers provided “relatively

cheap labour, completely subservient to the employer.”102

The end of indenture in Australia was a quiet affair. There was no public

announcement, no media coverage. Public opinion on issues of social justice and

Asian immigration had changed rapidly in this period and the government was

hopeful that their confidential reports would not be made public. It would be difficult

to attribute the end of indenture to any particular social movement or lobby.

The importation of workers under indenture had already been made difficult

by the steps taken by supplying nations. Furthermore, the master pearlers had

lost some of their political power with the decline of the importance of the pearlshell

industry.

The final phase came in late 1972, when the Labor Party, led by Gough

Whitlam, was elected to government for the first time in eighteen years. The new

Immigration Minister, Al Grassby, oversaw the official dismantling of the White

Australia Policy and its discriminatory immigration legislation. In June 1973

Australia ratified the ILO convention No. 86, Contracts of Employment (Indigenous

Workers) Convention, 1947, which stipulated that overseas work was

limited to a two-year period for workers not accompanied by their families.103

National history is often marked by a process of forgetting and Australia’s

support for the indenture system in the twentieth century was quickly forgotten.

In a speech made in 1975 Immigration Minister Grassby roundly condemned indenture.

Referring to recent practice in Europe, he described Gastarbeiter or

guest worker as the “most obscene word in migration today.” He explained that

he was under continuing pressure, particularly from North Australia, to introduce

a system “which would bring in workers for contract work for limited periods

and then send them home again.” He argued that the Gastarbeiter system

he had seen in Europe:

Tended to treat human beings as disposable items. After they had made their contribution

they were thrown away like empty bottles. It was a system which gave no

rights, no citizenship, no permanence but took some of the workers’ best years and

in return sent them home when they were no longer needed.104

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 143

Grassby stated that the last time this had been tried in Australia with “so-called

contract labour it had given rise to the Queensland slave trade in Kanakas.”

Grassby was referring to the indentured labor of the nineteenth century. Nothing

was said of the twentieth-century pearling industry practices.

The history of indenture in Australia suggests that the practice of indenture was

intrinsically bound up with the belief in racial superiority, shared by both employers

and government officials. Most important was their assumption that

white workers were naturally entitled to better working conditions than Asian

workers. This paper reveals that such discriminatory attitudes remained prevalent

for the greater part of the twentieth century.

The continuation of indenture, a typically colonial form of employment,

into the postcolonial period appears to be anachronistic. But in fact the indenture

system suited the purposes of a national government intent on protecting

national boundaries from unwanted free immigration.

When first confronted with the practice of indenture in post-war Australia

there is a sense that this is unusual and even shocking. Certainly the general literature

on indentured labor does little to prepare us for the duration of indenture.

The fact that Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and the United States did not

ban the export of indents suggests that Australia’s stance was not an isolated

phenomenon. There is a need for further research into this later period of indenture,

in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond, so that the Australian case does

not stand alone. The study of the twentieth century indentured labor trade is one

which demonstrates the continuity of a racialized discourse on labor immigration,

an issue which remains very much at the center of labor immigration debates

today.

NOTES

1. David Northrup, Indentured Labor, In the Age of Imperialism, 1834–1922 (Cambridge,

1999); Kay Saunders, ed., Indentured Labour in the British Empire 1834–1920 (London, 1984).

2. Peter Stalker, The Work of Strangers: A Survey of International Labour Migration

(Geneva, 1994), 13.

3. Bruno Lasker, Human Bondage in Southeast Asia (Westport, 1950), 244–52.

4. Fred Krissman, “California’s Agricultural Labor Market,” in Tom Brass and Marcel van

der Linden, eds., Free and Unfree Labour, The Debate Continues (Berne, 1997), 222–223.

5. Robert Kiste in Dorothy Shineberg, The People Trade, Pacific Island Laborers and New

Caledonia, 1865–1930 (Honolulu, 1999), vii.

6. Margaret Wilson, Clive Moore, and Doug Munro, “Asian Workers in the Pacific” in

Labour in the South Pacific, ed., Clive Moore, Jacqueline Leckie, and Doug Munro (Townsville,

1990), 88.

7. Adrian Graves, Cane and Labour: The Political Economy of the Queensland Sugar Industry,

1862–1906 (Edinburgh, 1992).

8. Raymond Markey, “Free and Unfree Labour in Australia 1788–1900,” in Free and Unfree

Labour, ed. Brass and van der Linden, 478.

9. Ann McGrath, “‘Modern Stone-Age Slavery’: Images of Aboriginal Labour and Sexuality,”

Labour History 69 (1995), 30–51; Inara Walden, “‘That Was Slavery Days’: Aboriginal

144 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

Domestic Servants in New South Wales in the Twentieth Century”, Labour History 69 (1995),

196–209.

10. For more on Aboriginal labour in Queensland see Rosalind Kidd, Black Lives, Government

Lies (Sydney, 2000); Dawn May, Aboriginal Labour and the Cattle Industry: Queensland

from white settlement to the present (Cambridge, 1994).

11. Andrew Markus, Governing Savages (Sydney, 1990).

12. Peter Fitzpatrick, “‘Really Rather Like Slavery’: Law and Labour in the Colonial

Economy in Papua New Guinea,” in Essays in the Political Economy of Australian Capitalism,

ed., E. L. Wheelwright and Ken Buckley (Sydney, 1978), 109–112.

13. Regina Ganter, The Pearl-Shellers of Torres Strait, Resource Use, Development and

Decline, 1860s-1960s, (Carlton, 1994); DCS Sissons, “The Japanese in the Australian Pearling

Industry,” Queensland Heritage 3 (1979), 8–27; JPS Bach, “The Pearlshelling Industry and the

‘White Australia’ Policy,” Historical Studies 10 (1962), 203–213. See also Henry Reynolds,

North of Capricorn, (Crows Nest, 2003).

14. Adrian Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time: The Australian Pearlshelling Industry,

Asian Indentured Labour and the White Australia Policy, 1946–1962,” Master of Letters thesis,

Australian National University, 1992.

15. Lorraine Philipps, ‘Plenty More Little Brown Man! Pearlshelling and White Australia

in Queensland 1901–1918,’ in E. L. Wheelwright and K. Buckley, eds., Essays in the Political

Economy of Australian Capitalism, Volume 4, (Sydney, 1980), 58.

16. Lenore Layman, “‘To Keep up the Australian Standard’: Regulating Contract Labour

Migration, 1901–50,” Labour History 70 (1996), 41; Andrew Markus, Australian Race Relations,

1788–1993 (Sydney, 1994), 124.

17. Philipps, “Plenty More Little Brown Man!” 73–5.

18. Bamford, Final Report, 1916, cited in Ganter, The Pearl-Shellers, 114; Pearling Conditions,

A1/15 1914/12612, National Archives of Australia ACT (hereafter cited as NAA ACT)

19. Bach cited in Ganter, The Pearl-Shellers, 115.

20. Ganter, The Pearl-Shellers, 62.

21. Ganter, The Pearl-Shellers, 115; Phillips, “Plenty More Little Brown Man!” 62, 64.

22. F. J. Quinlan to Sub-Collector of Customs, Darwin, August 31, 1925, A1/15 30/880,

NAA ACT.

23. Instructions Regarding Employment of Coloured Indentured Labour in the Pearling

Industry, 1925, A1/15 30/880, NAA ACT.

24. Michael Quinlan and Constance Lever-Tracy, “From Labor Market Exclusion to Industrial

Solidarity: Australian Trade Union Responses to Asian Workers, 1930–1988,” in Australia

and Immigration: Able to Grow?, ed. M. Easson (Sydney, 1990), 20.

25. Memo, Sub-Collector of Customs, Darwin to Department of Home and Territories

(hereafter cited as DHT), October 29, 1928, A1/15 30/880, NAA ACT.

26. Ibid.

27. Toupein to Minister of Home Affairs, January 11, 1930, A1/15 30/880, NAA ACT.

28. Andrew Markus, “Talka Longa Mouth: Aborigines and the Labour Movement, 1890–

1970,” in Who Are Our Enemies?, ed. Ann Curthoys and Andrew Markus (Sydney, 1978), 147–

149.

29. M. (possibly Mahoney), “Indentured Slaves in Darwin,” Workers’ Weekly, January 10,

1930.

30. NAWU, Constitution and General Rules, Rule 6, Mitchell Library, NSW.

31. Northern Standard, August 30; October 1; October 8, 1929.

32. Northern Standard, September 2, 1930.

33. “Boko” in Northern Standard, February 13, 1934.

34. Stanley, Chief Pearling Inspector to Administrator, March 31, 1933, A1/15 33/2419,

NAA ACT.

35. McDonald, “Indentured Labor in Darwin, White Australia Policy Flouted,” Northern

Standard, January 24, 1936. The ambivalent attitude of white unionists towards the continued

use of “coloured” labor is discussed in Julia Martínez, “Questioning ‘White Australia’: Unionism

and ‘Coloured’ Labour, 1911–1937,” Labour History 76 (1999), 1–19.

36. “Union Notes,” Northern Standard, February 28, 1936.

37. Pearling Ordinance 1936, F11936/220, National Archives of Australia, Northern Territory

(hereafter cited as NAA NT).

38. Memo, DHT, “Employment of Indentured Labourers on Shore at Thursday Island,”

A1/15 30/880, NAA ACT.

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 145

39. Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time,” 93–4.

40. “At a Japanese Trades Union Meeting,” The Communist, July 22, 1921.

41. Ganter, The Pearl-Shellers, Chapters 3 and 4.

42. Sun, Sydney, February 1, 1929, A1/15 28/11303, NAA ACT.

43. Kepert to DHT, January 25, 1929, A1/15 28/11303, NAA ACT.

44. Price offered by Otto Gerdar Co. A1/15 29/11303, NAA ACT; Herald, February 2,

1929.

45. “Report of the Administrator,” Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers, 1928.

46. Memorandum from Chief Pearling Inspector, Stanley, May 12, 1933, A1/15 35/7697,

NAA ACT.

47. Northern Standard, February 19, 1932.

48. The Territory Pearling Co., previously V. J. Clark Ltd., to Chief Pearling Inspector,

June 3, 1938, F1 1938/726, NAA NT; Conditions of agreement between Master Pearlers and

Pearlfishers in Darwin, 1936, F1 1938/540, NAA NT.

49. Sub-Collector of Customs, Broome to Secretary, DHT, February 5, 1929, A1/15 28/

11303, NAA ACT.

50. Rapport a M. le Gouvernor General de l’Indo-Chine, “La Condition de la main-d’oeuvre

Indochinoise dans les Etablissements Francais du Pacifique Austral,” Noumea, Imprimerie

Nationale, 1928, SOM Br5349, Centre des Archives d’Outre Mer, Aix en Provence.

51. Northern Standard, September 8, 1931.

52. “Death of Japanese Diver,” Northern Standard, April 2, 1937.

53. J. A. Perkins, Minister for the Interior report to Cabinet, February 17, 1933, “The

Pearling Industry,” A1/15 33/938, PT2, NAA ACT; Northern Standard, January 10, 1933.

54. Northern Standard, July 11, 1939.

55. “Pearling Strike Threatened,” Northern Standard, February 2, 1937.

56. Kepert, Glenferrie Sanitarium, NSW to DHT, January 21, 1929; Quinlan, Ass. Secretary,

Home Affairs, to V. R. Kepert Esq., Leura, January 25, 1929, A1/15 28/11303, NAA ACT.

57. Ibid.

58. Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time,” 18.

59. Clive Moore, “Workers in Colonial Papua New Guinea: 1884–1975,” Labour in the

South Pacific, 40.

60. Administration Memorandum, “Pearling—Employment of Malay Labour,” May 12,

1933, A1/15 35/7697, NAA ACT.

61. Customs and Excise Office, Darwin to Department of Home Affairs, March 26, 1929,

A1/15 29/1132, NAA ACT.

62. Clifford Green, Sub-Collector of Customs, to Secretary of Home Affairs, June 12,

1929; Government House, Port Moresby to Prime Minister, August 7, 1929, A518/1 J918/3,

NAA ACT.

63. “Indentured Laborers Obtain Their Wages,” Northern Standard, April 14, 1931.

64. “Report on the Administration of the Northern Territory, Year ended 30th June 1934,”

20, Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers 1934–7.

65. K. Nylander to Manager, Territory Pearling Company, December 10, 1938, F1 1938/

726, NAA NT.

66. Hermanus, Chasim, Abde, Arnold, Alexsander, and Simson, Letter to the editor, “The

N.A.W.U. Thanked,” Northern Standard, December 23, 1938.

67. “Aroe Island Notes,” Northern Standard, February 26, 1937.

68. For a discussion of social conditions for pearling indents in Western Australia see

Christine Choo, “Asian Men on the West Kimberley Coast, 1900–1940,” in Jan Gothard, ed.,

Asian Orientations (Perth, 1995), 89–111.

69. Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time”, 37.

70. Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time,” 63.

71. Stuart Macintyre, The Oxford History of Australia, Volume 4, 1901–1942, The Succeeding

Age (Melbourne, 1986), 103.

72. Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time,” 76–77.

73. Cablegram from Australian Embassy, Djakarta, to Department of External Affairs

(hereafter cited as DEA), March 15, 1952, Immigration—Admission of Asiatics and others for

pearling, A1838/2 1531/49, NAA ACT.

74. Memo, Department of Immigration (hereafter cited as DI), “Pearling Indents—Question

of Permitting Them to Leave Their Base During Lay-up Season,” December 1, 1952, Indonesians

Engaged in Pearling Industry, A6980 T1, S250243, NAA ACT.

146 ILWCH, 67, Spring 2005

75. Ibid.

76. Confidential submission to Cabinet, Australian Pearling Industry, G. McLeay, Acting

Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, November 26, 1954, A6980 S250205, NAA ACT.

77. Record of conversation, Dr Tamzil, Indonesian Ambassador with J. P. Quinn, Acting

Secretary, DEA, February 28, 1955, A609 520/1/32, NAA ACT.

78. Letter, Administrator, F. S. Wise to Secretary, Department of Territories, April 4, 1955,

Re-establishment of pearling industry—Northern Territory, A452 1950/77 PART 3, NAA

ACT.

79. Memo, Australian Commissioner for Malaya, Singapore, to Secretary, DEA, May 7,

1952, Immigration—Admission of Asiatics and Others for Pearling, A1838/2 1531/49, NAA

ACT.

80. Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time,” 86–7.

81. Cablegram, Australia Commission, Singapore to DEA, March 17, 1955, NAA ACT.

82. K. S. Jomo and Patricia Todd, Trade Unions and the State in Peninsular Malaysia

(Kuala Lumpur, 1994), 103.

83. Melbourne Sun, May 5, 1962; Letter from Nordin bin Badron, Broome, to Australian

High Commission, Kuala Lumpur, March 21, 1962, A446 1968/71859, NAA ACT.

84. Broome—Wages and Lay 1961, A1804/33 A59/1/8 Reports on the pearling industry,

1961–1963, NAA ACT.

85. Present Structure of the Industry, December 1970, A446 1969/72528 Pearling Industry-

employment conditions-Part 3, NAA ACT.

86. Translation to the Commissioner of Labour, Hong Kong from Tsang Yat-yau and sixteen

others, Broome, Western Australia, January 19, 1955, A1838 530/1/6, NAA ACT.

87. Letter, PCM Sedgwick, Commissioner of Labour, Hong Kong to H. C. Menzies, Australian

Government Trade Commissioner, Hong Kong, March 3, 1955, A1838 530/1/6, NAA

ACT.

88. T. W. Eckersley, Secretary, Department of Commerce and Agriculture to Australian

Trade Commissioner, Hong Kong, August 1, 1955, NAA ACT.

89. Memo from R. N. Birch, First Secretary to Secretary, DEA, “Conditions of Employment

in Australia of Chinese from Hong Kong,” July 11, 1957, A1838 530/1/6, NAA ACT.

90. Extract from the Provisional Record of the International Labour Conference, Fortieth

Session, Geneva, June 5, 1957, M2607/1 20, NAA ACT.

91. Cunningham, “On Borrowed Time,” 79–83.

92. Cable gram from the Australian Legation, Bangkok to JG Crawford, Department of

Commerce and Agriculture, January 29, 1954, A6980 S250204, NAA ACT.

93. Kensei Yoshida, Democracy Betrayed: Okinawa Under U.S. Occupation (Washington,

2001), 79–80.

94. Minute Paper, C. G. Setter, Department of Primary Industry to First Assistant Secretary,

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, March 17, 1960, A1804 159/8/7, NAA ACT.

95. Ganter, The Pearl-Shellers, 223.

96. P. R. Heydon, DI, Report to the Minister, “Specialists and Employees for the Pearling

Industry,” September 26, 1969. Approved September 30, 1969, Pearling Industry—employment

conditions—Part 3, A446 1969/72528, NAA ACT.

97. P. A. Haynes to Senator P. Sim, May 8, 1970, NAA ACT.

98. Krissman, “California’s Agricultural Labor Market”, 215.

99. W. K. Brown, DI, Conversation with Keith Dureau of Pearls Pty. Ltd. and Haynes of

A. C. Morgan Pty. Ltd., Western Australia, April 8, 1970, A446 1969/72528, NAA ACT.

100. P. H. Cook, Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service to Secretary,

DI, May 19, 1970, NAA ACT.

101. Admission of Non-Europeans for Employment in the Pearling Industry, Citizenship

and Travel Branch, DI, A446 1969/72528, NAA ACT.

102. B. H. Barrenger, DI, February 9, 1971, A446 1969/72528 NAA ACT.

103. www.ilo.org, October 22, 2002.

104. “Grassby Attacks ‘Slave’ Labour,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 8, 1975.

Asian workers in the Australian Pearling Industry, 1901–1972 147

Immigration Restriction Act 1901

Page 1 of 7

NOTE: original document not available.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPTION

1901.] 1 EDWARDI VII. [No.

No. 17 of 1901

A N A C T

To place certain restrictions on Immigration and to provide

for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited

Immigrants. [Assented to 23rd December 1901]

BE it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty the Senate

and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of

Australia as follows:—

1. This Act may be cited as the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. Short title.

2. In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—

“Officer” means any officer appointed under this Act, or any Officer

of Customs ;

“The Minister” means the Minister for External Affairs.

Definition.

3. The immigration into the Commonwealth of the persons described in

any of the following paragraphs of this section (herein-after called

“prohibited immigrants”) is prohibited, namely:—

(a) Any person who when asked to do so by an officer fails to

write out at dictation and sign in the presence of the

officer a passage of fifty words in length in an

European language directed by the officer;

(b) any

Prohibited

immigrants.

See Natal Act 1897,

No. 1, s.3.

W.A. 1897, No.

13, s.2.

Immigration Restriction Act 1901

Page 2 of 7

1 EDW. VII.] Immigration Restriction. [No. 2

(b) any person likely in the opinion of the Minister or of

an officer to become a charge upon the public or upon any

public or charitable institution ;

(c) any idiot or insane person ;

(d) any person suffering from an infectious or contagious disease of

a loathsome or dangerous character ;

(e) any person who has within three years been convicted of an

offence, not being a mere political offence, and has been

sentenced to imprisonment for one year or longer therefor,

and has not received a pardon ;

(f) any prostitute or person living on the prostitution of others ;

(g) any persons under a contract or agreement to perform manual

labour within the Commonwealth: Provided that this

paragraph shall not apply to workmen exempted by the

Minister for special skill required in Australia or to persons

under contract or agreement to serve as part of the crew of

a vessel engaged in the coasting trade in Australian waters

if the rates of wages specified therein are not lower than the

rates ruling in the Commonwealth.

But the following are excepted:—

(h) Any person possessed of a certificate of exemption in force for

the time being in the form in the Schedule, signed by the

Minister or by any officer appointed under this Act whether

within or without the Commonwealth ;

Exemptions.

Natal ib. s.2;

W.A. ib. s.2;

N.S.W. ib. s.2.

(i) members of the King’s regular land or sea forces ;

(j) the master and crew of any public vessel of any Government ;

(k) the master and crew of any other vessel landing during the stay

of the vessel in any port in the Commonwealth: Provided

that the master shall upon being so required by any officer,

and before being permitted to clear out from or leave the

port, muster the crew in the presence of an officer ; and if it

is found that any person, who according to the vessel’s

articles was one of the crew when she arrived at the port,

and who would in the opinion of the officer be a prohibited

immigrant but for the exception contained in this

paragraph, is not present, then such person shall not be

excepted by this paragraph, and until the contrary is proved

shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and to have

entered the Commonwealth contrary to this Act ;

(l) any person duly accredited to the Government of the

Commonwealth by the Imperial or any other Government

or sent by any Government on any special mission;

(m) a wife

See Vict. No. 1073

s. 8.

Immigration Restriction Act 1901

Page 3 of 7

1 EDW. VII.] Immigration Restriction. [No. 3

(m) a wife accompanying her husband if he is not a prohibited

immigrant, and all children apparently under the age of

eighteen years accompanying their father or mother if the

father or mother is not a prohibited immigrant; but so that

the exceptions in this paragraph shall not apply if

suspended by proclamation; and such suspension may be of

general application or limited to any cases or class of cases;

(n) Any person who satisfies an officer that he has formerly been

domiciled in the Commonwealth or in any colony which

has become a State.

N.S.W. ib. s. 6.

4. A certificate of exemption shall be expressed to be in force for a

specified period only, and may at any time be cancelled by the Minister by

writing under his hand.

Upon the expiration or cancellation of any such certificate, the person

named therein may, if found within the Commonwealth, be treated as a

prohibited immigrant offending against this Act:

Provided that in the case of a person entering the Commonwealth from

any vessel under this section no penalty shall attach to the vessel or its master

owners or charterers.

Certificates of

exemption.

5. (1) Any immigrant who evades an officer or who enters the

Commonwealth at any place where no officer is stationed may if at any time

thereafter he is found within the Commonwealth be asked to comply with the

requirements of paragraph (a) of section three, and shall if he fails to do so

be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant offending against this Act.

Immigrants evading

the officers or

found with the

Commonwealth.

(2) Any immigrant may at any time within one year after he has

entered the Commonwealth be asked to comply with the requirements of

paragraph (a) of section three, and shall if he fails to do so be deemed to be a

prohibited immigrant offending against this Act.

6. Any prohibited immigrant within the meaning of paragraph (a) only

of section three may if thought fit by an officer be allowed to enter the

Commonwealth or to remain within the Commonwealth upon the following

conditions :—

Entry permitted on

certain conditions.

See Natal ib. s. 5;

W.A. ib. s. 5;

N.S.W. ib. s. 5.

(a) He shall on entering the Commonwealth or on failing to comply

with the requirements of that paragraph deposit with an

officer the sum of One hundred pounds.

(b) He shall within thirty days after depositing such sum obtain

from the Minister a certificate of exemption in the form of

the Schedule, or depart from the Commonwealth, and

thereupon the deposit shall be returned; but otherwise the

deposit or any part thereof may be forfeited and he may be

treated as a prohibited immigrant offending against this

Act.

Provided

Immigration Restriction Act 1901

Page 4 of 7

1 EDW. VII.] Immigration Restriction. [No. 4

Provided that in the case of a person entering the Commonwealth from any

vessel under this section no penalty shall attach to the vessel or its master

owners or charterers.

7. Every prohibited immigrant entering or found within the

Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this Act shall be guilty of an

offence against this Act, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to

imprisonment for not more than six months, and in addition to or substitution

for such imprisonment shall be liable pursuant to any order of the Minister to

be deported from the Commonwealth.

Provided that the imprisonment shall cease for the purpose of

deportation, or if the offender finds two approved sureties each in the sum of

Fifty pounds for his leaving the Commonwealth within one month.

Unlawful entry of

prohibited

immigrants.

See Natal ib. s. 4 ;

W.A. ib. s. 4 ;

N.S.W. ib. s. 4.

8. Any person who is not a British subject either natural-born or

naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom or of the Commonwealth or

of a State, and who is convicted of any crime of violence against the person,

small be liable, upon the expiration of any term of imprisonment imposed on

him therefore, to be required to write out at dictation and sign in the presence

of an officer a passage of fifty words in length in an European language

directed by the officer, and if he fails to do so shall be deemed to be a

prohibited immigrant and shall be deported from the Commonwealth

pursuant to any order of the Minister.

Certain persons may

be deported.

9. The master, owners, and charterers of any vessel from which any

prohibited immigrant enters the Commonwealth contrary to this Act shall be

jointly and severally liable to a penalty not exceeding One hundred pounds

for each prohibited immigrant so entering the Commonwealth.

Penalty on masters

and owners of

ships.

Provided that in the case of an immigrant of European race or

descent no penalty shall be imposed under this section on any master owner

or charterer who proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he had no

knowledge of the immigrant being landed contrary to this Act, and that he

took all reasonable precautions to prevent it.

Natal ib. s. 8 ;

W.A. ib. s. 8 ;

N.S.W. ib. s. 8.

10. (1) The Minister, or any Collector of Customs specially empowered

by him, may by writing under his hand authorize any officer to detain any

vessel from which any prohibited immigrant has, in the opinion of the

officer, entered the Commonwealth contrary to this Act; and the vessel may

then be detained either at the place where she is found, or at any place to

which the Minister or Collector may order her to be brought. The Minister or

such Collector shall forthwith give notice to the owner or agent of the vessel

of the detention of such vessel.

(2) For

Detention of vessel.

See Vict. No. 1073

s. 14.

Immigration Restriction Act 1901

Page 5 of 7

1 EDW. VII.] Immigration Restriction. [No. 5

(2) For the purposes of the detention and other lawful dealing with

the vessel the officer so authorized shall be entitled to obtain such writ of

assistance or other aid as is provided under any law relating to the Customs

with respect to the seizure of vessels or goods.

Powers of detaining

officer.

(3) The detention shall be for safe custody only, and shall cease if a

bond with two sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Minister or the

collector be given by the master owners or charterers of the vessel for the

payment of any penalty which may be adjudged under this Act to be paid for

the offence or default.

Detention to cease if

bond given.

(4) If default is made in payment of any such penalty, the officer

may seize the vessel ; and the like proceedings shall thereupon be taken for

forfeiting and condemning the vessel as in the case of a vessel seized for

breach of any law relating to the Customs, and the vessel shall be sold.

Sale of vessel on

default.

(5) The proceeds of the sale shall be applied first in payment of the

penalty and of all costs incurred in and about the sale and the proceedings

leading thereto, and the balance shall be paid to the owners of or other

persons lawfully entitled to the vessel before condemnation and sale.

Application of

proceeds.

11. No contract or agreement made with persons without the

Commonwealth for such persons to perform manual labour within the

Commonwealth whereby such persons become prohibited immigrants within

the meaning of paragraph (g) of section three shall be enforceable or have

any effect.

Contracts for

manual labour—

when enforceable.

12. (1) Any person who in any way wilfully assists any other person to

contravene or attempt to contravene any of the provisions of this Act, or

makes or authorizes any contract or agreement the performance of which

would be a contravention of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this

Act.

Assisting persons to

contravene Act.

See Natal ib. s. 11,

N.S.W. ib. s. 10.

(2) Any person who makes or authorizes such contract or

agreement shall be liable to the Commonwealth for any expense incurred by

the Commonwealth in respect of any immigrant prohibited by reason of the

contract or agreement.

13. Any person who is wilfully instrumental in bringing or attempting to

bring into the Commonwealth any idiot or insane person contrary to this Act

shall, in addition to any other penalty, be liable to the Commonwealth for any

expense in respect of the maintenance of the idiot or insane person whilst

within the Commonwealth.

Bringing idiots or

insane persons

into the

Commonwealth.

See Natal ib. s. 13 ;

W.A. ib. s. 13.

14. Every member of the police force of any State, and every officer,

may with any necessary assistance prevent any prohibited immigrant, or

person reasonably supposed to be a prohibited immigrant, from entering the

Commonwealth, and may take all legal proceedings necessary for the

enforcement of this Act.

15. Subject

Powers to enforce

Act.

See Natal ib. s. 14 ;

W.A. ib. s. 14 ;

N.S.W. ib. s. 11.

Immigration Restriction Act 1901

Page 6 of 7

1 EDW. VII.] Immigration Restriction. [No. 6

15. Subject to any Act relating to the public service, the Governor-

General may appoint officers for carrying out this Act, and may prescribe

their duties.

Appointment of

officers.

See Natal ib. s. 15 ;

W.A. ib. s. 15 ;

N.S.W. ib. s. 15.

16. (1) The Governor-General may make regulations for carrying out

this Act and for empowering officers to determine whether any person is a

prohibited immigrant.

(2) All such regulations shall be notified in the Gazette, and shall

thereupon have the force of law.

(3) All such regulations shall be laid before both Houses of the

Parliament within thirty days after the making thereof if the Parliament be

then sitting, and if not then within thirty days after the next meeting of the

Parliament.

Regulations.

17. The Minister shall cause to be made annually a return which shall be

laid before Parliament, showing the number of persons refused admission

into the Commonwealth on the ground of being prohibited immigrants, the

nations to which they belong and whence they came, and the grounds on

which admission was refused; the number of persons who passed the test

prescribed by paragraph (a) of section three, the nations to which they belong

and whence they came; the number of persons admitted to the

Commonwealth without being asked to pass the test, the nations to which

they belong, and whence they came.

Annual return

showing persons

refused

admission.

18. Where no higher penalty is expressly imposed, a person guilty of

any offence against this Act, or against any regulation made thereunder, shall

be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding Fifty pounds,

and in default of payment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for

any period not exceeding three months.

Penalties.

19. This Act shall not apply to the immigration of Pacific Island

labourers under the provisions of the Pacific Island Labourers Acts, 1880-

1892, of the State of Queensland.

Pacific Island

Labourers Acts of

Queensland.

SCHEDULE.

Immigration Restriction Act 1901

Page 7 of 7

1 EDW. VII.] Immigration Restriction. [No. 7

SCHEDULE Section 3.

_______

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

_______

This is to certify that of aged

years, a [insert trade, calling, or other description] is exempted for a period

of from the date hereof from the provisions of the Immigration

Restriction Act 1901.

Dated at this day of 1901.

Minister for External Affairs

[or as the case may be].

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a fair print of

the Bill intituled “An Act to place certain restrictions

on Immigration and to provide for the removal from

the Commonwealth of prohibited Immigrants,”

which has been passed by the Senate and the House

of Representatives, and that the said Bill originated

in the House of Representatives.

[C. Gavan Duffy]

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

In the name and on behalf of His

Majesty, I assent to this Act

[Hopetoun]

[Government House]

[23rd December 1901]

______________________

Printed and Published for the GOVERNMENT of the COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA by ROBT. S. BRAIN

Government Printer for the State of Victoria

TRANSCRIPTION ENDS

http://celrl.law.unimelb.edu.au/assets/Working%20Papers/celrl-wp20.pdf

2. Immigration Control and Labour Market Demands: A Brief Historical

Survey9

development of immigration policy in A O’Donnell and R Mitchell, ‘Immigration Law and

Policy, and Its Contribution to Labour Market Regulation: A Historical Survey to 1979’,

Working Paper No. 16, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, The University of

Melbourne, 2000.

colonies and passage was generally offered to young, married, male agricultural workers and

rural tradesmen, and their families, and to single female domestic and farm servants, with

recruitment superintended from London by an array of sub-agencies of the Colonial Office.

in Economic History No 3, Flinders University, Adelaide, 1995.

University Press, Melbourne, 1989; M Quinlan and M Gardner, ‘Researching Australian

Patmore, Monograph No 1, Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Teaching,

University of Sydney, 1990.

employer to another and employers could also ‘rent’ out their indentured labourers to tenant

farmers for short periods. See A Graves, ‘Colonialism and Indentured Labour Migration in the

supply, colonial governments were also interventionist with regard to labour control, with the

Victorian Factories Acts amended to extend to any workroom or factory where a Chinese

person was employed and, later, to restrict the hours of work that could be undertaken on such

premises. See Factories and Shops Amendment Acts 1887 (Vic) (51 Victoria Nos 961 and

1445). Similar legislation was enacted in Queensland and New South Wales in 1896.

‘European’ to ‘any prescribed’ language, with a proviso that a ‘European language’ would be

used until any further language was prescribed. The amendment was meant to reinforce the

formally non-discriminatory nature of the Act, but parliament did not prescribe any further

pp 82-3. The dictation test could also be administered to immigrants within a year of entry

into Australia, or to non-British subjects on their release from prison for crimes of violence;

those who failed were deemed prohibited immigrants and were liable to deportation: ss 5(2);

7-8. In 1920 the one year time limit was extended to three years and in 1932 to five years after

entry. Palfreeman, p 84, observes that the dictation test was used to a much greater extent as a

tool of deportation than as a means of preventing entry.

Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 1964, p 51.

any specified nationality, race, class or occupation where deemed desirable to do so on

account of ‘economic, industrial, or other conditions’ existing in Australia: Immigration Act

landing permit before being allowed entry. The discretionary granting of landing permits

enabled the government to restrict alien entry according to the state of the labour market

without subjecting white Europeans to the dictation test: Commonwealth Parliamentary

Debates, Senate, 29 April 1932, vol 134, p 127. This system became the centrepiece of

immigration control in the 1930s and effectively reduced the dictation test to a mere

supplementary power: D Dutton, Strangers and Citizens: The Boundaries of Australian

Citizenship 1901-73, PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1998, p 50.

Melbourne, 1987, p 42.

The Chinese Labour Experiment

Importation of Chinese labour was a response to what was seen as a short-term labour crisis

following the South African War. Chinese were brought in to boost production and keep the

mines operational until a sufficiently cheap supply of African labour could be secured. The

British and Chinese governments negotiated the Anglo–Chinese Labour Convention that was

signed in London in May 1904. Chinese workers were bound by the Labour Importation

Ordinance (hereafter Ordinance) that regulated the introduction of ‘unskilled Non-European

Labourers’ into the Transvaal. The vast majority of these men were peasants or rural wagelabourers

from the northern provinces of Chihli (now Hebei) and Shantung (Shandong).

These areas had been severely affected by floods and drought in the late nineteenth century

and had also suffered chronic political instability resulting from the Boxer Rebellion and its

suppression. South African recruiters were the direct beneficiaries of these calamitous

misfortunes.10

By 1905, 35 mines employed Chinese men who lived in compounds and worked an

average of ten hours daily, six days a week, with Sundays and various holidays off. For the six

working days, the men were confined to the mine premises. Labourers could request permits

to visit town or friends at other mining compounds but Chinese mineworkers were forbidden

by law to leave the Witwatersrand magisterial district. Refusal to work, desertion, changing

employers, the failure to produce a mine passport while off mine premises and several other

acts were defined as criminal offences under the Ordinance – to which amendments were

added over time. The great majority of Chinese labourers worked underground. Of the just

over 50,000 indentured workers employed on the Rand in 1906, less than 2,000 worked on the

surface as sweepers and cleaners (578), police (532), cooks (404) and in various other

capacities.11

10 P. Richardson, ‘Coolies, Peasants and Proletarians: The Origins of Chinese Indentured Labour in South Africa,

1904–1907’, in S. Marks and P. Richardson (eds), International Labour Migration: Historical Perspectives

(London, Maurice Temple Smith Limited, 1984).