Workers in Bondage: The Origins and Bases of Unfree Labour in Queensland, 1824-1916

Abstract

INDRODUCTION n From the commencement of free settlement in 1842 in the northernndistricts of New South Wales until 1906, the institution of indenturednservice provided the mainstay for certain sections of ruralnindustry. Its beginnings were hardly auspicious, for indenturenhad evolved in these northern districts in conjunction with thensystem of assignment of felons and the widespread reliance ofnpastoralists upon the unfree labour of qticket-of-leaver holder-snand qexilesq. Like the convict, the indentured servant was legallynbound in servitude to his or her master. Both of these categoriesnwere confined within highly authoritarian social structures. Thensituation where the white population was rigidly divided into thencategories of free or bond was intensified by the brutal exigenciesnof the frontier where the invading British settlers fought thenAborigines for control of the land. Ultimately the blacks lostncontrol and ownership of their vital land, and in many areas, wherenpastoralism replaced the traditional mode of production, they werenforced to work for their conquerors. Their status resembled thatnof slaves, though they lacked what the moderate protection , theninvestment of capital in human resources , conferred upon chattelsnin societies such a s the American Ante-Bellum South. qSettlernsocieties q, particularly those containing plantation economies likenQueensland, soon found that the conquered indigenous people couldnnot provide either the large numbers or the consistency of applicationnto work for the new proprietors. The problem of securingnand maintaining a viable labour force which could be controlled andnregimented could be solved , firstly , by using slaves or , secondly ,nby engaging q coolies q or other forms of imported bonded workers .n n When indenture was established in what was to become Queensland,nslavery in other English-speaking colonies or nations had becomenincreasingly moribund and anachronistic. In Mauritius and in thenWest Indies, the particular forms of indenture which were substitutednfor outright chattel bondage differed only in legal definition. In certain respects, too, assignment in New South Walesnoperated as a variant of the slave mode of production where mastersnowned both the forces of production (the land , equipment , grain andnlivestock) and the labour power of their convict servants . Thesenmasters could not extract labour permanently from felons, as theynowned qproperty in the services qrather than qproperty in the personr and only for the duration of the transporteers sentence. Thisndid not, however, alter the basic structure of the master-servantnsyndrome. In two vital regards - the existence of a modified systemnof slavery of felons and later the reliance upon imported non-Europeannindentured servants - Queensland contained within it somenelements that locked it unequivocally into patterns established innthe slave-holding regions of the Empire. The successful if shortnexistence of a classical plantation economy, at least with regardnto the sugar industry until 1885 , further intensified and reinforcednthese structural similarities .n n Yet, despite these particular affinities, Queensland was nevernanother British Guiana. Essentially, it presented a uniquendevelopment among tropically-located settler societies. Unlikensocieties such as Mauritius, Fiji or Jamaica, Queensland nevernpossessed a monocultural economy. In the nineteenth century thenpastoral, sugar, mining and later wheat industries sustained thennascent economy. The survival of a classical plantation systemndepends upon its being part of an qoverseas economyq , dominated byna metropolis where finance is generated , decisions made andnmanagerial and technical skill recruited . The colonial segmentnmerely provides the locus of production. Secondly, plantationneconomies are segmental, consisting of large numbers of independentnestates each operating as a self-sufficient unit . (l) Certainlynthese characteristics were fully developed in the Queensland sugarnindustry until the depression of the 1890s. Most significantly,nhowever , unlike the Third World , Queensland ' s sugar industry wasnonly one component within a diversified economy . The racial compositionnof Caribbean societies likewise differed markedly fromnthat of Queens land. The form of a small European elite of ownersnor managers and technical officers and large numbers of non-whitenservile workers was largely confined in Queens land to the earlynpastoral industry and the plantation system. Other very significantnsegments within the society such a s the capital and majornprovincial cities contained few non-Europeans. These patterns ofnurbanization contained a highly structured class system rathernthan the complex class/caste model which operated on the sugarnestates and pastoral stations. Though the sugar industry was reconstructednon the basis of both plantations and central mills/nsmall farms in the late 1880 s for economic reasons, the crucialndecision to trans form the basis of labour from black to white workersnwas political in nature. Petit-bourgeois and working classnpolitical organizations, which were based upon ideological premisesnquite distinct from those of the sugar planters, were able tonmobilize successfully against the substantially weakened rulingnc lass's ideology. Proprietors of large sugar estates throughoutnthe 1890s and into the twentieth century clung tenaciously to thendoctrine that sugar could only be profitably produced on the basisnof the continued maintenance of widespread legal servitude of non-Europeannworkers. They wanted to perpetuate the system wherebyntheir profits could be maintained by keeping their non-Europeannservants in appalling material conditions in an extremely morbidnphysical environment. Particularly when labour supplies werenplentiful and their level of profit was high , they regarded thesenworkers as expendable and replaceable . Only when the labour marketndiminished at a time when the industry was entering a highly speculativenexpansive period in the early 1880s, did they begin tonreassess their method. The solution was to locate and exploit newnsources of labour rather than to improve the living standards andnhealth of their existing workforce. Yet to regard bonded workersnas passive, compliant individuals who meekly accepted their enforcednsituation is both naive and erroneous. Beyond the life imposed bynthe master through the daily work regimen and the meagre allocationnof material resources, workers, particularly Melanesians who formednthe largest numerical category, were able at first to maintain theirnown communities where their values and preferences predominated.nMasters reluctantly regarded these sub-cultures within the plantationnor pastoral station as necessary in order to maintain a viablenlabour force . But they did not so indulgently view the variousnstrategies of resistance perpetrated by their bonded workers whichnchallenged and undermined the smooth operation of the e state. Theynresorted to bullying, physical chastisement, violence and the legalnsystem to enforce their wills upon their recalcitrant or rebelliousnservants. As the Melanesians who had served one term of indenturentransformed themselves from servile bonded workers to wage-labourers,nso too did their strategies alter. Instead of absconding from thenplantation or farm, the usual practice of the indentured servant ,nthe wage-labourer would negotiate demands and if unsatisfied ,nemploy strike action hhn