The aim of this chapter is to examine the size and composition of the Aboriginal population in Western Australia in its historic setting. It includes an analysis of the censuses from 1901 to 1933, and the special Aboriginal censuses from 1919 to 1940, the age-sex composition in the study period and considers the relevance of aspects of demographic change to expose the positive role indigenous people played in the Australian historic past. No other event symbolises the dilemma of studying the Aboriginal population more than when Daisy Bates buried an old man named Joobaitch in 1907.

Bates wrote that when Captain Stirling sailed up the Swan River in 1829, Joobaitch made up part of the group of indigenous observers standing on the shore. By the time Joobaitch died he was in his early eighties and was the last of his family group, according to Bates. It was a family that numbered about 1,500 people in 1829, living in the area now occupied by Perth. Populations of people of full descent existed in most regions of Western Australia in 1900. As Daisy Bates revealed, in areas where white settlers congregated, the numbers of indigenous people appeared to fall drastically. As I reveal below, the assumptions about a ‘disappearing population’ proved to be a distortion. In addition, the beneficiaries of the Government’s protection policies were Aboriginal women even though this was not easy to see or appreciate during the period of study. I argue that despite claims about a disappearing indigenous population the number of Aboriginal people of Western Australia – peoples of full and mixed descent – grew throughout the whole period, and this was due both to the Aboriginal people’s own internal dynamics and the Government’s relief and protection policies.

Other studies of the Aboriginal population have focused on national questions and omitted analyses at the local level. My approach is to separate the demographic from the epidemiological and social questions, and then reintegrate them later. Such a method simplifies the complex nature of the changes through which the indigenous population of Western Australia and Queensland passed. Each State and each region placed different meanings on who and what an Aborigine was. To appreciate the epidemiological analyses of later chapters, it is essential to grasp the differences and the similarities of the varying interpretations.

The use of demography is now widespread in Aboriginal historic reconstruction to support other disciplines but before Rowley it was almost unknown outside a few isolated anthropological studies. After Rowley wrote his trilogy in the 1970s a number of studies of aspects of the Aboriginal population soon emerged. The most comprehensive was by L.R. Smith. His study took account of the way the national Aboriginal population moved from colonial decline to demographic recovery. Other writers have covered the demographic studies but Noel Butlin wrote a speculative account of the Aboriginal populations from the particular aspects of Aboriginal pre-contact demography and of the effects of epidemics such as smallpox. Apart from L.R. Smith none of the other writers previously mentioned contain substantial demographic data on the Western Australian indigenous population. A study of the Aboriginal populations of both Western Australia and Queensland is necessary before any serious discussion occurs of indigenous epidemiological patterns in those States.

Some explanation of the use of terms is necessary before continuing. It is not possible to consult the historic records or secondary studies, for example, without understanding how terms such as ‘natives’, ‘Aborigine’, ‘full-blood’ and ‘half-caste’ were used. Other terms used frequently include ‘people of mixed and full descent’, and ‘camp-’ and ‘bush-dwelling’ peoples. In some cases these groups contained members from a number of different ethnic and racial backgrounds. Changing the terms to reflect modern usage not only makes primary source records difficult to interpret and understand, but also distorts the intentions of the people involved in past events. In the text of this thesis the terms Aborigine and the adjectival form Aboriginal have been given capitals. In quoted sources, however, the noun ‘aborigine’ and the adjective ‘aboriginal’ sometimes appear without capitals because the terms were used as either a noun or an adjective. Where this occurs in the sources I leave the term unchanged. In other places the adjectival form appears in lower case and the proper noun in upper case.

This chapter uses rare government documents and archival materials, together with primary sources created by earlier scholars studying the Aborigines of Western Australia. The census processes set up by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics in 1911 were modified in 1921, when a system of annual returns – produced by police who were Aboriginal protectors – was produced in order to obtain better figures for people in remote areas. The system of counting the State's general population was less complex than that for Aborigines. The Western Australian collection system was based on three zones, each subdivided into statistical divisions made up of several Local Government Areas. For the special Aboriginal census from 1921, the basic collection area was police districts.

Arrangements for the census changed when statistical divisions came into use in 1928. The new structure was suggested to the Western Australian Government by the Federal Health Council of Australia and was finally adopted by the Commonwealth statisticians to delineate areas of tabulation. For our purposes they remained reasonably stable units of collection. The national census of 1901 conducted by the Western Australian Government in cooperation with the Commonwealth had included the enumeration of Aborigines and half-castes. The second, third and fourth censuses took place in 1911, 1921 and 1933, again with cooperation and consultation between the federal and state governments. The Deputy Commonwealth statistician worked simultaneously for the State and Federal Government, acting as State as well as Commonwealth statistician.

Demography is ‘concerned with the...size and characteristics of the...[Aboriginal] population, how they were attained and...’ have changed. In accordance with this definition I compile a population profile of Aborigines from 1900 to 1933, and analyses the age-sex distributions over time. There are scant data on Aboriginal births, deaths and migration, all of which present difficulties. These and other difficulties are explained at length in the chapters dealing with Aboriginal health patterns. Demographic analyses of such data helps explain the impact of the urban, pastoral and industrial expansion into the indigenous peoples’ living places.

The size of the Aboriginal and half-caste populations presented difficulties for two main reasons. First, government administrators dealt with those who needed relief and they primarily saw Aborigines as being people of full descent. Second, property owners used stock workers who were mainly people of mixed descent who often brought full-blood dependants with them. These two circumstances tended to confuse people in the general public who had no clear understanding of whom they referred to when talking about Aborigines.

In 1898 the Premier, John Forrest, wrote a circular for distribution to all staff by Henry C. Prinsep, Chief Protector of Aborigines. The circular indicated that, in addition to care of the aged, sick and infirm, it was ‘desirable that monthly lists...be furnished to the Aborigines Department...[with] as far as possible, information as to the names, sex, ages, and condition of the natives to whom relief has to be given’. Prinsep wrote to tell the Premier, however, that he intended conducting an Aboriginal census, which he planned to complete by 1899; though as things turned out the task remained unfinished until the census 1901. When the seventh census of Western Australia took place in 1901 the Chief Protector’s data became the basis for estimating the number of Aborigines living in contact with white settlers. All persons of mixed descent – mainly children – were counted. The count totalled 5,261 people of full and mixed descent. The full-bloods were made up of 2,933 males and 2,328 females (see Table 1.1 in Appendix 1). The half-caste population of 951 was made up of 492 males and 459 females (see Table 1.2 in Appendix 1). The combined population of people of full- and half-descent totalled 6,212, and was composed of 3,425 males and 2,787 females. Despite these figures Prinsep’s report to Parliament on 30 June 1901 indicated to the Premier that ‘the aboriginal population in all parts of the State...settled in any way by whites must remain the same as that...[given] on the [30]...June 1899 [of] about 12,000.’ Although Neville's draft annual report of 1932 acknowledged the over-estimation of the Aboriginal population it was never made public. Most probably the larger figure helped to satisfy Colonial Office enquiries about relations between settlers and Aborigines.

The great problem of interpreting the Western Australian data was that the nineteenth century Aboriginal population remained undocumented, most probably because of the extent and rate of settlement as well as the costs of conducting regional censuses. The effect was the inclusion of an estimated 10,000 additional Aborigines living beyond areas not occupied by white settlers. The figures for censuses in 1881 and 1919 were over-estimations, and which the authorities wrongly guessed were ‘probably too high.’

Those who attended the Sydney conference to plan the 1901 census of State and Commonwealth statisticians must have decided on a strategy for conducting the census. They must also have decided what the Australian Constitution meant in its reference to Aborigines. Fraser, the Western Australian Statistician, attended for his Government. The statisticians there decided to tabulate Chinese, Pacific Islanders, and Aborigines (including half-castes) by placing them in separate tables. This allowed for the compilation of data on each group, though in the end the figures for half-castes went into the general population totals. The collectors had an ‘aboriginal’ stamp for stamping cards created for ‘natives’, whether full-blood or half-caste. It was generally intended to first separate each group from the whole and then reintegrate them later. The cards, Fraser explained, had to be made out in duplicate. One copy was stamped ‘aboriginal’ and was to be included in the general population numbers; the other was set aside in a separate ‘full-blood’ Aboriginal collection.

The Western Australian Statistician received advice from the Federal Attorney General that:

consequent upon a decision having been expressed by the Federal Attorney General...full-blooded aboriginals alone were to be excluded from, and not deemed to form part of the legally recognised populations of the different States of the Commonwealth.

Western Australian statisticians nevertheless continued using a separate card system to prevent collectors including half-caste records in returns for the total Aboriginal population. This enabled people of full Aboriginal descent to be distinguished from half-castes when tabulation took place. Although the 1901 census enumerated full-blood and half-caste people it was a state-based census and the Commonwealth figures as published in the Commonwealth Year Book excluded the full-blood population. Commonwealth figures have always included people defined as half-caste or less. This confusion arose not only from the advice from the Commonwealth but also from the way in which the federal and state administrators interpreted the references to Aborigines in Sections 51(xxvi) and 127 of the Constitution.

Section 127 had a lasting impact on relations between white Australians and Aborigines. It specified that ‘in reckoning the number of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted’. The derivation of this section, according to one constitutional historian, came from the belief of the constitutional drafters that

the reckoning of ‘the numbers of the people’ lay in the requirements of the finance clauses, including the cancelled clause concerning federal direct taxation. Not until a late stage of drafting was it decided to place this exclusion in the ‘Miscellaneous’ chapter, so that it would apply not only to the financial clauses but to ‘numbers’ on which each State’s membership in the House of Representatives would be based.

Smith, La Nauze and Sawer agree on the causes of this historic legal anomaly. The point I make here, however, is that the effects were wide ranging. The full-blood Aborigines were omitted from census publications after 1901, and this affected their long term economic, political, cultural and social status. In turn, their omission allowed government and institutions to omit them from sharing in any new accumulation of the State’s resources. The lack of public knowledge about their numbers helped to create the myth of a disappearing race that became all the more difficult to reverse at the end of the period of study.

This omission from census publications created further administrative problems because, as time passed, the issue of ‘who was an Aborigine?’ became more difficult to resolve. Race did emerge as an issue in some of the debates on the Constitution but was not a dominant issue. La Nauze asserts that ‘The exclusion...was not based on the impossibility of counting nomads, nor on views about their inferiority’. In addition, the omission appeared to be administrative rather than legal. Administrators such as Prinsep sought funding for their relief and protection program based on the population in need of relief. Winning economic support from Government remained their major problem. Similarly, the statisticians cooperated in 1901 because according to the published report, they felt more comfortable once they knew that the census count was to included everyone.

Fraser, the Chief Statistician of Western Australia, indicated in his Report of 1904 that the settler population of Western Australia had more than trebled, rising from 29,708 in 1881, to 184,124 in 1901, while the Aboriginal population was small but increasing. The number of Aborigines employed by white settlers in 1881, for example, totalled 2,346 males and females. By 1901 the number increased to 5,261, including the emerging group of half-castes, whose total reached 951. The new full-blood total reached 5,261, including 2,933 males and 2,328 females (see Table 1.1 in Appendix 1 and Figure 1.1 below). As I argue below, the females of the two ethnic groups of full-blood and half-caste people suffered the most under colonial rule as revealed by the low numbers of females.

The conference of statisticians reported that the original intention of state censuses was to include all Aboriginals, whether full-blood or half-cast, in the returns of the general population. They sought advice from the Commonwealth most probably because of cost factors associated with census collections. In the same report Fraser indicated that the Federal Attorney General wrote that:

in reckoning the population of the Commonwealth, half-castes are not aboriginal natives within the meaning of section 127 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, and should therefore be included.

In Western Australia, therefore, statisticians adopted two strategies for enumerating Aborigines in 1901. The first involved counting half-caste Aborigines with the general population. The second related to full-blood Aborigines who were to be excluded from the national census. Fraser, got around the problem by including presumed ‘full-bloods’ under the heading of ‘Aboriginals and Chinese’.

Early in his report on the Aboriginal population, Fraser indicated that at no census prior to 1891 had the term half-caste Aborigines been mentioned as a population category. One explanation for this may have been that the term half-caste formed no part of the official language of Western Australia in censuses between 1848 to 1901. The term came into statistical usage at the time of the Western Australian census of 1891. As a result, the term did not enter the statistical rhetoric until then even though it had entered the lexicon of Aboriginal protection. Many of the camps, according to visiting protectors who collected the figures, included:

in almost every case, half-caste aboriginals...[who were] brought up and subsequently continue to live with those of full-blood, it appears likely that each census of this State previous to that of 1891 the term ‘aboriginal’ was used to include both ‘full-blooded’ and ‘half-caste’ natives.

As a result, it was impossible to say how many half-castes lived cheek by jowl with full-bloods before 1901.

At the 1901 census, 110 half-castes lived in the metropolitan region of Perth. Approximately 1,419 persons of mixed descent lived in the south western region of the State. In other parts of the areas settled by whites, the northern areas contained the largest populations of Aborigines – a total of 3,857. The full-bloods among this group numbered 3,618, or 69 per cent of the State total of 5,261. In this census the collectors found difficulty in distinguishing the various racial characteristics of each of the regional groups. The 787 enumerated in the south-west and the 767 in the central-eastern area presented the most difficulty for the collectors, but because of difficulties of identification and classification we cannot really be certain whether these totals included only people of full descent or whether those deemed ‘half-castes’ were in fact ‘full-blood’ or indeed ‘quarter-caste’ or ‘eighth-caste’ or less. The national census could only locate a total of 89 people of full-descent in the metropolitan area. Of the half-castes counted in the south-west, 632 out of a total of 951 (66 per cent) considered themselves as permanent residents of the region. A further 239 urban residents identified themselves as Aborigines in the north and north-western region. At the same time a further 59 half-castes lived in the central-eastern region, with a further 21 residing in the Perth metropolitan area. Again, self-identification and classification difficulties render the numbers suspect.

The 1901 census may be analysed further by looking at the age distribution of the Western Australia Aboriginal population (see Figures 1.1 to 1.4). The first thing to notice is that the age-sex pyramid of the full-blood population reveals a rapidly declining population, highlighted by the undercutting of the pyramid in the 0-14 age groups among both males and females. There is also an imbalance of the sexes, with more males than females in all age groups. This may indicate that under colonial conditions females suffered more than males. Colonial contact impacted more heavily on the reproductive capacities of the females who may have merged more readily with European society than males did. This may have caused higher maternal mortality, infertility or even deathbecause of changed lifestyles, diet, health practices, sexual activities and infertility and new patterns of work. Many Aboriginal women moved from the bush to domestic life and would have experienced some or all of such changes.

The pyramid also graphically illustrates the problem of ‘age heaping’, mainly around the twenty, forty, fifty and sixty age groups. Age

Figure 1.1: Full-blood Aborigines by age and sex in
WA, 1901

Source: Compiled from Table 1.1.

 

Figure 1.2: Half-caste Aborigines by age and sex in
WA, 1901

Source: Compiled from Table 1.1.

Figure 1.3: Total full-blood and half-caste Aborigines by age and sex
in WA, 1901

Source: Compiled from Table 1.1.

 

Figure 1.4: Age-specific sex ratio of full-blood and half-caste Aborigines
in WA, 1901

Source: Compiled from Table 1.2.

heaping tended to occur when either the collector or persons being questioned were unsure how old they were, and a guess by either party was usually rounded to the nearest decadal point. Uncertainty about age by either party also results in a high ‘age not stated’ category, in this instance 879 full-bloods and 26 half-castes Aborigines of both sexes did not state their age. The 1901 half-caste age-sex pyramid (see Table 1.1, and see Figure 1.2 above) is typical of a young population, even though there is a slight under cutting of the base in the 0-4 age group for both males and females, probably a result of undercounting of young children. As the graph reflects there were very few half-castes at that time.

The explanation for these phenomena lies in the timing and the pattern of colonisation in Western Australia. Colonisation took place slowly in the period from 1829 to the 1880s. The slow rate at which the settlement expanded in the early decades meant a containment of miscegenation. Following the spread of pearling, gold discoveries and expansion of pastoralism linked by the camel transport systems, relationships between Aborigines and settlers, who included both Asians (Afghans as well as Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Malays and others) and Europeans, increased rapidly.

The sex ratio graphs compiled from each census indicates a paucity of females. In 1901, for example, males far out-numbered females (see Figure 1.4). Figure 1.4 combines females of both full- and mixed descent and clearly shows a dominant male presence throughout the whole age structure except in the older age groups.

The problem of identification intensified after 1901. Normally the issue only involved males of full-descent who cohabited with females of mixed race descent. That is, a female of mixed descent could be declared a full-blood if at any time she chose to marry a male of full-descent and the female was considered of half- or lesser caste of Aboriginal descent. The 1905 Aboriginal protection legislation delegated powers to the protectors for determining who were full-bloods or half-castes, or those definable at all as an Aborigine. With the power to identify married couples thus residing with the protectors, the individual’s racial status became subject to official whim. For instance, if a half-caste married another person of less than half-caste descent individual protectors could change his or her status as Aboriginal by subjective administrative decision based on an ‘educated guess’ at best, or on the caprice of personal prejudice. This factor may have contributed not only to the fluctuating numbers of Aboriginal women (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2 in Appendix 1), but also to the huge peaks and troughs in the ratios of males to females (see Figure 1.4). The excess of males in the 40-60 age groups highlights the point made about the impact of colonialism on Aboriginal women.

The chaotic demographic aspects of the Aboriginal population during the period reflect a range of complex changes in the geographic, economic, political, cultural and historic circumstances of both Aborigines and settlers. First, the colonial governments, their protectors of Aborigines and individual settlers found difficulty in knowing how to assess people of mixed-decent. Second, in the Murchison, Pilbara and Kimberley regions, in particular, the burgeoning mixed race populations could not readily understand their fluctuating official status.

Soon after the 1901 census the Commonwealth Government began preparing itself for its first national federal census in 1911. Section 127 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900, influenced administration of the Census and Statistics Act 1905. The Commonwealth Attorney General advised the States on how to interpret Sections 51(xxvi) and 127 regarding Aborigines. As indicated above, bureaucratic interpretation rather than legal intention meant that full-blood Aborigines were omitted. The 1911 census provided the Commonwealth with the opportunity of clarifying its own view on who could be defined as an Aborigine. In Western Australia the Aborigines Department continued to conduct its own count of full-bloods and half-castes, at least among people living within what it called the civilised areas. In this sense the Western Australian Government positioned itself well to participate in the 1911 census. But, how individual collectors would act in gathering and how the statisticians would interpret the Aboriginal data remained a problem despite attempts to make corrections to refine the process.

The 1911 census was the first census conducted under the auspices of federal census legislation. It revealed that the Aboriginal population in settled areas of Western Australia had increased to 7,844. The total included 6,369 full-bloods and 1,475 half-castes. The former included 3,433 males and 2,936 females and showed a smaller rate of increase over the 1901 figures. The half-castes, on the other hand, had nearly doubled. This trend continued throughout the whole period from 1901 to 1933, as the half-caste growth rate far out-stripped the marginal increases experienced by the full-blood population. The population of full-bloods in 1911 showed an increase of males by nearly 500, rising from 2,936 in 1901 to 3,433 in 1911. At the same time female numbers grew from 2,328 in 1901 to 2,936 in 1911, an increase of 608. The rate of growth for males and females was thus 17 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. More spectacular was the growth of the half-caste population, which was growing at a remarkably fast rate: half caste males increased by 54 per cent and females by 56 per cent during 1901-1911. The faster growth of the half-castes should not have been unexpected for several reasons. First, a younger population has lower mortality than an older one. Second, the parents of people of mixed descent children were from both the full-blood and half-caste groups, or were people of full or mixed descent cohabiting with whites. Third, full-bloods (normally females) gave birth to children of mixed descent when cohabiting with settlers (normally European males but also often Asian).

The Royal Commissioner in reporting on ‘The Condition Of The Native’ in 1905, extensively discussed the burgeoning half-caste problem. In doing so, the underlying assumption prevailed that people of full-descent, and of mixtures of other races and Aborigines, were certainly suffering similar difficulties, as they lived and worked together either on properties as pastoral labourers or in bush camps as ‘nomads’. The sharing of half-caste women had become customary among both white and half-caste adult males by this time. This custom resulted in the birth of many children of mixed descent. As I show in later chapters, travelling protectors reported 'abandoned' children in camps and removed them to missions for care by missionaries. Abandoned children concerned the Royal Commissioners of 1904-5 and 1934-35. Those witnesses supplying evidence about abandoned children spoke at length of this problem to inquiries held in the 1920s and 1930s. The poor living conditions forced the Royal Commissioner of 1905 to recommend common treatment and a common policy of government services. It was this redirection of approach which resulted in full-bloods and half-castes being treated either as equal to each other or as one and the same race. As I discuss later , there were benefits available to people of full descent that were denied to half-castes. Half-castes had been prevented from gaining subsidised access to hospitals, receiving treatment by medical practitioners at government expense or receiving rations at some (mostly northern) depots.

Although federal and state bureaucrats interpreted the Commonwealth Constitution as requiring the omission of people of full descent from census publications, the Western Australian Government still collected its own data as a means of estimating the numbers of people living within its borders. The Commonwealth meanwhile continued to include people of half-caste or less descent in the census reports but people considered to be full-bloods were omitted.

The 1911 census collected information employing similar strategies to that for 1901. The census tabulations show the total Western Australian full-blood population as 6,369 persons: i.e., 3,433 males and 2,936 females. As in 1901, the age distribution shows the numbers of full-blood females fluctuating. For example, in the age groups 30-65, numbers rose and fell rapidly. This could have meant either age heaping as described above or a continuing high mortality among full-blood females. Similarly, it could have meant that half-caste females moved between the groups for a number of decades, or from the mid-nineteenth century (see Figure 1.5 below, and Table 1.3 in Appendix 1).

At the same time, there were 1,475 half-castes, consisting of 760 males and 715 females (see Figure 1.6, Tables 1.3 and 1.3 in Appendix 1). In contrast to the full-blood population, the half-caste population presented a young age structure, with a continuing increase in the 0-4 age groups (see Figure 1.6). As in 1901, full-bloods continued to show a declining population in the 0-14 age groups, with the deficit in female children (see also, Figure 1.1). At ages 50 to 75 and above there were still more full-bloods than half-castes for the same reason as in 1901 (see Table 1.3). Both census results highlight the problem of age heaping around the ten year age groupings (see Figures 1.5 and 1.6).

The combined population of full-bloods and half-castes shows a trend towards a more normal population structure (see Figure 1.7), although the sex ratio of the total population shows a continuing preponderance of males. While still heavily weighted towards males in

Figure 1.5: Full-blood Aborigines by age and sex in WA, 1911

Source: Compiled from Table 1.3.

 

Figure 1.6: Half-caste Aborigines by age and sex in WA, 1911

Source: Compiled from Table 1.3.

 

Figure 1.7: Total full-blood and half-caste Aborigines by age and sex

in WA, 1911

Source: Compiled from Table 1.3.

 

Figure 1.8: Age-specific sex ratio of full-blood and half-caste Aborigines
in WA, 1911

Source: Compiled from Table 1.3.

the older 50 to 69 age groups, signs existed then that the imbalance of Aboriginal males to female had disappeared in the younger age groups (see Figure 1.8).

It is noteworthy that the new Chief Protector, C.F. Gale, made no mention of these trends in reporting the census results. In his 1912 report, however, Gale included a summary of the police district collection reports. These reports gave a brief statement of the physical health and condition of Aborigines of both full-blood and half-caste descent. Similarly they provided information on their total numbers including data on the numbers employed on pastoral properties. O.A. Neville mentioned a comprehensive census conducted in 1919 of all Aborigines in Western Australia in his 1920 report as Chief Protector of Aborigines, but records of the special Aboriginal censuses from the 1919 to 1923 were either disposed of or lost.

When the 1921 census took place the full-bloods were still omitted from the final Statistician’s report. The blame rested with both the Western Australian Government and the Commonwealth, who had failed to cooperate in the period proceeding the census. As usual, all those persons classified as half-caste made the count as part of the general population. The difference between the two earlier censuses and 1921 was that data on the full-blood population was neither processed or published. Half-castes males, at the same time, increase by 341, from 1911to 1921, when the total rose from 760 to 1,101 (see Table 1.3 and Table 1.5 in Appendix 1). Half-caste females rose from 459 in 1901 to 859 in 1921, an increase of 400 (see Table 1.1 and 1.5). The half-caste male population

Figure 1.9: Half-caste Aborigines by age and sex in WA, 1921

Source: Compiled from Table 1.5.

 

Figure 1.10: Age specific sex ratio of half-caste Aborigines in WA, 1921

Source: Compiled from Table 1.6.

* No figures for full-blood Aborigines available.

grew by 45 per cent and the female population had risen by only 20 per cent during the 10 year inter-censal period. This difference in increase from one period to the next was most probably due to the movement of Aborigines between the internal Aboriginal ethnic groups. The half-caste females, for example, may have been moving from one ethnic group to the other in search of, or leaving, marriage partners. Some females took male partners who were either white or nearly white and then experienced the difficulties of identification because of their choice of marriage partner. Where some people took their partner's racial and social identity they experienced a change in their racial status.

Of the two ethnic groupings – full-blood and half-caste – the half-caste males and females increased in all stages at a faster rate than the full-bloods. The reason could have been the blurring of the racial divisions between full-bloods, those deemed to be half-caste and those half-castes deemed not to be Aborigines. The population pyramid for 1921 (see Figure 1.9) for the half-caste population was typically young. Moreover the pyramid suggested that half-castes reflected their historic demographic relations with white settlers. For instance, during the period 1921 to 1933, the half-caste population pyramid of 1933, for the first time since about the 1840s began to accumulate older people in the 50 to 75 plus age ranges (see Figure 1.13, see Table 1.13).

Additionally, the full-blood population posed the greatest problem for observers because, by 1933, their population pyramid showed characteristics of a stationary population but prompts the notion that they were under great social stress. On the one hand, the total full-blood population appeared to display a long term trend of decrease. On the other hand, after 1933 the full-blood female population appeared to be trending downwards, but in fact in the period from 1901 to 1933, full-blood females had grown by nearly 100 per cent (see Figure 1.15, and Table 1.17). In spite of this real increase, the full-blood female age sex pyramid showed characteristics of a population that had been declining over a number of years (see Figure 1.11). The general beliefs was that full-bloods were disappearing while half-castes were on the increase. The latter was true but the former was incorrect. However, by the 1933 census, the full-blood population pyramid was beginning to take a normal shape. Put another way, what emerged was a mature age-sex distribution. The reason for this was that Australian politicians, administrators and society in general thought the full-blood population was still disappearing. In addition, the whole of the state, except the extreme eastern sections, had been fully settled by the 1930s. Rumours and reports of death by disease and violence persisted. Equally, large groups began living in supervised camps, missions and work-camps on pastoral properties that restricted their mobility and visibility. Even so, the increased mobility in the 1930s applied mostly to males rather than females. As such males moved around from one employer to the next and in proximity to settler pastoralists, mining company operations and emerging or established missions. Because of the changes in the mode of subsistence and dwelling places the lines dividing traditional practice and the ethno-racial differences became either increasingly more difficult to maintain, or for the younger females to understand.

 

Figure 1.11: Full-blood Aborigines by age and sex in WA, 1933

Source: Compiled from Table 1.8.

Figure 1.12: Half-caste Aborigines by age and sex in WA, 1933

Source: Compiled from Table 1.8.

Figure 1.13: Total full-blood and half-caste Aborigines by age and sex
in WA, 1933

Source: Compiled from Table 1.8.

 

 

Figure 1.14: Age-specific sex ratio of Aboriginal and half-caste population in WA, 1933

Source: Compiled from Table 1.9.

Figure 1.15: Full-blood Aborigines in WA, 1901-1933

Figure 1.16: Half-caste Aborigines in WA, 1901-1933

Figure 1.17: Total Aboriginal and half-caste population in WA, 1901-1933

Source: Compiled from Table 7.1, ‘Time Series of population’ for 1901-1933.

In the years from 1933 to 1940 camp groups supervised either by travelling protectors or by missionaries and pastoralists became more numerous. Populations of male and female half-caste, despite their small numbers, emerged as the more politically dominant ethnic group. The females of this new group had a wider choice of partners than in 1901. For example, half-caste males could gain sexual partners from full-blood groupings, either by taking a female of full- or half-caste descent. It became possible for half-caste females to move from one group to another sometimes without changing their racial definition. A feature of the census reports from 1901 to 1933, was references to the dominance of half-caste women as both bread-winners and marriage partners because of their increasing cohabitation with a number of other ethnic groupings.

Similarly, as a further explanation for the increasing maturity of the 1933 age-sex pyramid, fewer numbers were registered in both the 0-14 age groups. The older males and female in the 50 to 54 age groups began to show that State protection policies appeared to be helping them prolong their own and their childrens’ lives (see Figures 1.11, and Tables 1.15 in Appendix 1). From 1901 to 1933 full-blood males increased by 27 per cent from 2,933 to 3,570. The number of full-blood females rose from 2,328 in 1901 to 3,093, an increase of more than 33 per cent that showed up starkly in the 1933 census enumeration. Added to this is the evidence in the age-sex pyramid of 1933 that equal numbers of male and female babies made up the 0-4 age group. In the 5-9 age group, and the 25-29 age group there are similar male and female numbers. But there are many more males than females in the 35-40 age group. The underlying cause of the latter imbalance is difficult to answer. This is so because it appears that the identification problem and group swapping strategies adopted by Aboriginal females generally lead to a better quality of life than under Government’s protection policies, whereas, during the period of colonial expansion Aboriginal females suffered more than their males counterparts.

Other developments relevant to the demography of Aborigines in Western Australia included action by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics in the census of 1933, which acted to improve their systems for estimating Aboriginal populations. In addition, Aboriginal censuses were conducted each year from 1921 to 1944, and the 1934-35 Royal Commission into the condition and treatment of Aborigines heightened people’s awareness about Aborigines in the north of the State.

The census authorities made no attempt to develop a special collection methodology. For instance, the methods of counting people in bush camps did not improve although authorities knew about many of the difficulties. The accuracy of the count was often impaired because collectors waited for bush groups to come to them rather than for collectors to go out searching for bush people. Nevertheless, some attempt to count Aborigines did occur but the dangers of bush travel have to be borne in mind when assessing the value of their actions. Collectors such as police magistrates, missionaries, travelling protectors and pastoralists knew the dangers of the bush and most certainly appreciated that bush travel could be unsafe in some areas. Many collectors were police or court officials who knew where the isolated campsites were located. Those people involved in collecting the numbers of Aborigines in outlying regions must have been aware of the high level of mobility of bush people.

The Western Australian Government had conducted a comprehensive Aboriginal census each year beginning in 1919 and then each year until 1944. The data collected in the years 1919 and 1921 have never been located. We do know, however, that wide cooperation occurred between governments after 1921. The figures must, nevertheless, be approached with caution. For example, although the number of Aborigines increased, in Western Australia the figures fluctuated wildly.

During the period 1921-1940, minor fluctuations in the total populations occurred from one Aboriginal census to the next (see Figures 1.15 to 1.17, and Tables 1.10 and 1.11, on the Aboriginal Census data 1921-1940 attachment). During the same period the total half-caste population continued to increase rapidly. In part, the answer to why some of these fluctuations occurred lay with the mobility of rural populations, which presented huge enumeration problems for the collectors. In part also, collectors had problems defining the individuals they were sent to count. They were not so much problems but difficulties experienced after Aborigines themselves made the choice about with whom they wanted to live. If collectors lacked bush experience they came upon differences with every Aboriginal group they faced, especially as they went eastwards into the outback.

Despite the demographic problems mentioned above, at least an effort was made by the State and federal authorities to collect data on Aborigines even though problems remained. The age sex distribution compiled from the 1921 census reflects the kinds of collection problems already mentioned. Even though the numbers and increases were still small, half-caste age structures showed a greater trend towards normality, as revealed in the 1911 age structure pyramid (see Figure 1.7). In addition, although there was a rise in the total numbers of males and females, the proportion of infants fell. Similarly, changes in the Western Australian ratios of Aboriginal males to females appear to strengthen in favour of females in both years 1911-1933 in the 15 to 24 and 50 to 54 age groups in particular (see Figures 1.3 to 1.17 above, and Tables 1.1 to 1.19). Finally, the Aboriginal census counted only those people defined as either half-caste or as full-blood, and this development proved a significant move.

The Australian Year Book, stated that:

although still incomplete, [the Aboriginal census] probably represents a much closer estimate than has been available previously....The most serious defect...is an estimate of 10,000 Aboriginals which the Chief Protector of Western Australia regards as out of touch with his Department and consequently not included in figures supplied by him.

Even when the 10,000 Aborigines out of contact are deducted the figures appear much higher than earlier counts of the 1901, 1911 and 1921 official census enumerations. The figures tabulated by Smith and reproduced in Table 1.10, show the way in which census estimates of ‘full-bloods’ were adjusted upwards to correspond with the total population estimated by the State at all censuses to 1961. The ‘half-caste’ figures (see Tables 1.10 and Table 1.11 under ‘Other’) are reasonably consistent.

The Aboriginal Censuses from 1921 to 1940 are presented in two differing tabular forms. Table 1.10 gives the total counts for persons of full descent and others, and includes a figure of an additional ‘10,000’ people of full-descent (the figure causing the over-estimation just discussed). Table 1.11 does not include the ‘additional 10,000’ (see Figures 1.18 and 1.19 and 1.21 to 1.23 below). This Aboriginal census showed the total number of Aborigines decreasing from 27,671, in 1921, to 24,028, in 1924, while the return excluding the estimated 10,000 persons declined from 17,671 to 14,028. Both sets of figures reveal inconsistencies. The totals rose sharply from 26,507 in 1931 to 29,298 in 1933, followed by a sharp decline to 26,515 in 1934. The only group with any consistency were the half-caste groupings (see the heading "Other", in Figures 1.18 and 1.19). When the figures are combined they show the effects of the slight bulge in male and female counts (see Figure 1.20).

In 1932 the Chief Protector felt it was time to question or explain the missing 10,000 that had been such a problem since the mid-nineteenth century. Under the heading "Population", Neville indicated that Aboriginal numbers had grown from 26,727 to 28,481 in the past year. The latter figures comprised 14,766 full-bloods, 3,715 half-castes and the additional figure of 10,000. There had thus been an effective increase of 1,754. He observed that it could

be assumed that many natives hitherto regarded as being outside the confines of civilisation have...now been included amongst the known population, pointing to the necessity for revision of the figures given as 10,000 supposed to be still living beyond the fringes of settlement throughout the State.

The increase of 1,754 was real enough but as Neville pointed out, the 10,000 Aborigines supposed to be living beyond civilisation distorted the picture. The bulk of the Aboriginal population was not, as it has been historically suggested, in the Kimberley region but elsewhere. There were 9,893 people in the Kimberley, which takes account of the ‘bush natives’. Elsewhere in the State there were 3,447 natives from Perth to the Pilbara and a further 5,141 in the region south of Perth and eastwards towards the eastern goldfields and the South Australian border.

The Chief Protector’s reversal of attitude towards the elusive 10,000 had its own underlying rationale. In continuing his report Neville conceded that the efforts of the State Government to provide long term relief and protection had failed. He wrote that it ‘cannot be contended that the condition of the natives improved during the year.’ The obligation of providing relief had increased considerably. This he argued showed that the southern natives had ‘never before...sunk to such a condition of penury.’ At the same time, both Neville and H.D. Moseley, the Royal Commissioner who wrote the report of the 1934-35 inquiry into the condition of West Australian Aborigines, believed that people of full-descent were disappearing. As Moseley’s report observed,

while it appears beyond doubt...that the full-blooded aborigines are decreasing in number, it is...certain that the half-castes are multiplying rapidly....As to the numbers of natives in the State, it has been impossible for me to estimate this in any way, but, taking the Departmental figures as being as accurate..., there appear to be 29,021 natives throughout the State. Of these, 10,000 are included as "bush natives".

Moseley went on to indicate how many Aborigines lived in various regions of the State. The Kimberley had 10,015; the north-west near Carnarvon area there were 2,497; the Murchison district south of Carnarvon had 1,497; and, finally, around Geraldton there were 5,012. The total came to 19,021, and the missing 10,000 were added to this figure. The figures came from the Aborigines Department, and helped it argue for greater resources. Neville had already admitted in 1932 that the 10,000 extra was a myth but in 1935 Neville provided the Royal Commission with the old figures. No doubt he thought that if the Commissioner accepted them they would add weight to his case for increased funding.

Moseley accepted Neville’s spurious estimates of people in the Bush. As a result Moseley was wrong on various points when discussing the Aboriginal population in his final Report to Parliament. The total number of people of full-descent was increasing. The first figures available in 1924 from the Aboriginal census had revealed that the total full-blood population numbered 6,557 males and 5,703 females, making a grand total of 12,260. In 1940, the total Aboriginal population was given as only 7,152 males and 4,669 females, a total of 11,827. The apparent reduction is explained by looking at Aboriginal women as represented in the age pyramids for the 1933 census. For example, the Figures 1.12, 1.13 and 1.14 suggest that an increase in the total population was occurring even though the full-blood female population is not showing a revival in the 1930s. The figures of the female population pyramid of 1911 totalled 2,936 (see Table 1.5 in Appendix 1) but in 1933 totalled 3,093 (see Table 1.12 in Appendix 1). While this Table shows an increase of only 157 the increase in females was greater than the Aboriginal census revealed (see Table 1.11 below).

Later in his report Moseley describes the conditions of life of the people he deemed Aboriginal or of Aboriginal origin. In the northern Kimberley they were either in the bush ‘in their natural state’, or in camps or pastoral stations. In speaking of cattle workers, Moseley commented that these workers located themselves ‘in the country to which they belonged – an important consideration from the point of view of the native.’ These groups made their shelters out of four gallon petrol cans, bags and bush material, but Moseley said they wanted for nothing and displayed no sign of unhappiness. He even imagined it was a virtue that ‘the children...[were] trained at an early age to make [such improvised materials] useful.’ But in response to Neville’s proposal for the purchase for more land to provide work, Moseley could not bring himself to believe that ‘a native of the Kimberley...[could settle] and remain on the property where they were born: of what other use would money be to him?’.

Having mentioned bush and station people in the north, Moseley went on to consider ‘miscegenation’, an eventuality which, given the prevailing notions about racial mixing, he assumed to be wholly undesirable. He observed that

 

 

Figure 1.18: ‘Estimated’ Aboriginal males, full-blood, other and total in WA, 1921-1940

Source: Compiled from Table 1.10.

 

 

Figure 1.19: ‘Estimated’ Aboriginal females, full-blood, other and total in WA, 1921-1940

Source: Compiled from Table 1.10.

 

 

Figure 1.20: ‘Estimated’ Aboriginal persons, males, females and total in WA, 1921-1940

Source: Compiled from Table 1.10.

 

 

Figure 1.21: ‘Returned’ Aboriginal males, full-blood, other and total in WA, 1921-1940

Source: Compiled from Table 1.11.

 

 

Figure 1.22: ‘Returned’ Aboriginal females, full-blood, other and total in WA, 1921-1940

Source: Compiled from Table 1.11.

 

 

Figure 1.23: ‘Returned’ Aboriginal persons, males, females and total in WA, 1921-1940

Source: Compiled from Table 1.11.

 

in the north few half-castes are to be found on the stations. That is a gratifying fact but one difficult to explain: for it is regrettable that my investigations have satisfied me that in certain parts of the north intercourse between the white man and aboriginal women exists to a degree which is as amazing as it is undesirable.

Moseley’s prudery notwithstanding, he had identified the cause of the rapidly increasing half-caste population. His comments about the sexual relations between white men and Aboriginal women may also explain low numbers of births by bush people because most bush females were having children from white men and remaining in town fringe-camps. The other part of the dynamic came from the liaisons between males of mixed descent and full-blood females.

Only one other change to Aboriginal identity influenced the enumeration of the Aboriginal population, and that was the inclusion of people who had any portion at all of Aboriginal descent. In the remaining period between the Moseley Report in 1935 to 1940, the Aboriginal population increased but it did so in a different way than previously. Moseley suggested a new approach:

The definition of an Aborigine [should] be broadened to include ‘persons of [Aboriginal] origin in a remote degree’; the Minister (not the Chief Protector!) [should] become the legal guardian of all part-Aboriginal children up to the age of sixteen.

He might not have realised that, ironically, the liberal definition he was recommending – the most inclusive devised up till then – would soon become an instrument of oppression. In the hands of over-zealous officials, it legitimated the removal of light-skinned children from their families, setting in train events the results of which are still apparent 60 years later. The State Government showed great haste in implementing many of Moseley’s recommendations due, as I explain in chapter five, to the growth of an Aboriginal political welfare lobby (which included both Aborigines and Christian mission bodies) and the increasing interest in matters of poverty by the daily press. The significant thing to note here is that Aboriginal identity was changed, and at the stroke of Moseley’s pen. Western Australian protection policy had a ‘knock-on’ effect in other places, leading to complex and unforeseen outcomes. How this occurred becomes clear in the next chapter, which considers Queensland’s Aboriginal population.

 

p.58 Tables 1.1 & 1.2

p.59 Tables 1.3 & 1.4

p.60 Tables 1.5 & 1.6

p.61 Tables 1.7

p.62 Tables 1.8 & 1.9

p.63 Tables 1.10

p.64 Tables 1.11

Synopsis || Contents || Intro || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 || 10 || Conclusion || Bibliography