What Is “Indentured Labour”?

Some Data for People Who Have Been Talking Without the Facts

By R. W. Robson

rE indentured labour system is being presented in exaggerated and ridicu lous colours by certain people— especially by Australian politicians, who are trying to use it as a weapon where with to flog private enterprise; and by missionary chiefs who, having failed rather lamentably to lead an evangel in the European communities (where “Chris tianisation” really is urgently needed) are trying to pose as the friends of a down-trodden and enslaved Black Brother.

Here are a few facts for the assistance of those who try to base sound judgment on truth.

The indenturing of native labour is not a method of enslavement; it is not new: and it is not confined to New Guinea.

It is a system that has been employed in all the Territories of Melanesia for many decades. It was evolved, through long years of trial and error, to meet condi tions which are peculiar to those Ter ritories.

The great majority of the Melanesian peoples, in their natural state, are primi tive. dirty, diseased, ignorant and sorcery ridden. There are perhaps 1.500.000 of them in Melanesia. A dominant trait of the Melanesian character is the absence of any sense of obligation or responsi bility.

Because of the necessity of protecting Australia and New Zealand, the arc of islands called Melanesia cannot be left in their present primitive and undeveloped condition.

The ideal arrangement would be the establishment, in those great islands, of large communities of peasant land holders, with living standards at least comparable with those of Europeans, cap able of providing for their own needs, and —above all —able to defend themselves against invasion or aggression.

European Settlement

Essential

SUCH an arrangement is not attainable within 50 years—probably longer.

Some missionaries, and similar im practical theorists like Mr. Ward, say that these Territories should be maintained as a close preserve for the natives, while swarms of teachers (presumably main tained by Australian taxpayers) would re-model about one million natives, so that they could chansre over from their Stone-age paganism to a condition of modified Europeanisation.

It is a beautiful idea—but impractical and absurd. In this, as in most of the politico-economic ’isms, the argumenta tive friends of Black Brother fail to take account of a thine fundamental to all considerations of international and inter racial relationships—namely, human sel fishness. The taxpayer, Australian or otherwise, will not accept that kind of far-reachine altruism.

We must accept the position—there is no escape from it—that the only way in which these Melanesian Territories can be held, and developed, and made fit for occupation eventually by a more enlightened class of indigenous peasant land-owner, is to encourage the settle ment in the Territories of planters, traders, miners and other pioneering people who will wrest their living and a- profit from the soil—the folk whom Mr. Ward and the good Bishop call “exploiters.”

Native Labour Supply

SETTLEMENT and development cannot proceed without a labour supply That must be supplied either by the native inhabitants, or by Asiatics spe cially brought in. Anyone who has seen the after-effects of Asiatic indentured labour will hold on to native labour. That has been the view accepted for 50 years in Papua, New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago, the Northern and British Solomons and the New Hebrides—and there have been some very wise, long visioned and humane men in charge of those Administrations.

Thus was established the system of indentured native labour. It was adopted by the various Administrations, because it provided an assured labour supply, while giving the natives adequate protec tion against ill-treatment and exploita tion. It was accepted by the employers, because the native labourer, under his indenture, is compelled to recognise his contractual obligations—which, under anv other system, he would blithely ignore It was approved by those who sought the advancement of the natives, including the missionaries, because it brought thousands of miserable, under-nourished, disease ridden natives from the primitive villages, and cleaned them un, and gave them some knowledge of European wavs—an invaluable first step on the long and diffi cult path towards Europeanisation and agricultural independence.

How The System Works

AFTER a long period of trial and error, the following efficient methods were evolved. Authorised recruiters (Euro pean men who are carefully investigated prior to being licensed by the Adminis tration) go out into the native villages and try to persuade young men to engage themselves, usually for a period of three years, as labourers.

The recruiter marches his labour recruits to the nearest officer of the Administration. That official interro gates them very closely, and satisfies him self that the natives understand what they are doing, and why. Then he .super vises the making of the contract (inden ture') under which the native undertakes to work for a particular employer for a fixed period.

The employer, on his side, is “put through the hoop” in no uncertain man ner bv the Administration. He not only has to undertake to supply his native labourers with adequate food, housing, medical attention and comforts, such as tobacco, soap and matches, but he also must lodge with the Administration cer tain substantial sums as a guarantee that he will carry out all his undertakings, and return the natives to their villages on the expiry of their contracts.

These contracts are very carefully policed by the Administration. Officials are free, at all times, to appear at the place of employment, to assemble the natives, and interrogate them concern ing their treatment. It is open to an indentured labourer at any time to appeal to the Administration for advice or aid.

The labourers, while thus protected, are forbidden by the same authority (the Administration) to leave their employ ment before the exoiry of their con tractual term. If they do, they are

(Continued on Page 41)

brought back by the police, and punished.

Harsn and cruel employers, and msolent and disobedient employees, are punished, impartially.

The overwhelming majority of employ ers treat their indentured labourers very well—some because they are naturally kind, and some because it pays. The recruiting fee is from £lO to £l5 per boy.

If time-expired boys like their conditions of service so well that they desire a renewal of their contracts —and many do —the employer saves the recruiting fee.

Most employers take pride in having a healthy and happy “line” of boys.

Receiving a regular, well-balanced diet and medical attention, the boys soon appear in better health, and almost always put on weight. They usually return to their villages looking sleek and well.

Rates Of Wages

PERSONS accustomed to European standards get a shock to learn that the wage of these labourers runs from 10/- to 20/- or 30/- per month (according to the Territory). But that by no means represents the total cost to the employer. When recruiting fee, trans portation, food, housing, lap-lap, medi cine, tobacco and so on are added, the cost per boy per annum is substantial.

The natives do not give labour service on a European scale —in most occupa tions, two or three or more boys are only equal to one European labourer.

The labour unit (the monthly cost of one native boy) is an integral part of the economic structure of the Territories. If the wage rate were doubled, it would dis locate all industries in the Territories, but It would not benefit the natives one iota: their standards of living are not yet adjusted even to the present wage rates.

Even now, many time-expired labourers, returning to their villages with their accumulated wages, do not seem to know what to do with the money.

As the natives make progress to a bet ter standard of living, and need more European money to support that stan dard, they should get higher rates; and that turnover of money, in turn, would benefit the country as a whole. But this must be part of a gradual process.

Good And Bad Employers

THERE are bad employers; and, in their hands, the indentured labour system is a shame and a reproach. On occasions, in the Territories, I have seen boys treated cruelly—beaten, cowed, ill sheltered and inadequately fed. But these cases were so much the exception that I could only wonder why those par ticular employers were not dealt with by the usually alert Administration officials.

There are certain kinds of Europeans who never should be allowed to employ indentured labour —morose, or irrespon sible, or drunken fellows who either should be compelled to use only free (unindentured) labour (which could run away if abused), or they should be kept out of the Territories. Men who do not know how to treat their native labourers do not last long in the Territories, any way.

Considering that there were 40,000 indentured labourers in New Guinea and perhaps 10,000 in Papua, there were astonishingly few labour scandals. On the contrary, the great majority of labourers seemed quite happy and contented, and the relationship between them and their white masters was friendly and good.

Proof of this is seen in the way in which the boys, who simply had to be abandoned and left to their own devices when the Japs came in, have been flock

ing back to the returning Europeans, and eagerly seeking out their old masters.

Again and again, reading letters from Territorians in the forces up there, I have been struck by their expressions of delight at having found the boys from whom they were separated two years ago.

There cannot be much wrong with a system which produces that relationship; and I believe that that system, properly supervised and used, will achieve more in the sound Europeanisation of primitive Melanesia than some of the fumbling work of the not-so-well-organised missions.

A well-policed indenture system creates a disciplinary and directive force among the natives, which is valuable in this primitive region. The experience of the very wise Murray regime, in Papua, is

that the natives preferred the indentured system, which gave them protection and security, to the free labour system, which was the established policy of officialdom, Everything, of course, depended on the “master." A good employer never lacked indentured labour; a bad employer soon became known. wwat nu pot vmttc-taq

Whai Of Polynebia)

A RGUMENTATIVE people will say: Why is there no indenture system in Fiji and Polynesian territories?

How do they manage there?

The Micronesian and Polynesian peoples are much more advanced than the Mela nesian; they very quickly accept Euro pean standards of living; they are not cursed with Melanesia’s endless diversity of tongues; they definitely have a sense

of obligation and responsibility. They, generally, are at the stage of independent peasant land-ownership which the Melanesians may reach in a few decades, under European tutelage.

Forced labour (“blackbirding”) during last century depopulated large areas of Polynesia and nearly destroyed the Polynesian race. The splendid, self-sacrificing work of the Christian missions during 70 years, together with the firm policy of the various Governments, saved the Polynesians from ruthless exploitation and extinction.

Some of our missionary friends, eager to raise the fiery crosg, seem to think there is a similar set-up in Melanesia today. The cases are not parallel in any way. The “blackbirding” in Polynesia was uncontrolled, ruthless, and murderous; and the Polynesians were a cultured,

sensitive people. The Melanesian system is Government-controlled and strictly policed, and should help in the advance ment of the primitive natives, The labour problem in Micronesia and Polynesia is more acute than in Mela nesia; but, because of the different char acter of the people, it can be solved— to an extent. „ ,

Where Reform Is Needed

T CAN think of several aspects of the 1 indentured labour system which should have the attention of high authority. The wage rates may be due for revision—upwards; there should be a stricter definition of the class of man who is permitted to use indentured labour; the Administration and the employers, jointly, should be given responsibility for seeing that the natives, during their

three years’ service, are taught something useful; the practice of taking companies of men away from their villages and isolating them in labour barracks for three years, should certainly be reviewed.

But all these things already have been discussed by the New Guinea Commis sion on Native Labour, whose report, pre sented in 1941, has been conveniently for gotten by everyone.

I believe that the system itself, in the present condition of the Territories, is worth preservation, for the present, because it solves several problems that otherwise defy solution.

We must occupy and Europeanise those Melanesian Territories. Thus, we must accept responsibility for the natives. Our obligation to assist the natives across the gap between primitive savagery and the useful husbandry and industry which bespeak independence, should be woven into the pattern of our administration— and it is in that way that the indenture system can be made to serve a good and useful purpose.