Missionaries and Contract

Labour Bishop Henry Newton Outspoken

Letter to the Editor MAY I make some remarks on the question of indentured labour and protest against your wide generalisa tion of Bishops as being opposed to the system. I only know of one Bishop who has expressed approval of the abolition of the system, and he has had no first-hand knowledge of the working of it. I think I am right in saying that every Bishop, Anglican and Roman Catholic, working in the SW Pacific, is strongly opposed to the abolition of indentured labour, as that would be detrimental to the inter ests of natives, and in particular to the large numbers who have not come into close contact with Europeans.

I believe that a large majority of mis sionaries, working in the SW Pacific, are of the same opinion. The day will come when the system will be abolished, but that time has not come yet.

I suppose the fundamental principle to which we all subscribe is that of the “liberty of the subject”—in this case, the rip-ht of a man to choose where he will work, and what work he will do. I can only write of experience in Papua. Does the indenture system interfere with, or neglect, that principle? That the answer is definitely “No” would, I think, be proved by the experience of recruiters.

Here is one: Many years ago a miner wanted a team of boys for work on one of the goldfields, and he commissioned a recruiter to get them. The recruiter thought he had a soft job. He knew of a village where there were boys who had worked on that field, knew that they had no objection to the work, and indeed, might be glad of

the opportunity of going there again, after more than 12 months at home. He landed at the village, and got the boys together, and said, “I want a team to work with Tom Smith on the goldfield.

You have been there, you know Tom Smith is a good boss, will you sign on to him?” The answer was emphatic: “No”—we worked there for Jack Brown.

We know he will want a new team in a few months, and we are goin~ to wait to sign on to him.”

Nothing would move the boys, and the recruiter had to go elsewhere. There were many such incidents, showing that there was absolutely free choice on the part of those recruited. Under the system as it applied to Papua, blackbirding was impos sible.

There was one amendment made to the ordinance regulating indentured labour in Papua, which some may think interferred with the “liberty of the subject.” In earlier days boys were signed off and received their wages at the office of the Magistrate of the district in which they had worked. The boys spent their money buying what they wanted at the stores there. The employer had to arrange for passages to the boys’ home districts, pay the passage money, and, if necessary, arrange for transhipment at another port.

But boys might have to travel 300 miles to get home, and it was found that on the voyage, and during the delay at transhipment ports, some boys lost all they had at gambling, and landed home poorer than when they left, several years before. The ordinance was therefore amended so that boys were paid off at the office of the Magistrate in the Divi sion in which the boys lived, and the amount of the wages sent to that Magis trate.

Very often the boys were met there by some of their relatives. All danger of loss from gambling was removed. Common

sense will decide whether this was, or was not, a justifiable interference. It is also a good example of the way the interests of the labourers were protected. rEE labour was increasing in the Territory of Papua. Boys who have signed on will go to their old em ployer to work for a time. Bands of boys from a village do this when the garden work at home is not so pressing. They want to earn money for the poll tax, and for the tools or tobacco they need. That can only be the case when boys have had experience as indentured labourers. It would apply little to the more isolated natives who have had little contact with civilisation. Even so, it has often hap pened that a local boy will go to a plan tation manager or other employer, and say he wants to work for 12 months. The employer says “You can work for three months”—the limit for free labour—“go home then, as you do not live far away, and then, if you wish, come again for three months, and so work for a year. I do not want to lose time and incur expense taking you to a Magistrate to be signed on for one year.”

“That does not suit me,” says the boy, in effect. “I want some money for tools.

If I get my money every three months it will be wasted. If I get it in a lump sum I can spend it, and get what I want from stores at the Government station.

Not only that, but my people in the vil lage will try and prevent my coming back for the other times. My people know that if I am signed on I must finish my time.”

The natives know that the indenture system protects them in every way.

Wages must be deposited for the full period of indenture at the time of sign ing-on, or guaranteed by a firm or indi vidual approved by the Government.

The indenture system works towards education of the raw native—and there

are very many of them still in the Ter ritory. It fits him for “free” labour later on. It is difficult to se how it can be abolished, under present conditions, in the interests of the natives.

I am, etc.,

Henry Newton,

Anglican Mission, Bishop,

C/O Angau,

Milne Bay.