Table Of ContentThis file is part of the following reference:
Freier, Philip L. (1999) Living with the Munpitch: the
history of Mitchell River Mission, 1905 - 1967. PhD thesis,
James Cook University.
Access to this file is available from:
http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/33191/
If you believe that this work constitutes a copyright infringement, please contact
Chapter Six
The Practice of Protection, 1924-1960: Building a
Missionary Pastoral Empire
By the time Henry Matthews concluded his superintendentship in 1924 the
"protection" of Aborigines associated with the Mission was no longer primarily about
refi.ige, but had taken on the meaning that Brock considered typical of the wider Australian
context:
["Protecting" Aborigines took on] new connotations of isolation, discrimination,
institutionalisation and invisibility. "Protecting" Aborigines meant rernovingthem
from the sight and awareness of the general Australian population, restraining
them within carefully defined lands, maintainingthem as unproductive, dependent
communities which could act as labour pools in times of labour shortage, singling
out Aborigines as different from the rest of the population.'
Unlike many other missions, Mitchell River Mission could scarcely be considered
unproductive since, as will be shown, the cattle enterprise succeeded to the extent that it
financed the whole of the Diocese of Carpentaria. Despite this, the appearance of poverty
and the image of Aborigines as dependent and unproductive was cultivated by field
missionaries, their missionary organisation and the church at large. The missionary
hierarchy was convinced that such an image, which complemented racial stereotypes of
Aborigines, was central to the success of their efforts to gain financial support from the
general public.2 At the same time as this was being fostered, an extremely valuable asset
Peggy Brock, Outback Ghettos; A histoty of Aboriginal institutionalisation and survival, Cambridge,
1993, p.2.
2� Newtonto Montgomery, 1
January 1917. folios22O, 221, OM.AV/61/2, JOL. "We have hopes the cattle
will produce an income. We have sold some but the proceeds must go to stocking up and other
improvements and we have to be careful the opponent of Missions does not have an excuse of attacking
197
? :
171
-
-� -� -.'
X 4
- � -� - �?-� I �- -c-
+•- -
-q
)� *-,
1
4
-
Mitchell River bullocks ready for the road (late 195 0s)
(Source: Doug Sutherland Album)
was being developed in the shape of the mission cattle herd. Cattle have been central to the
history of reserve Aborigines over the last century. It was on account of cattle that they had
first experienced the depredations of the pastoralists; the decision to form a mission herd
assumed a willing Aboriginal workforce; and reserve Aborigines were in high demand as
workers on the cattle stations away from the Mission as well. Even though work on the
cattle stations offered a temporary break from the life and routine of the Mission, it did not
offer independence from missionary control as the role of the Mission as a broker of
Aboriginal labour increased with greater Aboriginal participation in the station labour force.
On both the Mission itself, and through their involvement with the station labour trade, the
missionaries were constructing a pastoral empire which only seemed to emphasise the
image of dependence of Aborigines on whites.
There was little to suggest in 1908, when the cattle herd was established, that a herd
of 26 cattle would grow, over time, into an asset worth over £200,000 in 1960.3 Any debate
about the direction which the cattle operation might take was settled in 1917, a year in
which mission cattle were sold for £405, with Matthews' business sense prevailing over
Bishop Henry Newton's humanitarian desire to allow greater Aboriginal benefit from the
cattle:'
I have advised Mr Matthews to kill more beasts for the station['s] use. He is loth
to do so as cattle are a good price, but personally I believe that the gain in letting
the Mission as a money making concern!
Gilbert White, ABM Review, IS August 1910, p.107. This value is extrapolated from the value of the
Native Affairs Department herd of 5,964 which was considered to be worth £140,273. (Annual Report
for year ending 30 June 1959.)
Newton to Jones, 30 June 1917, folio 178, OM.AV/61/2, JOL.
Newton's humanitarianism is based on a recognition that an impoverished diet could lead to neither
vigour nor commitment towards the missionary program. Writing to Chapman he observed, "It is good
to hear that you can get them to take an interest in farming and if only they get some results into their
stomachs they will realize the good of working". Newton to Chapman, 17 April 1917, folio 82.
0M.AV/61/2. JOL.
the people see that they get direct return and benefit from their work with the
cattle more than compensates for any pecuniary loss - also the Aborigine is a meat
eater and gets tired of a bread or rice or vegetable diet.6
1918 and
The use of the cattle herd as a food source was grudging in the period between
when Trubanaman and Kowanyama were both operating, with a beast being killed
1920,
on alternate weeks at each place. By the 1950s with a resident population at Kowanyama
people, a beast was killed on alternate days. Certainly, mission consumption
of around 700
of beef did little to limit the gro'ith of the herd. Herd numbers continued to increase well
beyond the demise of mission administration in 1967:
Year Number of Cattle Developments
1908 26 Establishment of herd
1910 45
1912 180 Cattle fund contributes £36 to
Mission budget in 1913
1917 500 100 head donated to Mission
by� neighbouring� cattle
stations
1923 1,200
1928 2,421 Second set of cattle yards
built at "Red Lily" in 1931
1934 4,381 Alec MacLeod becomes cattle
manager in 1932
1940 5,101 450 head given to establish
Lockhart River Mission herd
1959 8,000 Co-operative cattle scheme
proposed
1977 16,759 (Ten years after Government
takeover of Mission)
6 Gilbert White, "Mitchell River Mission" (no date, follows letter of 4 January 1917), folio 248,
OM.AV/6 112, JOL.
Compiled from Annual Reports.
199
IMI -,
4v
Ronnie Smiler with mission horses at Kowanyama
For the children swimming in the lagoon the presence of cattle, horses and
stock workers was part of growing up. (Late 1 950s)
(Source: Doug Sutherland Album)
Apart from the steady, if meagre, supply of beef that was dispensed as part of rations on the
Mission and the growing need for work amongst the cattle, there was little other evidence
of prosperity commensurate with the growth of the cattle herd. The Bishop of Carpentaria
and the Chief Protector acted as co-trustees of the mission reserve,' an arrangement that
continued until the regazettal of the reserve in 1958 when the Director of Native Affairs
was proclaimed sole trustee.9 When a question of agistment of Rutland Plains cattle on the
reserve arose in 1923, Chief Protector Bleakley considered that trusteeship conferred the
power to enter into such financial arrangements and to decide how these funds were
disposed of.'° With the operational responsibility of the reserve falling to the Bishop and
his missionaries, and with the church being the larger financial stakeholder until the 1 950s,
the Church through the bishop had a control over the improvements on the reserve,
including the cattle, that was for most practical purposes the same as ownership."
Like their Lutheran contemporaries at Koonibba in South Australia, it soon became
clear that when the Diocese ofCarpentaria used thelanguage of self sufficiency for mission
Aborigines it was not Aboriginal self sufficiency that was their concern but the solvency
of diocesan operations.'2 A mission superintendent, whilst exercising authority in the daily
operations of the mission and empowered to do so under the Act, carried out these duties
Even though both Bishop and Chief Protector were trustees ex-officio they held personal appointments.
When the government was seeking to extinguish the Weipa reserve to facilitate bauxite mining in 1957
it first had to secure the resignation of Bleakley, the former Chief Protectorwho had concluded his duties
in 194 1,from his trusteeship of the reserve. (Acting Director ofNative Affairs to Under Secretary, Dep't
of Health and Home Affairs, 31 January 1957, Administration Kowanyama Reserve (Boundaries etc),
17A-3, DFSAIA, Interim Transfer R254, QSA).
Queensland Government Gazette, 5 July 1958, pp.1788-89.
Bleakley to Matthews, 5 September 1923,23:4904, Chief Protector's Conespondence, OF 46, DFSAIA.
O'Leary to Matthews, 17 October 1961, Administration Kowanyama Reserve (Boundaries etc), 17A-3,
DFSAIA, Interim Transfer R254, QSA. "The Church is protected for any investment made on these
Reserves and has the full authority and administration of them under the 'Aboriginals Preservation and
Protection Acts".
Peggy Brock, Outback Ghettos, p.90.
modified by the theocratic character of the mission structure. Superintendents acted to
implement the decisions of the Bishop and Diocesan Council in matters to do with the
cattle.'
The policy on the management of the cattle and the application of cattle profits was
clearly stated by Bishop Henry Newton to Jones, the ABM chainnan, in 1917.
for some time all the money from the sale of cattle should be used to develop
the Reserve in any way that will increase the herd and make the herd more
productive - buying stock, fencing etc. But we reserved the right to make a special
grant for the upkeep [of the Mission] if we thought it necessary at any time)4
To Matthews, Newton was giving even clearer signals that he should not look at the cattle
as a source of operational funds, "We do not say we will not use the money for general
upkeep of the station but we do not want to encourage a hope of that, at least for some
time".'5 Newton and his successors in office seemed to have no trouble in resisting the
temptation of encouraging the hope that people at Kowanyama might see some direct
benefits from the cattle that were run on their traditional lands. Even in the general
operations of the Mission, there was early evidence of a trend towards the pauperisation of
Mitchell River so that other aspects of the operations of the Diocese could be funded.
Newton's successor, Stephen Davies, found that he was able to operate Mitchell River in
financial surplus during 1924 and successfully sought approval from the Diocese's primary
church funding body, the Australian Board of Missions (ABM), to apply the surplus of
The first management committee to run the cattle concern at Mitchell River was formed in 1917 and
consisted of Bishop Henry Newton, Tom May and Francis Slade, the dean of the Cathedral on Thursday
Island. (Newton to Jones, 30 June 1917, folio 171, OM.AV/61/2, JOL) A separate cattle account was
opened with the management committee as signatories. (Newton to Matthews, 30 June 1917, folio 181,
OM.AV/61/2, JOL)
'�
Newton to Jones, 30 June 1917, folio 171, OM.AV/61/2, JOL.
Newton to Matthews, 30 June 1917, folio 182, Bishop's outward correspondence, OM.AV/61/2, JOL.
201
£150 to the Tones Straits Mission.16 In 1921 ABM, in an attempt to keep some control over
the operation of the Mission, claimed ownership of the cattle when it ruled "that all capital
and plant for industrial purposes is the property of the Board".'7 By a decision of the Board
in 1932 this rule was overturned and ABM released the Diocese of Carpentaria frbm the
obligation to consult with the Board in how it arranged its internal finances, a decision
which opened the way for the Mitchell River cattle to be administered as a purely diocesan
concern.'8 By 1937, the transfer of 250 head of cattle to Lockhart River Mission showed
that the cattle herd was treated as a solely diocesan asset, to be used for the general
purposes of the Diocese rather than for the exclusive or even particular benefit of the
Mitchell River cattle operations or the Mitchell River people themselves.'9
The establishment of missions at Lockhart River in 1924 and Edward River in 1939
was undoubtedly important in hastening Diocesan control of the Mitchell River cattle as
it added extra burdens of cost to the diocesan budget. Edward River Mission was an
extension of the influence of the Mission to th& north of the Mitchell River. Joseph
Chapman's interest in the Edward River area went back as early as 1923 when he planted
bananas and cassava there, an interest wholly supported by Matthews who was keen to
purchase a small boat to assist Chapman moving between Kowanyama and Edward River.20
Chapman's agitation to establish a mission station at Edward River in 1928 was part of his
6
"Organisation Committee Report, August 1924 Meeting", 20-21 August 1924, ABM Board Minutes,
vol.2, M4, Box 3, ABM Sydney.
" "Mitchell River Cattle', internal memorandum, no date but probably 1956, 5/6, ABM Chairman's
correspondence, Series 5, Box 2, Folder 9, ML MSS 4503, Add On 1822.
IS�
"Report of the Australian Board of Missions to General Synod, October 1932", ABM Board Minutes,
vol.5, Box 6, series M4, 29-30 June 1932. ABM Sydney. The only proviso was that, "due regard [be
shown] to the particular purposes for which such [cattle and] other possessions were acquired".
'9 ABMReview. 1 November 1937, p.184.
20�
Matthews to Chief Protector, 10 August 1923,23:04904, Chief Protector ofAboriginals Correspondence,
OF 46, DFSAIA. The boat, a motor launch, was eventually purchased the following year. (Stephen
Davies, enny for 3 March 1924, Bishop's diaiy, OM.AV/1 14/1, JOL)
202
al of 96
deal of
e 'Tritt"
)oat-slips,
rugs and
t serious
g so low.
of flu,
o deaths.
has not
)Us small
say we
tives has
here has
in their
D get the
fl ; they
roaming
ujit four'
ot their
tatoes as
s in the
red, and
een built
:s df the ABORIGINAL ECONOMY.
Missionaries were not ashamed to depict pauperised Aborigines as this
illustration from the ABMReview shows. This woman from Mitchell River
wears a dress made from a flour bag - an economy encouraging missionary
supporters, themselves emerging from the Great Depression, that their
support was being treated frugally.
Original caption: "Aboriginal Economy"
(Source: ABMReview, 1 August 1938, p.144)
45
