Aboriginal Law Bulletin
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Aboriginal Law Bulletin |
|
by Loretta de Plevitz*
In 1897 the Queensland Parliament passed the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act. Its purpose was to 'protect' Aboriginal people by removing them to reserves away from the pernicious influence of Europeans and Chinese. The Protection Acts[1] applied to 'aboriginal inhabitants' of Queensland[2], including 'natives' of other States and Territories resident in Queensland[3], and deemed Aboriginal 'half-castes' who were the offspring of an Aboriginal mother and other than Aboriginal father[4]. The Protection Act[5] created two classes of Aboriginal people. One included persons who had obtained a certificate of exemption from the Acts, the offspring of Aboriginal fathers and non-Aboriginal mothers, and Aboriginal persons lawfully married to and residing with non-Aboriginal persons. These people theoretically had the same legal rights as any other Queensland citizen. The other class were wholly under the legal protection of the Chief Protector of Aborigines and his delegates: local protectors (usually policemen) and superintendents of reserves.
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders 'under the Act' were subject to interference with every aspect of their daily lives, from whom they could marry to the right to use electrical appliances. After 1932, some 'protected' Aboriginal workers were entitled to work under award conditions[6], but for the majority of workers under the Act, wages and conditions of work were set by Regulations which were not subject to the scrutiny of the Queensland Industrial Court. These workers were in three major industries-the pastoral industry, Queensland government employment on the reserves, and pearl shell fishing.
Over the past century thousands of Queensland Aboriginal people have worked in the pastoral industry as drovers[7], station hands, domestic workers and cooks. In 1963 there were about 5,000 Aboriginal pastoral workers, approximately one eighth of the total Aboriginal population of the State[8].
Between 1919 and 1968 the pastoral industry was officially subsidised by the labour of Aboriginal workers 'under the Act'. In 1918 the Queensland Industrial Court had handed down the Station Hands Award[9]. Its excellent wages and conditions reflected the boom in the pastoral industry and the shortage of labour due to the first world war and the general exodus to the city. However, Aboriginal workers were specifically excluded from the award[10]. The Australian Workers Union, which did not want its members' wages undercut by cheaper Aboriginal labour, pressured the Queensland government to set minimum wages and conditions for Aboriginal workers. In 1919 the government complied by passing Regulations to the Protection Act[11], which were to be incorporated into the employment contracts of all pastoral workers under the Act[12]. The minimum rates of pay were set at three-quarters of the male pastoral award wage and half as much again as the award rate for female cooks, though the differential altered dramatically over the years[13]. Despite protestations from employers that they would never be able to afford Regulation wages, Aboriginal workers became the backbone of the industry. However, it was not until 1968 that Aboriginal pastoral workers attained award wages[14]. Even then, the awards retained provision to pay them under-award rates as 'slow' workers.
The other large employer of Aboriginal labour was the State itself. The aim of the reserve system was that each settlement be self-sufficient as far as possible by producing its own food; the perennial shortages were supplemented by hunted game, fish and bush tucker. The reserves were established and maintained by using the residents' labour to clear land, fence, garden, tend the stock, make bricks, cut timber, build, and to provide personnel for nursing, cooking, cleaning, laundry work and for official assistants.
The workforce was provided by compelling all able-bodied persons on the reserve to give their labour for a minimum of 24 hours a week. Their 'payment' was primitive, unwanted and segregated housing, and a 'mission pack' of essentials: meat, flour, tea, sugar and sometimes tobacco. Hours worked beyond the compulsory amount were paid at a pittance. For example, in 1958 workers at Yarrabah Reserve were levied 32 hours a week; hours above that paid at an equivalent of $2 a week[15]. Reserve Superintendents could 'dock' wages as a punishment for perceived bad behaviour. As Willie Thaiday reported in his book Under the Act[16] 'Any small thing that you do wrong (the manager) cut your wages. He is never satisfied. I only get ten shillings a week yet he cut my wages-no wages at all for a month'.
Reserve workers were not granted award wages and conditions until 1979. Even after that time the government evaded the award by designating the workers as'trainees'[17].
Around the turn of the century the Queensland government entered the lucrative pearl shell industry, the State's largest export, in direct competition with private boat owner-divers. The 1901 Protection Act brought Torres Strait Islander pearl shell divers under the Act by extending its jurisdiction to ships and other vessels within a protector's district[18], and by requiring such workers to have work permits granted by the protectors[19]. Fishing vessels which had been previously owned by the Islanders were taken into the possession of the Chief Protector, pursuant to his power to care for and manage the property of protected persons[20]. About half the diving workforce were under the Act and employed on the government-controlled boats. Their minimum wage of ten shillings per month[21] was considerably less than the wage paid by the private boat owners. In 1936 the government workers struck for 4 months for comparable wages and the right to manage their own money, neither of which were granted[22]. By the 1950s, with the increasing use of plastic for buttons, the industry lost its importance to the Queensland government.
It became clear to the government that the reserves could not be self-sufficient: the annual wages bill of the white workers on Taroom Reserve alone totalled over £1,240 in 1922[23]. It was necessary, therefore, to subside government expenditure on reserves with outside income. As permits were required both to leave the reserve and to engage in employment, the government was able to control how many workers left the reserve and in which industry they were employed. The concentration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers in the cattle and pearl shell industries provided a convenient labour force which could be manipulated by the permit system to respond to fluctuations in the market. Not only that, their wages, which in the pastoral industry were up to 10 times more than on the reserves[24], could generate government revenue to develop and maintain the reserve system. The workers had ably demonstrated that they could sustain themselves and their families by subsistence farming, fishing and hunting: therefore if they could make do on 'pocket-money', the government could reap the harvest of their labour.
However to achieve these goals it was necessary that the wages and conditions in these industries be beyond the reach of the protection of the Industrial Court of Queensland. The local protectors were empowered to negotiate and enforce the workers' individual employment contracts[25]. In 1916, MacNaughton J of the Industrial Court confidently noted that:
No injury will be done to aboriginals (sic) by this state of affairs, as their interests are fully looked after by the Protector of Aboriginals in the various parts of the State[26].
This confidence was misplaced. Where the local protector was a policeman and the friend and confidant of the employer, the power to cancel the contract if an employee was not being properly treated, cared for or controlled2[27] was unlikely to be exercised. A pastoral worker could not be discharged, quit or even be fired without the consent of the local protector[28]. An employee who 'deserted' risked at the very least being forced back to work with all due wages and pocket-money forfeited to the Property Fund[29] (concerning which, see below). Even if the employee found alternative employment at a better rate of pay, the new employer would be committing an offence by 'removing' an Aboriginal worker from employment without the protector's authority[30].
The Regulations set minimum standards for wages and conditions less than those set for white workers under awards[31]. However, the most marked divergence from the award system was in the method of paying workers' wages. The Wages Act had been passed in 1918 to protect Queensland employees from the common practice of paying wages redeemable only for goods at inflated prices at the company store. It declared illegal and void any employment contract which provided for any deduction from wages[32]. The entire amount of the wages had to be 'actually paid' at least monthly in. current coin of the realm[33]. An application to recover 'the whole or so much of the wages earned by such worker as has not been actually paid to him by his employer' could be made to a magistrate[34]
.
However, the Wages Act did not apply to workers under the Protection Act: their wages were paid to the protector[35], at intervals determined by the protector, probably half-yearly[36], and were subject to deductions and disbursement without a worker's consent. Not having heard the cry 'No taxation without representation!'[37], the first deduction from the gross wage was income tax The second, a contribution to the Welfare Fund. From the net wage, a proportion up to 50% for married men and less for others was retained by the employer to be paid regularly to the worker as 'pocket-money'[38]. The remainder of the wage was sent to the local protector to be held in a compulsory savings account in the worker's name, but operated only by the protector as trustee[39].
In 1941 the Director of Native Affairs wrote to the Under Secretary of Health and Home Affairs:
'the ablebodied earner in the country should make reasonable contribution towards the relief of the indigents of his own race, and ... Settlement natives earning wages in employment outside should contribute towards the maintenance of their dependents living at the Settlement'[40].
In fact the stated purpose of government from as early as 1901 had been to create a 'fund for relief of indigent natives': an Aboriginal welfare system funded by the labours of the group for whom the welfare was intended. From 1912, a similar fund had been established for the welfare of the Torres Strait Islanders.
The system, which was only repealed in 1966[41], was funded by a compulsory levy of 5% for single men and 2.5% for married men on the gross wage of pastoral workers[42]. Aboriginal residents of reserves, working off the reserve in other employment, were required to contribute 10% for married men and 5% for single workers. Torres Strait Islanders were under a more onerous regime: 10% for married men, 20% for single men and 15% of the net earnings of any 'Reserve- or native-owned boat'[43]. All levies were to be sent to Brisbane, where the money was initially held in a departmental 'Special Standing Fund', sometimes referred to as the 'Indigent Fund'. From 1921 to 1941 the fund was designated the 'Aborigines Provident Fund'. It was named the Welfare Fund' after auditors' reports and the Public Service Board found that the money was being used for wider purposes than those sanctioned[44].
The State government Issues Paper[45] claims that as the Welfare Fund was only set up by the 1939 Protection Act and workers only started paying the levy in 1943, any accounting with respect to the Welfare Fund need only commence from 1943. This is a specious argument. Levies were being collected from at least 1912 for a fund which changed only its name, not its purpose[46].
The initial purpose of the Welfare Fund was to provide relief for the Aboriginal poor. From 1934 it was to provide for general Aboriginal welfare. The Issues Paper also asserts that the Aboriginal Welfare Fund:
'is not, and was not a Trust Fund in the normal sense. Legal advice emphasises that the Aboriginal Welfare Fund was administered as part of governmental functions and as such there was no requirement to comply with the requirements which relate to the administration of trusts. As a result, there were no restrictions on government in relation to the mixing of funds, nor on the purchasing and disposing of assets'[47].
Like many other assertions in this document, this statement is misinformed. The Fund was set up with the express purpose of providing 'relief for indigent natives'. This falls squarely within an intention to create a charitable trust[48]. It is not necessary to use the words 'trust' or 'trustee' to have the obligations of Equity imposed on the arrangement[49]. To give rights to a beneficiary to claim in Equity, what is needed is an intention, property to be held in trust, a settlor, a trustee, and objects of the charitable trust. All were present.
Though the purpose of the trust was not expressed in any detail, it would have allowed expenditure on the setting up of training schemes or on the purchase of livestock or farming equipment. The purposes may even have stretched to some of the administration costs of the reserves. Investment in government stock and secured loans to government are authorised trustee investments[50], provided the capital and the interest are returned to the trust fund. However, using a fund for the general purposes of government, including making up deficits and redistributing a fund to other departmental votes, is certainly outside the scope of a trustee's powers. Neither is it authorised under the Trusts Act[51], to purchase shares in Comalco Ltd, which were sold by the government for over a half a million dollars in 1987[52]. This purchase takes on sinister overTorres given the fact that the Welfare Fund was drawn on to defray the costs of removing Aboriginal people from reserves so that their land could be mined for bauxite.
It was obvious from the state of health and welfare of Aboriginal people that the vast sums accruing in the Welfare Fund ($16,757,424 in 1990)[53] were not being used for the Fund's stated purpose. In fact, in a neat twist, Aboriginal pastoral workers had been burdened with yet another obligation not imposed on Queensland citizens: they had a statutory duty to maintain their families as far as possible from their earnings, in effect, from their pocket-money. Relief from the Indigent Fund would only be provided 'as may be necessary'[54]. This direction was particularly useful during the Depression to deny workers' families relief from the Indigent Fund until the families proved it was beyond a worker's means to provide for them[55].
In later years, the Welfare Fund was supplemented by moneys from the estates of deceased or missing persons, Commonwealth child endowment and interest on savings accounts. All of these should have been credited to the individuals' savings accounts. Interest on Welfare Fund moneys invested by government went straight into Treasury[56].
Abuse of a trust relationship imposes a fiduciary duty on a trustee. The High Court has found that a Minister can owe a fiduciary duty to persons under his or her care[57]. The Trusts Act binds the Crown[58]. Moneys misapplied should be accounted for by government as the trustee. Moneys still in the Welfare Fund should be distributed for the general purposes of Aboriginal welfare relief, for example, to communities to be spent for welfare purposes, or to charitable organisations under the doctrine of cy-pres.
Up to 75% of the wage for single men, 50% for men with families and other dependents, 80% for youths[59] and 90% for female domestic servants[60] was to be sent by the employer to the local protector. That money was to be deposited in the worker's name in the Government Savings Bank operated by the local protector as trustee[61]. He was to spend the wages 'solely on behalf of the aboriginal or female half-caste to whom they were due [sic]'[62]. On the application of the worker and at the protector's discretion, the protector could give the worker money from the account but it was not to exceed £10 without the Chief Protector's consent; sums over £2 had to be drawn as cheques[63]. Even if money was made available to the employee spending was restricted, for example, the Regulations forbad the purchase from the employer of horses, cattle, vehicles, cycles, guns, land or buildings without the local protector's consent[64]. Apart from rudimentary monthly returns there were no checks on the system and, as may be anticipated, fraud was rife.
From the savings account amounts were deducted for the worker and the worker's family's medical, dental and hospital treatment[65]. Money was also deducted from individuals' savings accounts for group welfare projects, such as providing a house for visiting Aboriginal people at Cloncurry, housing materials and the cost of toilets on reserves[66].
Stores were set up by the government on the reserves to sell necessary goods not supplied 'free by the government. The goods were sold at 25% over the cost price. Apart from the basic rations of meat, tea, flour, rice, sugar, green and red peas and treacle, any other requirements such as powdered milk, footwear, toys, or more blankets than the one issued, had to be purchased from the store. A purchase was effected by signing a chit as proof of purchase. The amount was then debited from the person's personal savings account and credited to the store. As most residents could not read, opportunities for fraud daily presented themselves to the storekeepers who were also the reserve clerks. For example, in 1920 at Taroom, the storekeeper-clerk Robert Kydd was found to have embezzled almost £108 from the personal savings accounts of residents by creating fictitious purchases from the store. He fled when discovered. No money was recovered from him, nor did the government see fit to reimburse the defrauded residents. However, they were offered the opportunity to purchase his abandoned belongings to recoup some of their losses[67].
The Consultancy Report uncovered a number of documented cases of fraud on the savings accounts, but the attachment to the Report setting out the particulars has been 'withheld on Crown Law advice'.
In 1933, to make money available for government investment, between 3,000 and 4,000 savings accounts were transferred from the country to be held in Brisbane in an aggregate account amounting to over half a million dollars. The aggregate account rose yearly to a high of $5 million in 1981, after which it declined as people began assuming control of their own accounts[68]. From 1912, separate savings accounts for Torres Strait Islanders had been held on Thursday Island.
The compulsory payment of wages into the savings accounts had a twofold purpose. First, the employer was compelled to pay for Aboriginal and Islander labour, thereby to some extent protecting white unionists from competition with cheap 'native' labour. Second, compulsory savings controlled the worker's expenditure of his or her earnings. If the employer had not paid up, or if the worker had 'squandered' the money, the government may have had to intervene to provide for people who no longer had access to their own country for food and shelter.
From the beginning the savings accounts were held as trust accounts for the benefit of the person whose labour generated the savings. The purpose of the trust was to protect workers from exploitation and to make advancements for the benefit of the owner of the account and his or her family.
It is obvious the government did not inform itself that the duties of a trustee are to protect trust assets, not accede to government demands to waste them. In 1941, the Director of Native Affairs referred to a proposition by the Under Secretary of the Department of Health and Home Affairs 'that 50% of all aboriginal [sic] funds held in trust by the Chief Protector should be commandeered' to make up a shortfall in departmental votes[69].
Claims on the savings accounts are in a different situation from the Welfare Fund. The savings accounts represent identifiable moneys earned by individuals. The Consultancy Report and the Issues Paper maintain that confusion in documentation, mixing of funds, fraud by local protectors and misuse of the accounts mean that individual claims cannot be accommodated. But the government cannot hide behind its own breaches of trust: the owners of the accounts or their heirs have equitable rights to those accounts. In the light, however, of allegations of deliberate destruction of savings books, and obfuscation by the government of the contents of the remaining records, it will take a determined claimant to prove a breach of trust over an individual savings account. Nevertheless, the Consultancy Report does suggest that such a person may find evidence of breach in the large volume of records, including Auditor-General's Reports in the Queensland Archives[70]. There are no limitations of time for bringing an action for fraud on a trust[71].
Section 13 of the Protection Act 1901 gave the Chief Protector power to manage protected persons' real and personal property. As part of the exercise of this power, a Property Fund was set up to hold moneys from the personal savings accounts of people who had 'absconded', whose present whereabouts were unknown, and the estates of persons who died with no known relatives.
A further source for the Property Fund (later called the 'Assisted Persons Estate Trust Account') was the unlikely request by Aboriginal people to have the local protector manage their property for them, by using it to pay debts or doing what was best for the family. The power to manage an Aboriginal person's money for them still exists[72].
In addition to his other tasks, the local protector had powers to determine whether there were any heirs to an estate and to distribute the assets. This complete discretionary power over estates gave opportunities for fraud and laziness. It strains credulity, for instance, that in 1922 deceased persons in a small community like Taroom would have no relatives, and therefore nearly £20 from their estates would have to be credited to the Property Fund[73].
A 1979 report on the 1971 Aborigines Act recommended that the administration of deceased or missing persons' estates should be taken from the department administering the Act, and handed over to the Public Curator of Queensland[74]. What strains credulity even more is that this power over the distribution of intestate estates still exists: the 'chief executive' of the relevant department determines who shall be entitled to succeed, and in what proportions[75]. The determination is expressed to be unchallengeable by law[76]. Be that as it may, the provision is contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and therefore invalid.
Like the other two accounts, the Property Fund is a trust. Clause 14 of the 1904 Regulations stated that the wages of absconders and deceased workers were to be placed to the 'credit of a trust account to be used for the benefit of aborigines generally'. This purpose was interpreted to mean contributions to the hookworm campaign, subsidies of football matches, and providing largesse in the form of 'Christmas cheer [77].
Like the other trusts, the Fund was mismanaged. Assets were transferred to the Welfare Fund or general purposes of government, instead of being held against possible claims. Where moneys can be traced to claimants there may be a reasonable chance of success, as the Consultancy Report states that this account has 'fairly reliable name lists and amounts'[78].
The kindest complexion one might put on the disposition of wages was that the government believed that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were unable to manage their own affairs. However, this is not supported by the evidence[79]. The legislation and the practice support the view that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander labour was a commodity freely available to the Queensland government to subsidise favoured industries, to shore up government revenue shortfalls, and to financially support the reserve system. All indications are that the Queensland government was engaged in a labour trade as iniquitous as slavery, and in some senses worse, for at least slave owners had to care for the health of their workers as property because they were costly to replace.
* The author acknowledges the assistance of FAIRA in providing documents for the preparation of this article.
[1] For the purposes of this article, the 1897 Act and its continuations, the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Amendment Act 1901 (Qld), the Aboriginals Preservation and Protection Act 1939 (Qld), the Aborigines' and Torres Strait Islanders' Affairs Act 1965 (Qld) and the Aborigines Act 1971 (Qld) will be collectively referred to as the 'Protection Acts', or by their year, as appropriate.
[2] Section 4(a) of the 1897 Act.
[3] Section 2 of the 1901 Act.
[4] Section 3 of the 1897 Act.
[5] Section 33 of the 1897 Act.
[6] Unlike some previous industrial legislation, Aboriginal workers were not excluded from the definition of 'employee' in s4, Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1932 (Qld).
[7] Both men and women were drovers. See 'Born in the Cattle. Aborigines in Cattle Country, A McGrath, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1987.
[8] Trades and Labour Council of Queensland Submissions to the Queensland State Government for Equality of Wages and Working Conditions for Aborigines in the Pastoral Industry (C.143/64) Brisbane, 1964.
[9] In the Matter of the Industrial Arbitration Act of 1916 and the AWUE (Qld), (1918) 3 QIG 757.
[10] Clause 22, Station Hands Award.
[11] Regulations under the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Acts 1897-1901 CXII QGG, 6 June 1919, page 1579.
[12] Clause 2(i) of Regulations.
[13] See 'Falling through the Safety Net Minimum Entitlements legislation for Aboriginal Workers in the Queensland Pastoral Industry 1919-1968', L de Plevitz, Australian Journal of Law and Society (forthcoming).
[14] Federal award: In the Matter of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1965 and of the Cattle Station Industry (Northern Territory) Award 1951[1966] CthArbRp 148; , (1966) 113 CAR 651. State award: In the Matter of the Station Hands' Award, (1968) 68 QIG 41.
[15] Trades and Labour Council of Queensland Submissions to the Queensland State Government for Equality of. Wages and Working Conditions for Aborigines in the Pastoral Industry (C.143/64) Brisbane, 1964.
[16] North Queensland Black Publishing Co, Townsville, 1981.
[17] In the Matter of Australian Workers Union of Employees (Qld) v Director, Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, (1979) 101 QIG 133.
[18] Section 4 of the 1901 Act.
[19] Section 10(3) of the 1901 Act
[20] Section 13 of the 1901 Act.
[21] Section 12(l) of the 1901 Act
[22] Aboriginals' Department, Reports for 1935-36 cited in The Torres Strait Islanders and the Pearling Industry: a case of Internal Colonialism', J Beckett, (1977) 1(1) Aboriginal History 77, page 88.
[23] 'Living under the Act', Taroom Aboriginal Reserve 1911-1927, Cultural Heritage Monograph Series, Vol 1, S L'Oste-Brown and L Godwin with G Henry, T Mitchell and V Tyson, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane, 1995.
[24] The Consultancy Bureau Final Report: Investigation of the Aborigines Welfare Fund and the Aboriginal Accounts, Brisbane, 1991 ('the Consultancy Report’), page 13-15.
[25] Sections 12, 13 and 15 of Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld).
[26] In the Matter of the Industrial Peace Act of 1912, (1916) 1 QIG 354 at 355.
[27] For example, clause 6 (xvi) of the 1919 Regulations.
[28] Clause 2(x) of the 1919 Regulations.
[29] Clause 14, Regulations to the Protection Act, LXXXII QGG, 26 March 1904, page 1187.
[30] Section 17 of the 1897 Act.
[31] See 'Falling through the Safety Net Minimum Entitlements legislation for Aboriginal Workers in the Queensland Pastoral Industry 1919-1968', L de Plevitr, Australian Journal of Law and Society (forthcoming).
[32] Section 19(2) of the Wages Act 1918 (Qld).
[33] Section 20(i) of the Wages Act.
[34] Section 20(iii) of the Wages Act.
[35] Section 12(2) of the 1901 Act
[36] Clause 2 of the 1919 Regulations.
[37] Persons 'under the Act' did not have voting rights.
[38] Clause 1(k) of the 1919 Regulations.
[39] Clause 12 of the 1904 Regulations.
[40] The Consultancy Report, Attachment 1.2, letter of 30 June 1941.
[41] Clause 4 of the Regulations of 28 April 1966.
[42] Clause 1(1) of 1919 Regulations.
[43] Clause 1, Regulations to Protection Act XCIX QGG, 21 December 1912, page 1939.
[44] The Consultancy Report, page 21.
[45] Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Issues Paper, Brisbane, June 1993, written to be read in conjunction with the Consultancy Report
[46] Clause 1, 1912 Regulations for the Island Fund; clause 1(1), 1919 Regulations for the Aboriginal Indigent Fund.
[47] Issues Paper, page 1.
[48] Preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601.(Eng).
[49] Brisbane City Council v Attorney-General (Qld), (1978) 19 ALR 681.
[50] Section 21, Trusts Act 1973 (Qld).
[51] Section 21, Trusts Act 1973 (Qld).
[52] The Consultancy Report, page 22.
[53] The Consultancy Report, Attachment 2.
[54] Clause 1 (1) of the 1919 Regulations.
[55] Regulation 1(l), CXXXV QGG, 11 October 1930, page 1390.
[56] The Consultancy Report, page 22.
[57] Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408 per Mason CJ, Deane and Toohey JJ, not overruling the decision of the courts below that a fiduciary duty existed.
[58] Section 4(6), Trusts Act 1973 (Qld).
[59] Clause 1(k), 1919 Regulations.
[60] Clause 6 (i),1919 Regulations.
[61] Clause 12, 1904 Regulations.
[62] Section 12(2) of the 1901 Protection Act.
[63] Circular from Chief Protector to all protectors dated 7 June 1933, the Consultancy Report, Attachment 1.5.
[64] Clause 2(vi), 1919 Regulations.
[65] The Consultancy Report, letter from Director of Native Affairs to Under Secretary Department of Heath and Home Affairs of 30 June 1941.
[66] The Consultancy Report.
[67] 'Living under the Act', Taroom Aboriginal Reserve 1911-1927, Cultural Heritage Monograph Series, Vol 1, S L'Oste-Brown and L Godwin with G Henry, T Mitchell and V Tyson, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane, 1995.
[68] The Consultancy Report.
[69] The Consultancy Report, Attachment 1.
[70] The Consultancy Report, page 9.
[71] Section 27(1) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).
[72] Section 73(1) of the Community Se vices (Aborigines) Act 1984 (Qld).
[73] 'Living under the Act', Taroom Aboriginal Reserve 1911-1927, Cultural Heritage Monograph Series, Vol 1, S L'Oste-Brown and L Godwin with C Henry, T Mitchell and V Tyson, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane, 1995.
[74] Beyond the Act, Vol III, Aboriginess and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service and the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (attributed to Paul Richards, solicitor), Brisbane, 1979. Page 238.
[75] Sections 75(1) and (IA) of the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 (Qld).
[76] Section 75(2) of the Aborigines Act 1971: the chief executive's certificate is 'conclusive evidence'.
[77] The Consultancy Report, page 26.
[78] The Consultancy Report, page 31.
[79] See also Aboriginal wages and trust funds in Queensland, R Kidd, FAIRA Occasional Paper No. 1, FAIRA, Brisbane, 1994.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1996/37.html