*-∙,
90
took responsibility for the following reserves in the sixties:
Amata, Indulkana, Gerard, Koonibba.
On the reserves, in the personal sphere, codes of conduct
were no longer subject to tribal authority. They were made the
subject of legislation which invented a deviancy and a delinquency
which were specific to Aboriginal people. Managers of reserves
had immense power which could be used quite capriciously.
,ι
Practices which grew up wherein all autonomy was removed
from the people were codified in the 1911 Aborigines Act. Under
the ActjAborigines became minors, their children taken from them.
The chief. Protector became the ’Guardian of every Aboriginal
1
and half-caste child’, a not unexpected corollary of a situation ;
where policy separated families.
The ’protector’ was entitled to
... inflict summary punishment by way
of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen
days, upon Aborigines and half-castes
living upon a reserve or within the
district under his charge, who, in the
judgement of such protector are guilty
of any crime, serious misconduct, neglect
of duty, gross insubordination or wilful
breach of any regulation (Aborigines Act,
1911, Section 10).
I
Regulations under the Act, promulgated in 1917 and 1919, added
further ’crimes’ specific to Aborigines. Under the regulations
Aborigines could be summarily fined for not closing a gate or
for being untidily dressed. The time of rising in the morning
was stipulated. For failing to obey an order an Aborigine could
be fined ten pounds or gaoled, with or without hard labour, for
two months.
ɪ A parallel case may be found in the Rise and Fall of the Child
Saving Movement (Platt, in Cosin, et. al., 1971)j where particular
deviances were shown to have been invented for lower class children
by middle class women.
