Talk:Slavery in Australia

Slavery before European colonization
The opening sentence "Slavery in Australia occurred throughout the continent from the period of British colonisation." seems to rule out any slavery before colonization. While I expect that this is true, is there any source? What if it were changed to "There is a recorded history of Slavery in Australia throughout the continent from the period of British colonisation." ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldra (talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Slavery in Australia
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slavery in Australia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From Slavery in the British Isles: The Historical encyclopedia of world slavery, Volume 1; Volume 7 By Junius P. Rodriguez ABC-CLIO, 1997 From Freedmen's Bureau: Clayborne Carson, Emma J. Lapsansky-Werner, and Gary B. Nash, The Struggle for Freedom: A History of African Americans, 256. From Afro-Puerto Rican: Jay Kinsbruner, Not of Pure Blood, Duke University Press 1996 From Mamluk: Thomas Philipp & Ulrich Haarmann. The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society. From Haitian Revolution: Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, p. 124. From Slavery in the United States: Samantha Cook,Sarah Hull, "The Rough Guide to the USA" From Arab slave trade: Mintz, S. Digital History Slavery, Facts & Myths From Blackbirding: James A. Michener & A. Grove Day, "Bully Hayes, South Sea Buccaneer", in Rascals in Paradise, London: Secker & Warburg 1957</li> <li>From The Bible and slavery: </li> <li>From Slavery in India: Raychaudhuri and Habib, The Cambridge Economic History of India, I</li> <li>From Slavery in medieval Europe: </li> <li>From Slavery in the colonial United States: </li> <li>From Comfort women: </li> <li>From Abolitionism: Blackburn 1997: 136; Friede 1971:165–166. Las Casas' change in his views on African slavery is expressed particularly in chapters 102 and 129, Book III of his Historia.</li> <li>From History of slavery: Klein, Herbert. The Atlantic Slave Trade.</li> <li>From Jewish views on slavery: Jewish Encyclopedia, "Slaves and Slavery"</li> <li>From Atlantic slave trade: Stannard, David. American Holocaust. Oxford University Press, 1993.</li> <li>From Human trafficking: </li> <li>From Treatment of slaves in the United States: Annette Gordon-Reed, The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, New York: W.W. Norton, 2008</li> <li>From Solomon Islands: British Solomon Islands (Name of Territory) Order 1975 (S.I. 1975 No. 808)</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Clean up of the lede
There are two pretty significant statements in the lede to this article which require citation.

Specifically:

"This practice of unpaid work and separation from family continued until 1970"

Given that this claims to have occurred until 1970 it shouldn't be hard to cite.

"State governments have denied fair restitution for these acts, even in the modern era having taken very little responsibility to date, despite government involvement (often including the police services)."

Firstly the word "Fair" is not NPOV ... it's subjective. Unless there is a legal or official (Human Rights Commission for example) precedent for establishing that the State governments have not acted 'fairly' it remains subjective.

Without those citations those two statements should be removed. If someone wants to keep them ... then find a Wikipedia grade Reliable Source and cite them already. 07:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.15.193 (talk)

It's been 2-3 years, no citation. Comments removed - 203.121.221.208 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
Images to add to this article: 1) the famous photo of many chained Australian Aborigines, 2) the famous Slave Map of Australia. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
The article contains this statement:


 * Chattel slavery was never implemented in Australia...

However, the article then goes on to mention numerous instances of humans being bought and sold (i.e., chattel slavery).

Both things can't be correct. Please fix it. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Forced Recruitment?
It is claimed under the section "Legislation enabling slavery" that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (Cth) allowed the non-payment of wages and forced recruitment of labour in the Northern Territory. However reading the legislation https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nt5_doc_1918.pdf, It says under Number 26,

26.—(1.) Any person residing within any Town District, and desiring to employ any aboriginal within any Town District, shall, in addition to obtaining a licence to employ aboriginals, enter into an agreement with the aboriginal in the prescribed form.

This seems to contradict the "forced recruitment" claim. Furthermore under Number 46

Number 46.—(1.) Where any Protector or Police officer has reason to believe that any aboriginal or half-caste is not being treated properly by any person having the custody or control of the aboriginal (whether employer or otherwise) he may remove the aboriginal or half-caste from the custody or control of that person.

This seems to contradict the "enabling slavery" aspect. Can someone explain?


 * IP 66.242.85.173 - please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~) at the end, so other editors can see who has posted it.
 * See WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. In Wikipedia, we use mostly secondary sources to interpret things like legislation or scientific studies, although the primary source is sometimes also added for reference - it is not up to editors to interpret legislation. I do not have time to go through this legislation with a fine-toothcomb, and neither do I have legal training. Quoting selectively from sections does not convey the whole force of the legislation, nor how it is or was interpreted by the judiciary. The cited source, an article by a professor of law and a lecturer in law, is reliable enough to use in this article. If you want to do some further reading, have a look at this, which says, for example "Generally, wages for workers on cattle stations went unpaid until 1949 due to Regulation 14 of the 1918 Ordinance, which gave the Chief Protector the power to exempt an employer from the ‘payment of wages’ to an Aboriginal person by feeding and maintaining ‘relatives and dependants'" and also "The Government negligently administered both the 1918 Ordinance..." (which allowed the bosses to have certain rights over the workers but did not enforce their responsibilities, among other things). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * - If the legislation directly contradicts a lawyer's claim, surely it should at least merit a mention? Anyway, one of the very same lawyers authored this:

"However, a perusal of the Ordinance seems to give little support to the proposition that its purpose was to create or authorise conditions of 'slavery'. The words of the legislation are paternalistic, but apparently benign. Most fundamentally, the proposition appears to be negated by the fact that the powers ofthe Chief Protector or Director of Welfare8 in relation to Aboriginal employees - just like his powers in relation to Aboriginal children - were required to be exercised 'in the best interests of' the Aboriginal person concerned. Under section 6 of the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT) ('1918 Ordinance'), 'the Chief Protector shall be entitled at any time to undertake the care, custody or control of any aboriginal or half-caste if, in his opinion, it is necessary or desirable in the interests ofthe aboriginal or half-caste for him to do so'. Thus, prima facie, even if acts which amounted to acts of slavery were done under the apparent authority of the 1918 Ordinance, this could not be an indication of the invalidity of the 1918 Ordinance. It can never be in a person's 'interests' to be kept in slavery. No law can simultaneously authorise only actions carried out 'in the interests of the aboriginal or half-caste' and authorise that person being kept in slavery. Any act authorised by the 1918 Ordinance could not be an act of slavery. Any act of slavery could not be authorised by the 1918 Ordinance.]n other words, ifan act ofslavery occurred under the apparent authority ofthe 1918 Ordinance, such an act could only be an invalid exercise of power, not an indication that the power itself was invalid."


 * Source: Page 4, https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=054105104066071027104073088095118099056021035048087017065114125113126022090112088103124041097041114016032004101112025027066008118018046086035025108113065011123065023048048031099112000122121095078112075123098006092123099088003112121023064018122097122&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE


 * At least there seems to be a contradiction by claiming the Ordinance Act of 1918 allowed forced recruitment and enabled slavery. 66.242.85.173 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Slavery vs poor working conditions
Many of the topics on this page describe poor working conditions or exploitation rather than actual slavery.

Coolies for instance often had better working conditions than the average Burger King employee in countries like the US do today. Yet they are being equated to slaves.

Whilst there was slavery proper, this page fails to adequately describe when and how or to keep on topic. It also fails to give adequate citations or references. 120.22.141.131 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If you know a good source about the conditions for coolies in Australia, please add a reference to it. It is true that this page covers slavery and similar conditions. One reason for doing so is that the exact nature of some situations is contested. All the working situations mentioned do involve a lack of freedom or some measure of coercion. None of it relates to working conditions similar to "the average Burger King employee" in Australia today. Transient-understanding (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the intitial comments here that the topics covered on this page are not "actual slavery", however I suggest that the tone and introduction to the article should reflect the fact that most readers unfamiliar with this subject **may** understand slavery as primarily referring to chattel slavery. The introduction should be clearer (or at least setup a seperate section to follow) regarding both the forms of slavery (chattel v the broader term), and whether it was institutionalised or undertaken by private actors. Adondai (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Work for the Dole is not like slavery
While I accept that this page covers both slavery and slavery-like conditions, Work for the Dole is very far from slavery. It is usually much less coercive than standard employment.Transient-understanding (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The sources do cite people who view it as a kind of slavery. I guess the wording could be clearer that this is a minority opinion, and not a kind of objective fact. Ornilnas (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The key point in slavery is ownership. Anything that does not include ownership is not slavery.
Slavery in Australia. 125.253.110.33 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)