Pastoralists’ personal power endured in the twentieth century despite — and sometimes because of — burgeoning bureaucracies. The introduction of Aboriginal ‘protective’ legislation gave wide-sweeping powers to the Chief Protector of Aboriginals and the ‘protectorship’ under him. Their role was to regulate the lives of Aborigines, by restricting their movements, place of residence, family life, and expenditure of Aborigines’ money.^[84] These ‘Aboriginal Acts’ were common across northern Australia: Aboriginal Protection Act and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act (Queensland 1897), Aborigines Act (Western Australia 1905), and Aboriginals Act (Northern Territory 1910).

The Aboriginal Acts applied onerously to Aboriginal people in missions, on government settlements and in town employment. The Northern Territory Chief Protector of Aborigines, Dr CE Cook observed, ‘The Aborigines employed on cattle stations were no problem. The problems were on the missions.’^[85] He attributed this to the ‘relationship between the management and the Aboriginals [on cattle stations] which worked in the interests of both of them’. By contrast, Aborigines on missions were far removed from home territories,^[86] and missionaries sought to replace Aboriginal interests in their land and culture with an interest in Christian ‘civilisation’ and morality.^[87]

However, the Protector often acquiesced to the power of the pastoralist over Aboriginal workers, either pursuant to the Act or with disregard to the Act. Pastoralism was how the legislation’s objective of uplifting and protecting Aborigines would be met, according to Baldwin Spencer, the Territory’s Chief Protector in 1913.^[88] R Marsh of the Federal Department of Territories, wrote in 1954, ‘[T]he pastoralists in maintaining aboriginal dependents are doing the job which would otherwise fall to the Government.’^[89] Despite this rhetoric, the form in which pastoralists managed Aboriginal people did not always comply with the assimilation agenda of governments.

A key feature of the Aboriginal Acts was the introduction of employment permits for Aboriginal workers.^[90] These gave station managers the power to employ as many Aboriginal workers as they chose. Managers could buy these permits for a small price so long as they were deemed of ‘good repute’, in the ‘protector’s opinion’.^[91] Ruby de Satge, who worked on a Queensland station, described the 1897 legislation in the following terms, ‘[T]he Act means that if you are sitting down minding your own business, a station manager can come up to you and say, ‘I want a couple of blackfellows’ … Just like picking up a cat or a dog.’^[92]

The minimal government regulations concerning permit conditions, and the lack of government monitoring of station conditions,^[93] meant the permits effectively gave employers a green light to exercise unlimited control over Aboriginal workers. Aboriginal workers were denied access to the bargaining process, freedom of movement or the right to refuse to work.^[94] Stockworker John Watson at Fitzroy Downs stated that the protectors gave managers permits to ‘work them [Aborigines] as they saw fit’ and ‘take charge of their welfare’.^[95] Armed with permits, pastoralists were granted ‘the status of “protector”’, according to Eric Lawford who worked at Christmas Creek. He said:

It gave them [pastoralists] the same authority as the policemen, who were also protectors. If there was any trouble with the blackfellas then the police used to be called in to sort it out. But, because he was the permit holder and as such a protector, the station manager could do pretty much as he liked.^[96]

In the exceptional case where district protectors refused to grant permits due to poor living conditions, such as Ted Evans’ rejections of applications by Vestey’s managers at Victoria River Downs, pastoralists used their political clout to override the protectors’ decisions. Evans reflected, ‘that’s the kind of power and lobbying you’re up against when you try to do something’.^[97] Humanitarians at the 1933 Aboriginal Welfare Conference referred to the protectionist legislation, as protecting the pastoralist rather than Aboriginal worker.^[98]

The alignment of pastoral and state interests is epitomised by the fact that a number of pastoralists served as official protectors. The Western Australian Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs (1914-19), Rufus H Underwood, commented that appointing pastoralists to positions of protectors was akin to ‘leaving a hawk to protect a chicken’.^[99] More commonly, however, police took up the role.^[100] Their struggle to juggle it with other duties, and their close relations with pastoralists, meant police unofficially devolved their duties. They are reported to have carried out their responsibilities in relation to the Territory’s Aboriginals Ordinance in a detached manner, making their inspection of employment conditions ‘nominal and superficial’.^[101]