The unique relationship that developed on northern Australian cattle stations by the 1930s provided rights and obligations to Aboriginal workers. The pastoralists’ jurisdiction not only allowed pastoralists to transcend state power, but also the Aboriginal worker escaped the full impact of state ‘protection’. By living on stations, which were on or near their ‘homelands’,^[116] Aboriginal workers and their dependants could transgress policies of protection and assimilation, which often involved removal from traditional country. As part of the working arrangement, whole Aboriginal communities lived on the property. This enabled them to retain aspects of their customary systems.^[117] Pastoralists came to accept that Aboriginal workers would continue their cultural practices, and often encouraged them as a means of maintaining their labour force.^[118] This working relationship based on rights and obligations on both sides, can be framed as feudal because at its heart was a common interest in land, albeit for very different reasons.

Aboriginal memories convey that within station life there was an endeavour to ‘keep alive’ their land connections.^[119] Riley Young of Yarralin pointed out that labour conditions enabled the otherwise frightened and dispossessed Aborigines to ‘look after the land’ and ‘keep the place’.^[120] Aboriginal workers’ ongoing ties to their land were more than a matter of residence. They actively pursued customary and ceremonial rites that furthered their land interests and moral economy. The general rule was that masters did not interfere directly with ‘tribal matters’, such as religious rituals, so long as they did not jeopardise the station’s economic venture.^[121]

The unyielding determination of Aboriginal workers to retain their land connection was one factor that prevented them from becoming an enslaved labour force. Manning Clark claimed that cultural intransigence precluded Aborigines from being reduced to slavery in the north, although he also recognised that in the south-eastern colonies, particularly Tasmania, it had devastating consequences for Aboriginal communities.^[122] The northern experience confirms by corollary the cardinal maxim that ‘neighbours made difficult slaves’.^[123] The well-known slave theorist Orlando Patterson proposed that the fundamental element of slavery — ‘natal alienation’ — was almost impossible to achieve with natives in a conquered land.^[124] The master, not the slave, was the intruder in an established native community.^[125]

An integral aspect of the relationship between pastoralists and stockworkers was the allowance for dependants to reside on the station. This meant that Aboriginal communities could nurture kinship ties and share their resources in accordance with traditional social relations. Communities could also maintain their languages, express their Aboriginal identity and practice cultural rites.^[126] These ongoing ties allowed Aboriginal workers to transgress broader government attempts to assimilate Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people on the pastoralists’ jurisdiction faired well compared to their counterparts on the ‘outside’. The benefits for those on the ‘inside’ became patently clear after Aboriginal communities were removed from stations en masse after the 1966 Equal Wage decision. After their removal, Aboriginal people had restricted access to their land and customary practices.

In addition, the Aboriginal ‘moral community’ that was fostered on stations was a counterpoint to the morality of the pastoralists. It allowed workers to resist the domination of the pastoralists’ way of life. Their ongoing kinship ties and customs were powerful factors in providing workers with autonomy from their masters. It also set Aboriginal station workers apart from slave conditions, which rupture family and community ties.^[127] The slave master seeks to impose a slave morality that is foreign to the slave, whereas on cattle stations it suited pastoralists to have relatives and dependants live on station land.^[128] This is because it offset wages, created a stable workforce and provided an additional pool of labour. Ties of kinship gave Aboriginal good reason to remain on stations and made it difficult for Aborigines to leave on a permanent basis. On the Victoria River Downs Station in the Northern Territory, 75% of Aborigines were dependants of stockworkers.^[129]

However, the real opportunity to practice customary rites was in the wet season when Aboriginal people on stations were allowed to go ‘walkabout’. Adult initiation and other important ceremonies were conducted in this season. Aboriginal workers asserted this right even when pastoralists, such as May MacKenzie, regarded it as ‘awkward and annoying’. MacKenzie was frustrated ‘that the tribe could never be persuaded to stay over the traditional time of walkabout, but went as inevitably as the season came, taking the boys just as they would have been most useful’.^[130] However, generally pastoralists granted leave for ‘walkabout’ as a component of the station relationship of rights and obligations. They would sometimes provide rations for Aboriginal people to take with them. But walkabout also occurred in a period when pastoralists were happy to dispense with the labour force. It was allowed only during the months of the non-mustering wet season (November-March), known as the ‘slack season’, when managers were happy to forego responsibility for their upkeep.^[131] Jimmy Bird remembered that Aboriginal workers ‘had to wait until manager said we could go’.^[132]

Nevertheless, Aboriginal workers fondly recall their annual ‘walkabout’ in the wet season. Lochy Green’s recollection of the Partukurru, or initiation time, at Myroodah Station illustrates the Aboriginal experience. He described the pastoralists’ concurrence with the traditional Aboriginal law business, which is indicated by their provision of rations during this period:

Many Aboriginal workers were active in shaping their relationships with pastoralists and the manner in which they performed their work. Norbert Elias points out that ‘civilizing’ processes, including work, involve interactions between individuals that weave patterns of ‘interdependence’.^[134] This is apparent on northern cattle stations, where both the pastoralists and the Aboriginal workers’ livelihood hinged on their coexistence. On the homestead, bonds of friendship would occasionally grow between Aboriginal servants and their ‘missus’.^[135] When mustering, pastoralists would recognise the skills of Aboriginal workers and assign them supervisory roles.^[136] Stockworkers assumed independent responsibility over their tasks, and expressed a pride in their work.^[137]