The White Australia Policy: Kanakas and the Pacific Island Labourers Act

[Editor: This chapter is part of The White Australia Policy: The Rise and Fall of Australia’s Racial Ideology (2025).]

Kanakas and the Pacific Island Labourers Act

Plantation owners in Queensland had experienced difficulty in hiring labourers for their plantations, especially for the pay rates that were being offered. It was said that this situation was hindering the economic viability of those rural businesses.

Many pastoralists had used convicts as labourers, but when the transportation of convicts to New South Wales ended in 1840, this meant that the plantation owners lost a major source of cheap labour.[1]

The lack of cheap labour for cotton and sugar plantations in Queensland led to the advent of Kanaka immigration. Kanakas (as labourers from the Pacific Islands were called) were imported in large numbers to work in Australia (especially in Queensland, but also in northern New South Wales). The term “Kanaka” means “man” or “person” in the Hawaiian language.[2]

In 1847, English-born entrepreneur Benjamin Boyd brought about 200 (at least 192) Pacific Islanders to Australia, to work as labourers and shepherds. However, he was accused of using coercive methods to obtain the Pacific Islanders; those accusations were investigated, and the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. Nonetheless, the NSW government amended the Masters and Servants Act to exclude the Kanakas from the legislation. Therefore the Pacific Islanders were therefore no longer obligated to work for Boyd as contracted labour, and so left their posts, with a substantial number of them obtaining passage back home.[3]

In 1863 Robert Towns employed Henry Ross Lewin, a former Royal Navy sailor, to recruit Pacific Islanders to work as labourers, for cutting sugarcane, picking cotton, and carrying out other farming duties. The availability of cotton was impacted by the American Civil War (1861-1865), an event which made cotton planting in Australia quite profitable. However, after the war had ended, and American cotton production rose again, farmers in Queensland found that the planting of sugar cane came to be the economically better option.[4]

The problem of being able to obtain cheap labour was an ongoing issue for Queensland plantation owners. The widespread recruiting of Kanaka labourers seemed to be a workable solution, and so thousands of Pacific Islanders were brought to Queensland.

However, once again, there were allegations that the recruitment of Kanakas as contract labourers was not all above board. It was alleged that many of the Kanakas did not understand the contracts that they were signing, that some were tricked into coming to Australia, and that some of them had even been kidnapped — the latter allegation giving rise to accusations of slavery.

The fraudulent obtaining of Kanaka labourers and the kidnapping of Kanakas were collectively referred to as “blackbirding”; these alleged practices were regarded as committing slavery, or a form of slavery.

Slavery was widely considered to be morally repugnant in the British Empire. The fleets of the British navy enforced this code of morality by stopping and searching, seizing, or attacking ships which were suspected of being involved in the international slave trade. This meant going up against the slave owners of those African and Arab lands where the practice of slavery was considered to be acceptable. British lives were lost in their worldwide campaign against slavery. Any attempts to have slavery introduced into Australia were deemed unacceptable, even in a disguised or hidden form.

Ships of the British Empire patrolled the islands of the Pacific Ocean to stop the kidnapping of Pacific Islanders by any unscrupulous ship captains. This was done without any financial benefit to the British; indeed, the resources expended on anti-slaving activities were a drain on British financial resources; the efforts of the British Empire to stop slavery were carried out on a moral basis. In comparison, no African, Arab, or Asian nation was known to have expended comparable resources to stop slavery; in fact, some in those nations saw nothing wrong with the notion and morality of slavery, and were quite peeved at the British for undermining what was, for them, such a financially lucrative custom. The prevention of the kidnapping and enslavement of Islanders was a moral priority for the British.[5]

Therefore, ships which were engaged in the recruiting of Kanakas came under increasing scrutiny. Legal prosecutions were mounted against those suspected of ill-doings in the Kanaka trade. The government of the Colony of Queensland passed the Polynesian Labourers Act 1868, in an attempt to stop any ill treatment of Kanaka labourers; however, with many employers of Kanakas being Members of the Queensland parliament, it has been surmised that the Act did little to protect the Kanakas. The government of the United Kingdom passed the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1872, which enabled government agents to accompany British ships which were recruiting Kanakas, to ensure that everything was being done legally; although, there were accusations of bribery and incompetence regarding the agents.[6]

There are reports of Kanakas who fled from their employers, which some modern readers may mistake as proof of the slavery of blacks in Australia or of some sort of nefarious conduct. What these reports are proof of is the poor state of labour laws in the 19th century, whereby any person, no matter if black or white, who fled from their master whilst under a contract for labour, was liable to legal prosecution. Apprenticeships operated under a different, but similar, system — and there are many reports to be found in 19th century newspapers of apprentices who had run away from their employers.[7]

Indentured labour, as a type of contract labour, was a poor form of labour agreement, but it was not slavery; however, employees serving under indentured labour contracts were far from being in an ideal situation, as workers could end up being trapped in a sub-par workplace, with conditions which were abusive or oppressive (which is why some have referred to indentured labour conditions as slave-like); although, conditions in some workplaces where indentured labourers were employed could be quite fine or equal to standard labour conditions. The conditions under which Kanakas worked in Australia could vary, depending on the employers. In the case of the British colonies in northern America (now the USA), it has been estimated that about 50% to 66% of European immigrants during 1630-1775 were indentured servants (it was not unusual for poor working folk to enter into an indentured labour contract as a way of paying for their passage from Europe to America).[8]

Whilst indentured labour was not slavery, there were times when workers contracted under such an arrangement were treated as little better than slaves; however, it should also be recognised that there were also circumstances where indentured labourers were treated very well, and worked in above-standard conditions. Indentured labour is not in and of itself a slave-like arrangement, but there were times when workers ended up being employed under terrible slave-like conditions (dependent upon the employers, existing laws, and government action or inaction).

A reporter for The Times newspaper (of London) investigated indentured labourers in Australia, and reported (in 1893) that they were being employed in ethical and proper conditions:

“There has been so much general misapprehension on the subject of the employment of kanaka labour that it may be as well to recapitulate very briefly the conditions under which kanakas are brought into Queensland. They are recruited from the islands in which they live by ships sailing under the strictest regulations as to tonnage, crews, cargo, and sanitary conditions.

Each ship is accompanied by a Government agent, whose duty it is to see that before any kanaka comes on board the nature of the contract into which he is entering is fully explained to him, and that he does not come otherwise than of his own free will. The captain of the ship is bound under a penalty of £500 to countenance no irregularity, and upon landing in Queensland the kanakas are again examined by a Government official in order to ascertain whether the conditions have been observed.

The contract upon which they enter is to come to work on a sugar plantation in Queensland for three years, to be provided during that time with food, clothes, quarters, and other necessaries, to receive not less than £6 a year in wages, and to be returned without expense at the end of the three years to the island from which they have been taken.

Only married women are allowed to come, and they are engaged on exactly the same terms as the men.

It has been said that the system is liable to abuse, that as a matter of fact kanakas do not know where they are coming nor what they are coming for, and that they are not returned to their own island, but to any island which happens to be most convenient. I have inquired most carefully into each ground of complaint, talking over the subject with ships’ captains, Government agents, Polynesian inspectors, and kanakas themselves, and I think I am thoroughly justified in the conclusion that there is absolutely no foundation for such reports in the existing system.

There have been grave abuses in the past. Men are, I believe, still undergoing punishment for the part they took in them, but recruiting as it is now carried on is above the shadow of reproach.”[9]

There were many people who were opposed to the recruitment of Kanakas for use in Australia. Advocates for the interests of white workers viewed the employment of Kanakas as a way for the bosses to undermine their pay rates and working conditions. Racially-minded people opposed the immigration of Kanakas, as they wanted Australia to be predominantly white, and were concerned about an increase in the numbers of non-whites and a rise in miscegenation (race-mixing), resulting in large numbers of mixed-race babies, which would undermine the demographic whiteness of the Australian population. Also, allegations of slavery still persisted.

By the time of the federation of the Australian colonies in 1901, there were an estimated 10,000 Kanakas in the country; about 62,000 Kanakas had been recruited up to then, with most of them returning to the Pacific after their contracts ended. Campaigners for a White Australia Policy wanted all of the Kanakas in Australia sent back to their islands in the Pacific.[10]

The politicians of the new federal government (comprising the Protectionists, led by Edmund Barton) were fully committed to ending the Kanaka trade. On 5 June 1901 the Pacific Islander Labourers Bill was the second piece of legislation which was initiated in the Australian parliament, which indicated the importance accorded to this legislation (the first piece of legislation initiated by the federal government was the Immigration Restriction Bill). The Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, asked the parliament:

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation, restriction, and prohibition of the introduction of labourers from the Pacific Islands and for other purposes.”[11]

The Bill regarding the Kanakas was given the Royal Assent on 17 December 1901, and thus the Pacific Islander Labourers Act became law.[12]

However, the government realised that an abrupt and immediate deportation of all Kanakas could damage or destroy the economic viability of many sugar plantations. So it was therefore decided to phase out the use of Kanaka labour on a gradual basis, giving farmers time to recruit white labour in the place of the Kanakas. A small number of Kanakas were allowed to enter the country up until 31 March 1904, but thereafter Kanaka immigration was essentially banned.[13]

Australian sugar-growers faced the problem of having to use relatively-expensive white labour, whilst overseas sugar-growers were able to use cheap coloured labour — this meant that the sugar industry in Australia could easily be destroyed by the importation of loads of cheaply-grown foreign sugar. In response to these concerns, the Protectionist government placed a substantial tariff upon imports of foreign sugar, thus enabling Australian sugar-growers to successfully compete in the Australian marketplace. This “sugar bounty” saved the Australian sugar industry from destruction.

The recruitment of Kanaka labourers was halted in 1904, because of the implementation of the new federal law. Additionally, the importation of workers under contract was now banned by the Immigration Restriction Act (unless the relevant government Minister formally gave a signed exemption, for the contract restriction to waive).[14]

Over the next few years, thousands of Kanakas gradually returned, or were sent back, to the Pacific Islands. However, thousands of Kanakas wanted to remain in Australia.

In 1901 there were approximately 10,000 Islanders living in Queensland and northern New South Wales, the majority of whom had come to Australia under indentured labour agreements. About 700 Islanders were exempt from the provisions of the Act; although, following political pressure being brought to bear upon the Australian government, these exemptions were widened in 1906, following the report of a Royal Commission which was created to look into the situation. As a result of the changes, 1,654 Islanders were made exempt from deportation; however, it has been estimated that, in the end, about 2,500 stayed in Australia, whilst about 7,500 left the country.[15]

As a compensation to the sugar industry, the Australian government placed a significant tariff upon foreign-grown sugar, to ensure that the local sugar-growers did not go out of business due to cheap sugar which had been grown and harvested with the use of cheap labour. In 1924 it was estimated that the sugar bounty had cost Australians in excess of £50,000,000.[16]

Nonetheless, this was a price that most Australians were willing to pay. In effect, this was part of the White Australia bargain, by which they had removed most of the Pacific Islanders from Australia, enabled employment for white workers in the cane fields, and kept the Australian sugar industry going.

The Pacific Island Labourers Act had mostly done what it was designed to do (the exception being the 2,500 Kanakas who had remained in Australia). The Act had largely prevented the rise of a significant Pacific Islander population in Australia, and was therefore an integral part of the White Australia Policy.

References:

[1] “The Kanakas: Slavery in the Pacific: T. Dunbabin’s new book”, Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate (Newcastle, NSW), 19 November 1935, p. 2
Lucy Hughes Turnbull, “The end of transportation”, Dictionary of Sydney, 2008

[2] “Kanaka: people”, Encyclopædia Britannica, updated 1 October 2024

[3] G. P. Walsh, “Benjamin (Ben) Boyd (1801–1851)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
Dr Mark Dunn, “Benjamin Boyd’s role in 19th Century Blackbirding in the Pacific for Labour in New South Wales”, Environment and Heritage (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, NSW Government), May 2021, pp. 2, 4

[4] D. Shineberg, “Robert Towns (1794–1873)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography
“The Kanakas: Slavery in the Pacific: T. Dunbabin’s new book”, Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate (Newcastle, NSW), 19 November 1935, p. 2
“blackbirding”, The Australian Encyclopaedia, Volume II, Sydney: The Grolier Society of Australia, 1963, p. 20
“Henry Ross Lewin”, Wikipedia

[5] For example: “The Evening News: Thursday, 9 May 1872” (general news section), The Evening News (Sydney, NSW), 9 May 1872, p. 2 [see section entitled “H.M.S Basilisk”, re H.M.S Basilisk patrolling around Fiji]

[6] “blackbirding: enslavement practice”, Encyclopædia Britannica, updated 23 August 2024
Reid Mortensen, “Slaving in Australian courts: Blackbirding cases, 1869-1871” (Journal of South Pacific Law, vol. 4, 2000), Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute (University of the South Pacific School of Law)
“Blackbirding”, Wikipedia

[7] Examples of reports regarding runaway Kanakas:
“Local and general”, The Logan Witness (Beenleigh, Qld.), 1 July 1882, p. 2 [see section “Runaway servant”]
“Runaway kanakas”, The Telegraph (Brisbane, Qld.), 23 October 1883, p. 2
“Runaway kanakas”, Evening News (Sydney, NSW), 26 July 1884, p. 6 (Second Edition)

Examples of reports regarding runaway apprentices:
“Runaway apprentice”, New South Wales Government Gazette (Sydney, NSW), 14 August 1846, p. 984
“Runaway apprentice”, The Herald (Melbourne, Vic.), 6 September 1882, p. 3
“A runaway apprentice”, Coburg Leader (Coburg, Vic.), 29 March 1893, p. 2
“A runaway apprentice”, The Bunbury Herald (Bunbury, WA), 11 October 1900, p. 3
“A runaway apprentice”, The Australian Star (Sydney, NSW), 24 February 1909, p. 4 (First Edition)

Examples of reports regarding runaway employees:
“Police report”, The Tasmanian (Hobart Town, Tas.), 23 November 1832, p. 375 [“Maria O’Donnell, an indented servant … was charged with absconding, and breaking her contract”]
“Masters and Servants”, People’s Advocate and New South Wales Vindicator (Sydney, NSW), 13 November 1852, p. 4 [“Patrick Devaney, ropemaker, was on Monday charged by his employer, Mr. Edward Smith, with having, on the 8th instant, unlawfully absented himself from his service”]
“The week’s news”, The Adelaide Observer (Adelaide, SA), 26 April 1873, p. 8 [see section “Desertion”, re runaway sailors]
“Assisting seamen to desert”, The Weekly Times (Melbourne, Vic.), 13 September 1873, p. 11 (Town Edition) [re runaway sailors]