Cecil Cook, John Bleakley, Aborigines, Australia, Chief Protector, and
how they fitted into Northern Territory history in 1926 to 1940.
In February 1927, DR Cecil E A Cook came to the Northern Territory (NT)
as the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Protector of Aborigines. He immediately
set about altering the social and political landscape toward favouring the
indigenous folk. Approximately one year after his, arrival John W Bleakley was
sent to the Territory to commission a report into Aboriginal affairs. These two
men became the instigators of political change that affected the way the
indigenes would be treated in the future. Whilst both men probably had firm
good intent, their fundamental differences in philosophy would set in motion a
chain of events that would traumatise a generation of Aboriginals in a manner
they had not before experienced.
The lack of uniform Federal policy coupled with
European ignorance led to two different managerial practices being applied to
the issue. Nonetheless, Cook and Bleakley have a firm place in Territory
history that is by no means shameful. They permanently and irrevocably reversed
the exploitive and oppressive processes of their forebears and the local
whites, and brought forth the beginnings of structure and modernity in Northern
Territory Aboriginal social history. The period of change and some of the
events involved in the redirection are discussed here in a manner that places
the two key identities of the period in the context of the history of Northern
Australia.
Cecil Cook aimed to redirect
the destructive passage of the native peoples, his efforts were to try and
‘civilise’ their nature and thus bring them forth from being earth dwellers to
civilians. In the process, they would then gain a modern self-respect and a
measure of modernity which they had so far not gained. One of Cook’s initial
programs was to assume control over indigenous employment. Employers were
pressured to provide better working conditions. However, this was difficult for
him to establish in the vast Northern Territory, and had never really been seen
before in the Territory’s short history. Especially with little means of
distance travel; nor enough willing personnel to police and encourage the
policy.
John Bleakley was invited to go to the Northern
Territory by the Commonwealth Government to survey Aboriginal welfare in 1928.
He was the Chief Protector of Aborigines in Queensland at the time. Kettle and
others find that he had broad experience in dealing with the natives and with
government. That Queensland was the most advanced state in managing Aboriginal
affairs; and that in many ways, Cecil Cook differed from what Bleakley held to
be reasonable methodologies. In particular, Bleakley was in full favour of
missions that would adopt protectionism, whereas Cook advocated integration
following on from protectionism. So whilst the Commonwealth published and
supported the Bleakley report, Cook operated under a deference, preferring
instead to tailor policy as he thought was required for the Northern Territory.
The Bleakley report came to
many conclusions and recommendations for the Territory. All of which amounted
to the introduction of formal structuralism and institutionalism that he found
needed to be placed before the Aboriginal people. The recommendations also seem
to have engendered a form of apartheid for the ‘half caste’ people in order to
prevent their return to cultural living. As a result, the police (under the
guise of the protectorate) searched all the camps collecting 'half-castes’ so
they could be placed under white supervision. Cook’s suggestions encompassed
almost the entire social realm for the indigene’s into their near future; and
although these recommendations meant the dismantling of the Aboriginal society,
he did foresee the need to retain some protectionism for Aboriginals from
Europeans.
Particularly the tribalised
wild Aboriginals near the cattle stations, missions and places of
accommodation. He also advocated the use of Anthropologists for the
bureaucracy; which may have had adverse consequences -that of exacerbating the
primitive analysis of the Aboriginals. Donovan believed that the Bleakley
report ‘achieved little’. Bleakley had advocated wage increases and cash
payments. However; Donovan points out, vested interests (namely the Territory’s
version of the Landed Gentry) were opposed to such recommendations, as this
-they suggested- would bring about economic ruin for Stationeers. They
preferred the ‘status quo’; that of indigene exploitation and the harsh
realities of ignorance for Aborigines.
Austin says the report
castigated those pastoralists and others who exploited workers (Aboriginals)
and that it highlighted the need for: ‘the best for their future happiness and
usefulness’…’rather than a ‘menace’ in the North’. Austin could find ‘little
evidence’ of Bleakley accounting for Aboriginal aspirations and where they
might fit in the greater scheme of future policy. However, he concedes:
‘Bleakley claimed to have discussed matters with ‘civilised’ Aborigines’. And
on the matter of curfews: ‘fell into the trap of believing that harsher laws
aimed at the victims were means of preventing…abuse’. Significantly, the Bleakley
report of the NT fuelled southern interest and civil rights groups for a period
of ten years or more. They would use the findings in it to harass parliament
about its previous and concurrent inaction on Aboriginal welfare.
Cook’s principle was to separate
the two peoples initially (Aborigines and Europeans); protect the Aborigines
from foreign exploitation and interbreeding and subsequently allow
self-determination and assimilation under their own power and influence through
education. However, ‘Cook was severely handicapped by a lack of funds and
personnel’; despite this ‘he did a great deal to improve the conditions under
which the Aborigines lived’. A matter of difference between the two Protectors
was how the mix of cultures was to be dealt with. Gleed found that Bleakley
realised during his time in the Northern Territory, the ‘religious zeal’ with
which the missionaries were operating. However, in his report he stated: ‘These
missions are all working on the right lines’. The missions of the Cook and
Bleakley period in the NT were the prime source of civility for the Aboriginals
in their genesis from their pre-historical existence, through into the modern
world.
Gleed sites an historical
conference held in 1929 by the Minister of Home Affairs, that Government found
more favour in Cook’s ideas than in Bleakley’s: ‘and it was making sufficient
advancement in this area’. Whether this is because Cook was a government
appointee for the Northern Territory is unclear, especially as Government was
later cooperative in appointing Anthropologists to the scene. These were more
aligned with Bleakley’s mission growth recommendations. The 1933 Aboriginal
Ordinance emulated the Bleakley report; thus further enforcing procreational
apartheid between the peoples; and by consequence, cultural apartheid in the
community. However, ‘comboism’ (the practice of mixed culture partnerships)
flourished, as did the hypocrisies of the generations who flirted with the
indigenous women. Yet McCann finds part of Cook’s policy was to encourage the
‘half-caste’ girls to marry the white men, which caused an uproar amongst the
Europeans who consequently tried to have him removed from his position.
The challenge for the Department of the Chief Administrator of the
Northern Territory was to balance the Federal conventions before Bleakley’s
institutionalism, with Cook’s local drive to enhance integration. The resulting
divisions created for the Northern Territory Aborigines under these
circumstances typifies the social conditions of today. Yet Cook and Bleakley
cannot be blamed for the result, as the Aboriginal experience was always one of
contention, ever since settlement. However, the two merely represented
structuralism in its infancy in Northern Territory history. Before their
appointments, Aboriginalism was poorly viewed, far less politicised and a lot
more brutal.
Cook was an innovator, and
his numerous achievements were no less than brilliant when they are viewed
retrospectively in Territory history. Clyde Fenton himself gives full credit to
Cecil Cook for supporting him in his efforts to launch the first aerial medical
service in the Northern Territory, he writes: ‘Almost the only man with any
faith in my scheme, and the vision to realise the possibilities… backed me to
the limit with Canberra’. In March 1934, Fenton realised his ambition; with
some serious lobbying by Cook, Fenton became the first flying doctor in the
Northern Territory, operating out of Katherine. ‘It was he [Cook], and he
alone, who, after lengthy negotiations had persuaded the Federal Government
(against their better judgement) to give me and my aeroplane a reasonable
trial’- wrote Fenton.
Fenton went on to become one
of the Territory’s prime legends. Cook all the while supporting the air-service
until his departure in 1939. Without their determination, the evidence
suggests, there may not have been a service for another five years, and perhaps
then the Queensland Flying Doctor Service, or a military service. Fenton
dedicated his 1947 book as a tribute to Cecil Cook: ‘the moving spirit and the
guiding hand’.
Meanwhile, Bleakley had in
compiling his report, found that during the depression the pastoralists became
dependant on Aboriginal labour to the extent that the very survival of primary
industry in the Northern Territory was ensured by Aboriginal presence. Not to
mention the physical survival of the white folk in remote areas. Donovan holds
the opinion that the plight of the Aborigines in the Northern Territory began
to improve since Cooks appointment in 1927, and he disputes the date of 1934
given as the turning point; a view held by Elkin and others. The Bleakley
report highlighted the disgraceful conditions in which Aborigines lived; and it
was just one impetus that would encourage Government to act more favourably for
the Aborigines. The most significant outcome attributable to Bleakley’s history
was the formation of the Aboriginal Arnhem Land reserve in 1931, wherein Cook
aimed to restrict most European entry.
Cook was operating as the
official forerunner of policy for Aboriginal development, constructing
methodologies as he progressed. Cook succeeded in creating the North Australian
Medical Service in 1928, wresting the supply of health services from
privateers, thus establishing Commonwealth administered health. A year later he
established a medical benefits fund that allowed for the provision of services
to everybody at a subsidised fee. This was the first of its kind in Australia
and was widely recognised in the press.
But this was not to last;
before his efforts were widely accepted, still new and incomplete, a new type
of policy came to bear on the situation. Whilst not yet fully prepared for
domestication under a unitary policy, Aborigines were thrust into a ‘New Deal’
in 1928 that saw them forced out from under Cooks blanket of protective
socialism and into the dispersive Assimilation Policy. Donovan finds Cook’s
policies “progressive” and his constant lobbying contributed to the Federal
Governments policy statement of 1938, signalling the new deal and shortly
after, his departure. His progress was complete despite the efforts of the
vested interests to negate his work. He established a Leprosarium on Channel
Island and started a nurses training school that gave accreditation from
interstate. He was involved in the opening of three hospitals in the region,
and the appointment of several doctors also. He also established a leprosarium
on Channel Island.
Donovan points out: ‘the
efforts of Cook and Bleakley should have met with so much success’ because
during an inquiry into murder ‘ it was ‘clearly demonstrated the low regard
white Australians had for Aborigines’. But Cook -Donovan finds- met with much
resistance within the White community in the Northern Territory, yet he
achieved a great deal nonetheless: ‘as with Cook’s Aboriginal policy his policy
for half-castes was only as effective as his personal influence’. The evidence
suggests the pastoralist lobby was Cook’s main opposition; and that Cook would
agitate against missionism. Austin highlights the professional differences
between Cook and Bleakley; of Cook’s disappointment at being overshadowed by
the report, and of Cook’s somewhat belligerent attitude toward the indigenes.
Yet Bleakley had not addressed the legal aspects in his report; and so it was in
this area: ‘significant advances were to be made during Cook’s 12 years as
Chief Protector’.
AUSTIN, Tony,.1997. Never Trust a Government Man: Northern
Territory Aboriginal Policy 1911-1939. Northern Territory
University Press.
CARMENT, David,. Robyn
Maynard. Alan Powell. Eds. 1990.
Northern Territory Dictionary of Biography. Volume 1: to 1945. Northern Territory University Press.
DONOVAN, P, F,.1984. At the other end of Australia.
Queensland: University of
Queensland Press.
FENTON, Clyde,.1947. Flying Doctor.
Melbourne: Georgian House Pty Ltd.
GLEED, Susan,.1995. Symbiosis- A study of Northern Territory
Missions
and Government. Townsville: James Cook University.
KETTLE, Ellen,.1991. Health services in the Northern Territory- a
History 1824-1970. Australian National University: North
Australia Research Unit.
McCANN, F, B,.1959. Medicine Man.
Australia: Angus &
Robertson.
POWELL, Alan,.1996. Far Country.
Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press.
STONE, Sharman,.Ed. 1974. Aborigines in White Australia.
London: Heinemann
Educational Books Ltd.