Establishment of Kahlin Compound at Cullen Bay
247 There had been mounting pressure on the Government Resident to remove the Larrakia people from their camping ground at Lameroo Beach. Prior to the inception of the Aborigines Act, Protector of Aborigines Stretton supported the establishment of a 'permanent camping ground for the natives outside the boundary of the township. … The natives would be far better out of the township, those only who are employed to be allowed within the boundaries of the township.' There were various plans to remove the Larrakia people from the town. Basedow, in July 1911, developed a 'Scheme for the Protection, Medical Supervision and Systematic Employment of the Australian Aborigines'. Under this 'scheme', a 'Larrakeyah reserve' was proposed for the sea front adjoining the Botanic Gardens where the Larrakia people would be employed as 'attendants and watchmen' as well as being 'an additional attraction for visiting travellers'. A second reserve for less 'civilised and educated' members of the Larrakia tribe was to be established at a more remote location. On 8 December 1911, Beckett, by then a Protector of Aborigines, wrote:
'The task of keeping the unemployed natives out of Darwin has been a difficult one chiefly on account of the camps being situated so close to the town and the problem of where to put them. I am now hopeful of being able to overcome the trouble. Having brought the influential members of the various tribes together and held a conference with them, the Larrakeya's, Woolner Wargite & Alligator tribes have agreed to camp in amity on a piece of Crown land adjoining the Botanical gardens on one side & the Railway line on the other nearly two miles from the town and to keep away from the town at night & when not at work. Having consulted the acting administrator he has assured me that some assistance will be given to the natives to re erect their huts which will have to be demolished.'
248 The Northern Territory Times, also dated 8 December 1911, confirmed this report, stating that 'no coercion is being exercised in this matter, the aboriginals being quite satisfied to form new camping grounds on the assurance that the authorities will assist in making "new feller house"'.
249 In January 1912, following Basedow's resignation, Professor William Baldwin Spencer arrived to take up the position of Chief Protector for a period of one year. Spencer was anxious to remove the Aboriginal inhabitants of Darwin from the 'detrimental influences surrounding them' in the form of opium and alcohol, and immediately made plans to 'remove all aboriginal camps from the vicinity of the town of Darwin'.
250 In choosing the site for the Aboriginal camp, Spencer had regard to the Larrakia campsite at Lameroo beach:
'The largest Larrakia Camp is located, half on the cliff forming part of the Esplanade bordering the Harbour and half on the beach at its base. This division into two, an upper and a lower camp, is of long standing and has been respected in the choice of the new site which is located at Cullin's Beach outside the limits of the Township.'
251 In 1912, modern-day Cullen Bay, situated to the north-east of the town, was an undeveloped, relatively isolated area, consisting of a short beach fronting a narrow strip of land backed by cliffs and a ridge. This was the site selected for the establishment of the new Aboriginal camp, which became known as the 'Kahlin Compound'. The compound comprised 'about 13 acres … [with] a boundary fence consisting of posts of local timber and barb wire.' By the end of 1913, there were 'sixteen bark huts, a boys' dormitory, girls' dormitory, kitchen, laundry, office, storeroom, coach-house and fodder room, a fowl house, and some old dilapidated buildings in the gardens.' A school was established for both Aboriginal and children of mixed descent. The indigenous population of the compound fluctuated according to the season. In 1915-1916, the average population was 195, and in 1916-1917, it was 230 people.
252 In his 'Preliminary Report on the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory' dated 20 May 1913, Spencer commented on Aboriginal people living in settled areas of the Northern Territory, stating: 'These natives have so completely lost all their old customs that there is no difficulty in gathering them together into a village or compound, as is now being done in Darwin.' Under the heading 'Aboriginals Living in Towns', Spencer wrote '[t]hese natives have long since become degenerate and have lost all their old customs and beliefs.' He further recorded '[o]ne thing is certain and that is that in all parts where [Aboriginal people] are in contact with outsiders especially with Asiatics, they are dying out with great rapidity'.
253 In relation to traditional laws and ceremonies, Spencer observed that 'in many cases where the tribes, as in the immediate neighbourhood of Darwin, are not only demoralized but decimated, the old rules cannot be enforced'. He wrote that the existence of regularly performed ceremonies 'forms a very serious practical difficulty in connexion with any attempt … to remove the aboriginals from any particular part of the country except in settled districts where they have lost all their old beliefs and, to a large extent, given up performing their old ceremonies.'
254 Spencer outlined his economic plan for the compound. The inhabitants were to be self-supporting, 'as they will be employed either in the [compound] garden or in business places or private houses', although rations would be distributed to 'old and indigent' residents. Spencer further recommended the introduction of regulations, including a prohibition against any Aboriginal or mixed descent person being outside the compound or an employer's residence after sunset without a 'special permit'. Further, no Aboriginal person should be allowed to leave Darwin without permission.
255 In her report, Dr Wells said that Spencer had 'not understood the continuing status of the Larrakia who again used the local press to make public their dissatisfaction that Aboriginal people from another district were having their houses built first, that the earlier promises of Inspector Beckett regarding their own housing were not being fulfilled and questioned the motives of the Government for removing them in the first place.' The Territory submitted that there was scarce evidence that the complainants were Larrakia, and further that any evidence of such complaints was equivocal. In the Northern Territory Times dated 16 February 1912, a 'Billy Muck', in a complaint entitled 'No Good Government', questioned 'Whaffor that one Pisher Gubment huntem allabout my countryman long old pfeller camp and makem sit down close up that new pfeller wurley?' In another complaint published 29 March 1912, a journalist described how an Aboriginal man 'fired at the worried scribe a volley of questions', including 'What for gubment gib it new pfeller house longa Alligator, no more gib it longa Larrakeah?'
256 I have previously discussed whether the use of the press by Larrakia people demonstrates their 'special status' within the township. It is therefore unnecessary for me to determine the weight to be attached to such evidence.
257 Correspondence and newspaper articles highlight that Spencer was not immune to community criticism. One incident involved Spencer sending away a Larrakia boy to a Western Australian pastoral station in an act of what was described by the Northern Territory Times (31 May 1912) as 'compulsory and heartless expatriation'.
258 Spencer's successor, Chief Protector W G Stretton, supplied the Administrator with a 'Report on Aboriginals Department, 1913', annexed to which was a report of Inspector Beckett. Stretton related that 'Most of the camps in the town have been broken up, and the aboriginals removed to the compound at Kahlin. It has been a difficult matter to induce the different tribes to amalgamate and fraternize.' In defence of the compound plan against those members of the community 'who would like to have the natives as slaves', Stretton unequivocally stated 'We are occupying their country, and must give them something in return, and all that we can do is to improve their condition according to our way of living.' Concerning the Kahlin Compound, Stretton reported that there were 76 inhabitants as at 31 December 1913.
259 Pursuant to the Aborigines Act, Aboriginal children of mixed descent were removed from their mothers, and placed in a 'Half-caste Home' in the compound, separated from other residents by a fence. Particular care was taken to remove the girls from the influence of 'full-blood' Aboriginal people. A former resident of the 'Half-caste Home', Val McGinness, recounted in 1988 that '[t]hey didn't separate us boys from the full bloods and they didn't try to stop us learning Aboriginal ways … Matter of fact all us Half-caste boys used to join in the Aboriginal ceremonies and all that, dances, corroborees.' The Territory in its written submissions argued that this passage demonstrated the way in which the Aboriginal people 'drew together in their "Aboriginality", lending practices and customs between each other, with the effect that none could be said to be referable to the original "Larrakia society"'. I will deal with this submission below in my discussion of whether the connection element is satisfied.
260 Criticism of the compound became public within years of its establishment. In a letter to the editor in the Northern Standard newspaper dated 26 September 1922, the compound was referred to as 'not only a blot upon Darwin, but a blot upon the white race' and the author said that it was 'practically impossible to describe the conditions obtaining there, and the herding of filthy, diseased, blackfellows and lubras'. Previously, in 1917, the 'whole of the town and neighbourhood of Darwin', except for the compound, was declared a 'prohibited area' under the Aborigines Act, making it an offence for an aboriginal or mixed descent person to be anywhere but in the compound without a permit. The Aborigines Act was replaced with the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT), which stipulated that all Aboriginal people in Darwin had to live at the compound and increased penalties for Aboriginal people discovered in prohibited areas or outside the compound during curfew hours without permission. In 1927, the Commonwealth government held an inquiry into indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory, led by the Chief Protector of Queensland, J W Bleakeley. In his 1929 report on 'The Aboriginals and Half-Castes of Central Australia and North Australia', Bleakley noted that there had previously been problems with residents of the compound leaving the boundaries without permission and visiting the Half-caste Home with designs of 'immorality'.
261 The Territory submitted that the asserted 'lack of control' in the compound was not demonstrative of any assertion by or recognition of Larrakia rights to land, even if that fact is coupled with the assertion that the majority of residents were Larrakia people. I agree that a lack of control in the compound is not by itself indicative of an assertion of Larrakia rights to land. However, it may be significant that, despite the threat of 'white feller' sanctions, residents of the Kahlin Compound persisted in moving outside the boundaries of the compound. I shall further consider these aspects when reviewing the effect of all the relevant evidence.
262 In 1923 a Committee of Inquiry into the Compound was appointed to deal with continued public and official criticism (the Inquiry). The Committee received oral evidence and evidence in the form of written statements from members of the public on the necessity and location of the compound, and the desirability of sheltering both people of Aboriginal and mixed descent in the same place.
263 In her report Dr Wells stated that 'the Inquiry highlighted the persistence of unauthorised Aboriginal camps in Darwin as well as the Larrakia's status as traditional owners'. The phrase 'traditional owners' was later revised to 'prior occupants'. I received this evidence, which was the subject of an objection by the Territory, in accordance with s 136 of the Evidence Act, limited to 'reciting a description of the inquiry'. The Territory in its written submissions argued that this evidence does not, in fact, recite a description of the Inquiry.
264 In the Inquiry's report of 4 July 1923, there was no specific mention of the Larrakia people at all. The only reference to the Larrakia people was indirect: 'All natives, not employed, [should be] compelled to live in the Compound, or, in the case of natives from outside districts, sent back to their country rather than be allowed to remain in indolence in Darwin.' [emphasis added]
265 However, the Inquiry's report ought to be read in the context of other documents that were tendered. In his letter dated 2 July 1923 to the Committee Chairman, Mr C J Kirkland suggested 'sending back to their own districts of all natives other than Larrakeyahs who are not engaged in some employment', a reference to the Larrakia people's prior occupancy of the area. He also drew attention to the 'abominable traffic' of opium and alcohol which was occurring. Similarly, Albert Woods, a contractor in Darwin, suggested in his evidence that another compound be established a further distance from the town, and that it 'be solely for the old Larrakeah natives'. A Lands Officer from the Home and Territories Department, writing on 24 October 1923, stressed that '[a]part from the cost involved in the proposed transfer of the Compound … it must be recognised that the natives associated with the compound are occupying what to them is [a] portion of their recognised tribal area.' He further stated
'The Township of Darwin was surveyed in 1869 or 54 years ago and a certain amount of occupation has been effected during that time. Consequently the natives whose tribal area had been encroached upon, gravitated to the town and, up to the time of the transfer of the Territory to the Commonwealth, were utilized by the whites occupying the town in various capacities, as servants etc., and were allowed to wander about and camp in the vicinity of the settlement without restriction. Naturally after a number of years association with the town, these natives have to a great extent lost their bushcraft, and now depend solely on what they earn or is given to them in lieu of wages for the work they perform in the Town, for their sustenance. In order to restrict the camping places and prevent undue numbers wandering about the Town during the day and night, the existing Compound at Cullen Beach was established by the Northern Territory Administration.'
266 In the context of these documents, which refer to the Larrakia people either directly or indirectly, I find that the statement by Dr Wells does reflect a feature of the evidence before the Inquiry.
267 The Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, J T Worgan, sent a report to the Administrator dated 4 July 1923. In it, Worgan noted that the present site of the compound was 'condemned' by a majority of witnesses. Reasons for such censure included its proximity to residences at Myilly Point, sanitary issues, and compound residents' drunken behaviour.
268 Worgan observed that the current system 'or want of system' allowed 'formation and continuance of odd camps of natives in or near the town' and suggested that 'natives from outside districts … [should be] sent back to their own country'. The Committee also advocated separating mixed descent children from their parents and opined that:
'The present system of allowing both male and female half-castes entrée to the Aboriginal Compound, and allowing them to associate freely with the full-blooded natives we think undesirable as it inevitably tends to bring the half-caste down to the level of the native. By tactfully gaining the confidence of the half-caste boys and girls … much would be done to create a favourable and happy atmosphere that would give the half-caste a fair start along the road of civilised life.'
269 The report also outlined the numbers of residents at the compound, as at 31 May 1923. The number of residents totalled 418, which number was comprised of eight tribes and 41 residents of mixed descent. Larrakia people constituted the majority tribe, with 81 resident at the compound. The next most numerous tribes were the 'Waugites' and the Melville Islanders, each with 76 residents, followed by the Bathurst Islanders (38), the Mulac Mulac tribe (36), the Anson Bay tribe (30), the Brinkin tribe (18) and the Wool Wonga tribe (2). There were also 20 people accounted for at the compound clinic, whose tribes were not noted.
270 The then Administrator of the Northern Territory, F C Urquhart, responded to the Committee's report in correspondence to the Secretary, Home and Territories Department, on 4 July 1923. Urquhart referred to the complaints against the compound as '95% fictitious and [as having] … scarcely any foundation in actual facts'. He stated he was thus 'unable to advise that the recommendation of the Committee should be given effect to'. Urquhart further reported that the Melville Islanders in the compound had been sent home, that any camps which existed outside the town had been dismantled and that illicit sale of alcohol was being attended to.
271 In 1925 the Half-caste Home, with a population of 21 girls of mixed descent, was removed to outside a house 'about a hundred yards from the compound'. Boys were later accommodated in the downstairs part of the Home. In 1929 Bleakley said that '[w]hile the conditions are vastly better than in the compound dwellings and clinic, it is freely admitted that the housing of 76 children, of different sexes, in a house large enough only for one family, is not satisfactory.' However, he supported the removal of the children from their parents' care, saying that the 'object of the home is to save these half-castes from the degradation of the blacks' camp, properly care for and educate them, and fit them to take a useful part in the development of the Territory.'
272 Dr C Cook was appointed Chief Protector in 1927. Cook's 'Half-caste Policy' was one of assimilation, whereby it was intended 'to elevate the half-caste's standard of living to that of the white, and to assist him to take his place in the community both socially and industrially'. Under Cook's policy,
'the mating of an aboriginal with any person other than an aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part aboriginal blood is also forbidden. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating the female half-castes to the white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population.'
273 In his Annual report for 1933-1934, Cook claimed 'real progress' had been made and that 'practically all half-caste children of both sexes, formerly left to live with aboriginals in compounds and bush camps to reach maturity as aboriginals, have been removed to half-caste institutions under Government control.' Cook also claimed that better accommodation and schooling facilities were being provided to these children. At 30 June 1934, the number of 'inmates' at the Half-caste Home in Darwin was 106, 13 of whom resided with their employers.
274 Cook's policy involved strict control of women of mixed descent. This control, as well as the general living standards in the Half-caste Home, generated criticism from members of the public and from officials. A report of W V Lancaster dated 8 October 1936 to the Secretary of Department of the Interior referred to the 'most unsatisfactory conditions under which the adult half-caste girls live on the compound'. He described the 'practice of locking adults in houses at 7.30 pm until next morning' as 'calculated to result in the very trouble which it is desired to avoid', the 'sanitary arrangements' as 'not satisfactory', and the 'compulsory deduction by the Chief Protector of 2/- in the case of half-caste women with dependents and 1/6d in the case of single women for the Medical Benefit Fund' as 'unfair'.
275 Correspondence from J B Waldie, a member of the public, dated 21 April 1936, also complained about the conditions in the Half-caste Home: 'to … keep the girls locked up under these conditions is a disgrace to any civilised country'. He further said that the women had 'no chance of leaving the compound unless they are married', and complained about the insufficient food and clothing provided to the residents.
276 In March 1939 the Northern Standard reported that five girls had escaped from the Half-caste Home. All were arrested and charged with being in a prohibited area. Two of the girls were sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment. In March 1940, the Northern Standard reported that there had been 'allegations of bestial treatment towards half-caste girls in the Darwin compound'. A former inmate of the Half-caste House has written that Cook 'never wanted us to mix with the full-blooded Aborigines. He kept us away … he wanted us to marry into white and get rid of our own … Aboriginality.'
277 Cook did not exercise the same level of control over Aboriginal men and women of mixed descent who were married and raising families in Darwin. However, he attempted to increase his level of control with his 'Half-Caste Housing Policy', sent to the Administrator on 2 February 1932. In this policy, Cook outlined 'the problem with which the Administration [was] … confronted':
'There are in Darwin some 39 male and 53 female adult half-castes with 90 children dependent upon them. These people being adults are for most purposes beyond the control of the Chief Protector.
[…]
All of these Half-castes are inadequately housed. Several live in the Police paddock [modern day Stuart Park] in the closest proximity to the lowest grade coloured alien population, others live in the Unemployed camps as comrades of agitators and extremists of Communism, others in shacks and humpies suburban to Darwin. These huts are in the last degree insanitary, not weather-proof, ill-ventilated, overcrowded, dark and usually unfloored.
[…]
It can be readily recognised that these people provide a promising field for the endeavour of the agitator, who attacks the social system. These people cannot appreciate that they have any place in the social system, it has removed from the native camps where they would have been happy, and brought them into the town to face nothing but want and misery. It must be recognised that this is a problem of great magnitude requiring immediate attention. These conditions are evolving an immoral degenerate coloured population which, under the influence of communistic agitators, is becoming indolent, embittered and revolutionary.'
278 Cook said further, 'It remains … to rescue these adult half-castes no longer under legal control. As a first step in this direction I recommend that proper housing be provided for these people.' He borrowed money from the Aboriginal Trust Account to build eight houses under the scheme. However, Dr Wells noted that the development of the scheme was cut short by the acquisition of the houses by the armed forces during World War Two.
279 The living conditions endured at the Kahlin Compound were similarly miserable. In his report, Lancaster provided an account of the lack of edible food and adequate water, and described the accommodation as consisting of very crowded huts. In addition, 'on the compound beach a number of aboriginals had small humpies … most them were removed within the next few days. It is understood there is a periodical clean up of this nature.'
280 Dr Xavier Herbert was the Superintendent of the compound in 1936. He gave evidence in relation to the compound in 1980 at the Finniss River Land Claim Inquiry before the then Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Toohey. Herbert gave evidence concerning the system of 'capturing cross-blooded children and bringing them in here … . The females … were locked in a sort of prison within a prison.' He said that following Cook's appointment as Chief Protector in 1927, there was a concerted effort to increase the number of mixed descent children in the compound. When asked about the effect that removal from their parents had on the children, Herbert replied that 'everybody was terrified of this. There had been some system of taking away before … but now there was a concerted effort to bring these people in'. Herbert further stated that a person of mixed descent who associated with Aboriginal people would lose their 'status': 'if you … had a good job … had a house and a job in the government, if you went back to the [Aboriginal] camp you were out.'
281 The aim of compound authorities was 'there was to be no Aboriginality whatsoever in that compound'. However, Herbert claimed that the aim was not achieved. For example:
'There was a rule in the compound with half-caste children so-called that their mothers were not allowed to have any dealings with them and the children were not to have any dealings with their mothers. A lot of the mothers came here because their children had been taken from them and gave themselves into work in the compound. The blacks did not want to lose their half-caste people. They meant the same to them. They were their children and everybody was responsible for them - men and women. … of course you were not allowed to let them in with them, but they could, say, feed them and fondle them through the … they used to have sort of big concentration camp fences to keep the children in, and they used to do this sort of thing through the fence.'
282 In cross-examination, Mr Hiley suggested to Dr Wells that some of the historical material suggests that mixed descent people were not regarded by full-descent Aboriginal people as being members of the tribe. In particular, Mr Hiley referred to the article written by Wildey, where he said that
'Half-caste children are not met with amongst the natives, their code of morality being very strict. In fact, should such a little contre-temps happen to mar the domestic felicity of a family, it is said that the inopportune advent of the little stranger would quickly furnish a feast to the tribe, which countenances no interlopers of a fairer complexion.'
283 Dr Wells pointed to Herbert's description above of the lengths to which Aboriginal mothers went to maintain contact with their children. Mr Hiley made the distinction between families accepting their children, and the tribe accepting the children.
284 Cook imposed more rules to control the movement of Aboriginal people in the area, including the introduction of numbered identity disks. Dr Wells considered that Herbert's evidence highlighted the inability of compound officials to 'contain the population'.
285 Herbert confirmed the existence of a 'dusk to dawn' curfew, however
'It did not mean there were not Aborigines around the town because there was another system working here, an illegal system, which provided the town with Aboriginal labour of probably equal strength. That was done by the Aborigines and largely the Chinese. … This was done by the people belonging to this locality we are talking about, Cox Peninsula - that is Kungarakany, Larrakiya, Wagaitj, Brinken and Marathiyel people - who would spend half their time in the traditional way and half their time working in here. Everybody endeavoured to do that to try to get walkabout. Some of them got trapped in the compound. They would all have their reasons, and some of them were not able to get back to the bush again. These people who were still living in the old way would have, say, a couple of months in the bush … and then they would come to a … meeting place.'
286 Herbert described how Aboriginal people who had been working in the town area would cross the harbour to the West Arm:
'They would go back then … with their pay-off which was always in kind - food, flour, sugar, tea, loaves and things like that and a thing that was very important to them, a thing called turkey twill from which they used to make nagas which were supposed to have magical qualities. They used to sneak back in canoes and land on Fosters Beach and there used to be ceremonies. I think, from my limited knowledge at the time, that they used those meetings for a purpose. There was always something going on. There were some funereal things that had to be gone through - all sorts of ceremonies which are beyond the comprehension of anybody but an anthropologist. … Then those people would go away into the bush and others would come back here and take their places in this illegal trade.'
287 Dr Wells argued that it was the inability of the officials to contain the Kahlin Compound Aboriginal population that provided one of the arguments in favour of its removal in the mid 1930's. In 1934 Acting Northern Territory Administrator J A Carrodus suggested that the 'presence of the Compound in a populated area is undesirable for many reasons. It should be removed to a site outside the town boundary or in a portion of the town where its presence will not interfere with the non-aboriginal residents.' By 1936 Cook had agreed that the site at Cullen Beach was no longer suitable and had initiated discussions to remove it elsewhere. On 24 March 1936, an article in the Northern Standard reported on a meeting called by King George of the 'once great tribe of Larrakeyahs' which was attended by the 'old men of the tribe … [and] the Acting Superintendent'. The author of the article, who was invited, also attended the meeting. The article stated:
'King George pointed out that they had heard reports that the Government intended to shift the present compound to some point inland to make way for more Myilly Point residences.
"The Larrakeyah people are a salt water tribe and would not be prepared to live away from the sea", said King George. "This is all the country we have left, and the Government should leave us on it. Years ago we use to have our camping grounds on Lamaroo Beach and I was born there as were most of the old men of the tribe. Our water supply was the native well where the present baths are now located. When Doctor Basedow and Dr. Gilruth shifted us to this place they promised us certain things but those promises were never kept. We have cleared this land and built our houses, and we should not now be asked to shift.
[…]
Several speakers pointed out that the Compound was given to the Larrakeyah tribe, and they objected to members of other tribes camping and living at the Compound. … Another complaint is that the tribe is becoming detribalised and that the children are not learning the language of the tribe but a mixture of the languages of the tribes now resident in the Compound and English.
It was pathetic to see these old men endeavouring to safeguard the interests of the tribe. Asked what they would do if ordered by the Government to shift to another compound, they said they would rather go bush … .
[…]
On the whole [our] writer was greatly impressed at the work being carried out by the aborigines for their own comfort, and left with the feeling it would be far better to exclude the outside tribes and allow the Larrakeyahs tribe which has had nearly a hundred years association with the whites to remain in residence on the small piece of land which they claim was given to them by Dr. Basedow and Dr Gilruth.'
288 Acting Chief Protector of Aborigines, W B Kirkland responded to this article in the Northern Standard by a letter to the Administrator of the Northern Territory, dated 17 June 1936. The Larrakia people's concerns were dismissed by Kirkland as being 'more imaginary than real'. He further said about the Larrakia people:
'The remnants of this tribe have long concentrated in the precincts of Darwin which, with adjoining coastal belts terminating in the regions of Point Charles and East Point respectively, comprised their former tribal territory. Of late years most of the surviving members have been permanent residents at the Kahlin Compound. Any problems which might beset the removal of the Compound to another site are rendered comparatively easy when viewed solely in relation to the Larrakeyah tribe.'
289 Kirkland assured the Administrator that the site selected for the new compound was 'definitely situated in Larrakeyah territory and thus would provide for them a camping ground in their tribal area, proximity to centres of totemic and ceremonial significance'. In relation to concerns about the 'intrusion of neighbouring tribes into their domain', Kirkland stated that this did not 'introduce a basis of objection', since
'for many years past the Larrakeyah tribesmen have fraternised and intermarried with their neighbours, the Wargites, and they claim close kinship with the Woolner group who are their near neighbours on the Darwin side. It is anticipated that the Woolner, Wargite and Larrakeyah people will comprise the majority of the population in the new Compound.'
290 Kirkland further claimed:
'It was observed that the tribe is practically detribalized in the extreme. This assertion is proved by accurate statistics which were compiled by the observer. At present there are 45 pure Larrakeyah people, comprising adults and children, residing in the Compound. Of the 13 married males 10 are consorting with lubras of other tribes: of the 8 married lubras 3 only are consorts of Larrakeyah males. 20 of the adults are over 50 years of age, their expectation of life might possible by some 7 years. There are 14 children under the age of 13 years.
It was gleaned that ceremonial centres in the vicinity of Darwin had been abandoned for several years and that initiation ceremonies were not conducted some five miles from Darwin, entailing a voyage across the harbour by canoe; thus any suggestion that their proposed removal usurped their rights to ceremonial centres is adequately contradicted.'
291 Kirkland reported that the Chief Protector had met with the male members of the Larrakia tribe and outlined the government's intentions in relation to their removal from the Kahlin Compound.
'When they were acquainted with the site of the proposed Compound and the arrangements that were to be made for their accommodation, for the schooling of their children and the rationing and welfare of the old people, they expressed pleasure at the Government's action, commenting that they were grieved that they had made trouble for the Government.'
292 The Territory disputed that the meeting called by King George was an assertion of rights to the land on which the Compound was situated on the basis of prior occupation, and argued that complaints reported were in fact related to a concern that people of mixed descent were receiving more benefits than members of the Larrakia tribe. The Territory noted that Dr Wells agreed with this analysis in cross-examination, but 'read against the grain' to show that the Larrakia people's sentiments were a complaint that the colonisers were not keeping their end of the bargain.
293 The Territory submitted that Dr Well's 'description [of the situation] is not what was disclosed by the source documents'. In particular, the Territory referred to Kirkland's response to the article, in which Dr Wells said Kirkland 'assured King George' that the proposed compound site was located within Larrakia country. In fact, Kirkland assured the Administrator that this was the case, in the context of 'erroneous information supplied to the aboriginals by persons who were not sufficiently acquainted with the intentions of the Department.'
294 As to whether the meeting called by King George was an assertion of rights to the land on which the Compound was situated, it is informative to review the article published in relation to the meeting. In the article, King George affirmed (as did Kirkland in his response) that the Larrakia tribe was a 'saltwater people' and objected to being asked to move to another site. He said that 'this is all the country that we have left'. King George also objected to members of other tribes camping at the compound. As the Territory pointed out, the Larrakia people also objected that 'half-caste' aboriginals were receiving more benefits from authorities than 'full-blood' aboriginals.
295 In cross-examination, Dr Wells stated that in the article, the 'Larrakia are feeling that they have been hard done by, that they negotiated with the colonisers to be here [at the compound], to share their country, and those promises haven't been kept.' The Territory submitted that Dr Wells agreed that Larrakia people did not assert rights to the land on which the compound was situated.
296 It may be that the Larrakia people did not at the meeting specifically assert their rights to the land on which the compound was situated. It was reported that they said that they were a saltwater people, that they would not be removed to a place located at a great distance from the beach. King George referred to the removal of the tribe from Lameroo Beach when the compound was first established, and to the empty promises allegedly made by the government. However, I find that the Larrakia people were, as Dr Wells claimed in cross-examination, aggrieved that the government had not ensured that the Larrakia people maintained a particular status as prior occupants of the area. Additionally, it is significant that Kirkland, in his response, remarked that the Larrakia people had been 'detribalized', but also noted that the new compound site was within their tribal area, providing proximity to 'centres of totemic and ceremonial significance'.
297 A site located on Bagot Road was chosen and gazetted as the Bagot Aboriginal Reserve on 10 March 1938. By May of that year, all the Aboriginal residents of the Kahlin Compound had been transferred to the Bagot reserve. The 'Half-caste Home' remained where it was, outside of the Kahlin Compound, until 1939 when the residents were transferred to Bagot reserve.
298 In 1941 the demand for Aboriginal domestic servants in Darwin had 'greatly exceeded the supply available … partly due to the repatriation of a large number of people to their rural districts.' It was reported in the Annual report for that year that '[e]very available native in Darwin was in employment during the year … Every male half-caste in Darwin has been employed at award rates of pay, and the half-caste population as a whole is enjoying the boom conditions at present prevailing.' A report at that time on living conditions for Aboriginal people residing with their employers contained a list of people who identified themselves as from the Larrakia tribe. This list included: Sam Kundook, Frank Lahm, Ettie Wurramurrabuck, Dick Mungnarabet, Flora Nabruma, Fat Amy Bandu, Topsy Tarta Marna, George King Ickongadilik, Benedict Lenmaniker, Lucy Demooil, Mary Minmurrin, Fred Nadpur, Dedja Batcho, Dolly Carinee, Elsie Normbill, Lindy Batcho, Paddy Denuguile, Peter Marringa, and Olga Singh.
299 In 1941, Delissaville Station (Delissaville - now known as Belyuen) on the Cox Peninsula was taken over as an Aboriginal settlement. Originally intended as a 'welfare centre for sick and unemployed local aboriginals', military occupation of the Bagot reserve meant that many Aboriginal people in Darwin were moved to Delissaville.