- Home
- Quintessential Queensland
- Distinctiveness
- Perceptions
- Perceptions: how people understand the landscape
- From runs to closer settlement
- Geological survey of Queensland
- Mapping a new colony, 1860-80
- Mapping the Torres Strait: from TI to Magani Malu and Zenadh Kes
- Order in Paradise: a colonial gold field
- Queensland atlas, 1865
- Queensland mapping since 1900
- Queensland: the slogan state
- Rainforests of North Queensland
- Walkabout
- Queenslanders
- Queenslanders: people in the landscape
- Aboriginal heroes: episodes in the colonial landscape
- Australian South Sea Islanders
- Cane fields and solidarity in the multiethnic north
- Chinatowns
- Colonial immigration to Queensland
- Greek Cafés in the landscape of Queensland
- Hispanics and human rights in Queensland’s public spaces
- Italians in north Queensland
- Lebanese in rural Queensland
- Queensland clothing
- Queensland for ‘the best kind of population, primary producers’
- Too remote, too primitive and too expensive: Scandinavian settlers in colonial Queensland
- Distance
- Movement
- Movement: how people move through the landscape
- Air travel in Queensland
- Bicycling through Brisbane, 1896
- Cobb & Co
- Journey to Hayman Island, 1938
- Law and story-strings
- Mobile kids: children’s explorations of Cherbourg
- Movable heritage of North Queensland
- Passages to India: military linkages with Queensland
- The Queen in Queensland, 1954
- Transient Chinese in colonial Queensland
- Travelling times by rail
- Pathways
- Pathways: how things move through the landscape and where they are made
- Aboriginal dreaming paths and trading ways
- Chinese traders in the nineteenth century
- Introducing the cane toad
- Pituri bag
- Press and the media
- Radio in Queensland
- Red Cross Society and World War I in Queensland
- The telephone in Queensland
- Where did the trams go?
- ‘A little bit of love for me and a murder for my old man’: the Queensland Bush Book Club
- Movement
- Division
- Separation
- Separation: divisions in the landscape
- Asylums in the landscape
- Brisbane River
- Changing landscape of radicalism
- Civil government boundaries
- Convict Brisbane
- Dividing Queensland - Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party
- High water mark: the shifting electoral landscape 2001-12
- Hospitals in the landscape
- Indigenous health
- Palm Island
- Secession movements
- Separate spheres: gender and dress codes
- Separating land, separating culture
- Stone walls do a prison make: law on the landscape
- The 1967 Referendum – the State comes together?
- Utopian communities
- Whiteness in the tropics
- Conflict
- Conflict: how people contest the landscape
- A tale of two elections – One Nation and political protest
- Battle of Brisbane – Australian masculinity under threat
- Dangerous spaces - youth politics in Brisbane, 1960s-70s
- Fortress Queensland 1942-45
- Grassy hills: colonial defence and coastal forts
- Great Shearers’ Strike of 1891
- Iwasaki project
- Johannes Bjelke-Petersen: straddling a barbed wire fence
- Mount Etna: Queensland's longest environmental conflict
- Native Police
- Skyrail Cairns (Research notes)
- Staunch but conservative – the trade union movement in Rockhampton
- The Chinese question
- Thomas Wentworth Wills and Cullin-la-ringo Station
- Separation
- Dreaming
- Imagination
- Imagination: how people have imagined Queensland
- Brisbane River and Moreton Bay: Thomas Welsby
- Changing views of the Glasshouse Mountains
- Imagining Queensland in film and television production
- Jacaranda
- Literary mapping of Brisbane in the 1990s
- Looking at Mount Coot-tha
- Mapping the Macqueen farm
- Mapping the mythic: Hugh Sawrey's ‘outback’
- People’s Republic of Woodford
- Poinsettia city: Brisbane’s flower
- The Pineapple Girl
- The writers of Tamborine Mountain
- Vance and Nettie Palmer
- Memory
- Memory: how people remember the landscape
- Anna Wickham: the memory of a moment
- Berajondo and Mill Point: remembering place and landscape
- Cemeteries in the landscape
- Landscapes of memory: Tjapukai Dance Theatre and Laura Festival
- Monuments and memory: T.J. Byrnes and T.J. Ryan
- Out where the dead towns lie
- Queensland in miniature: the Brisbane Exhibition
- Roadside ++++ memorials
- Shipwrecks as graves
- The Dame in the tropics: Nellie Melba
- Tinnenburra
- Vanished heritage
- War memorials
- Curiosity
- Curiosity: knowledge through the landscape
- A playground for science: Great Barrier Reef
- Duboisia hopwoodii: a colonial curiosity
- Great Artesian Basin: water from deeper down
- In search of Landsborough
- James Cook’s hundred days in Queensland
- Mutual curiosity – Aboriginal people and explorers
- Queensland Acclimatisation Society
- Queensland’s own sea monster: a curious tale of loss and regret
- St Lucia: degrees of landscape
- Townsville’s Mount St John Zoo
- Imagination
- Development
- Exploitation
- Transformation
- Transformation: how the landscape has changed and been modified
- Cultivation
- Empire and agribusiness: the Australian Mercantile Land and Finance Company
- Gold
- Kill, cure, or strangle: Atherton Tablelands
- National parks in Queensland
- Pastoralism 1860s–1915
- Prickly pear
- Repurchasing estates: the transformation of Durundur
- Soil
- Sugar
- Sunshine Coast
- The Brigalow
- Walter Reid Cultural Centre, Rockhampton: back again
- Survival
- Survival: how the landscape impacts on people
- Brisbane floods: 1893 to the summer of sorrow
- City of the Damned: how the media embraced the Brisbane floods
- Depression era
- Did Clem Jones save Brisbane from flood?
- Droughts and floods and rail
- Missions and reserves
- Queensland British Food Corporation
- Rockhampton’s great flood of 1918
- Station homesteads
- Tropical cyclones
- Wreck of the Quetta
- Pleasure
- Pleasure: how people enjoy the landscape
- Bushwalking in Queensland
- Cherbourg that’s my home: celebrating landscape through song
- Creating rural attractions
- Festivals
- Queer pleasure: masculinity, male homosexuality and public space
- Railway refreshment rooms
- Regional cinema
- Schoolies week: a festival of misrule
- The sporting landscape
- Visiting the Great Barrier Reef
By:
Regina Ganter Pearling became the largest industry in far north Queensland in the 1890s and had a massive impact on coastal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It was the only industry ever exempted from the provisions of the White Australia policy because it was the economic pillar supporting the far north with cheap labour from the South Pacific and Asia. Its legacy is a history of mixed populations in the far north that defies the standard historical image of a white Australia.
A jumpstart for the north
The Queensland pearling industry kicked off at Tutu (Warrior) Island in 1870, and within a few years over 100 boats and luggers converged in the Torres Strait searching for the pearl-shell with which local islanders adorned themselves. Pacific traders had gradually depleted the South Pacific islands of sandalwood and whales, and were in constant search for new trading opportunities, particularly in commodities that could be marketed in China – like sandalwood and trepang (beche-de-mer). They had become accustomed to setting up shore stations with imported Pacific labour gangs, operating at the colonial frontier in a legal vacuum, and had reached Torres Strait in 1862. Tutu, the island home of some forty families, became the shore station for a company connected with Robert Towns, employing seventy Kanak (New Caledonian and Tongan) labourers who married into local families and exhausted the local pearl-shell patch within a year.
The few government officers who were stationed in the far north soon became financially interested in the new pearling industry and considered Indigenous people one of the ‘as yet undeveloped resources’ that could be rendered productive. Because land settlement was slow to reach the north, Indigenous people in the pearling belt were not as systematically displaced from their lands as in areas of primarily pastoral settlement. Many Indigenous people were signed on for work as swimming divers and deckhands, and often recruited with the typical strategies of Pacific ‘blackbirding’, so that the fishery soon gained a bad reputation.
Determinants of technology
The pearl-shell accessible by swimming diving with goggles became quickly exhausted and an experimental diving suit by Siebe & Gorman was introduced to Torres Strait fishery in 1871 which permitted diving to 15 fathoms (27.4 metres) by pumping air to the submerged diver. By 1877 more than half the fishery was conducted from pump boats. This changed the labour requirements of the industry, which became focused around the productivity of the dress diver, who had to be better trained and more highly motivated than swimming divers. Malay and Filipino divers were recruited and rewarded with incentive payments, and by the 1890s Japanese divers and tenders dominated the top end of the pearling workforce. The organisational style shifted from shore stations to floating stations, with a large mother ship for provisioning and storage, so that fleets could stay out longer and further away from shore.
The diving season was limited by the monsoon period and springtides, so divers increased their catch by extending the number and length of dives while conditions were favourable. This increased the risk of divers’ bends. Few white divers could be recruited into this perilous occupation, where the death rate was 10% (in 1916, compared to an overall occupational death rate of 1.1% in Queensland), and the top income was less than the ‘Harvester’ minimum wage, it was still very attractive for young men from impoverished villages in Japan and South-East Asia. The white master pearlers defended their access to cheap imported labour successfully against the new Federal government which sought to implement the White Australia policy as in the sugar industry, but supported the idea that aliens could not own boat licences. As a result the entrepreneurial end of the fishery remained in the hands of whites, whereas the workforce consisted entirely of Asian, Pacific and Indigenous people.
By the turn of the twentieth century shell to the 20-fathom line (36 metres) had been practically exhausted, and divers were exposing themselves to ever greater depths and water pressures. The limitation to one diver per boat was lifted in 1912 and most boats registered two or three divers to take turns with air supplied from the one manual pump operated by two deckhands. In other words, thirty years after the introduction of cutting edge diving suits, the pearling fleet still carried the same equipment (now mostly supplied by Heinke) although the European navy divers already used oxygen ‘knapsacks’, had telephone contact with the boat and decompression chambers on standby to alleviate the divers’ bends. Meanwhile Torres Strait divers experimented with the cumbersome heavy diving suit to facilitate walking the sea floors by discarding the full diving suit and using the helmet and corselet only. This became standard practice until the 1960s, when a somewhat safer ‘half-dress’ was adopted. By this time hookah gear - tested to 48 fathoms (87 metres) as early as 1922 – was available, but was considered unsuitable for the strong tides in north Australian waters, like the later Scuba equipment (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus), which did not supply enough oxygen to spend the time required under water and surfacing. After World War II motor-powered vessels displaced the characteristic sailing luggers, most of which had been confiscated during the war. Typical of the history of Australia, the nineteenth century was one of innovation and cutting edge, while in the twentieth century there was a settling into backwater comfort: what had worked so far must surely be good practice.
Resource depletion
Pearl-shelling was essentially a colonial industry, based on resource raiding, and served on several occasions for the gradual extension of sovereign territory. Technological innovation served only to intensify the productive effort (to dive deeper, move further afield, stay longer) rather than to conserve stocks, so that the fishery operated on a ‘depleted yield basis’ and relied on territorial expansion. It was aimed at market, rather than subsistence production, so that there was never a natural ‘enough’. As early as the 1890s it was observed that the ‘catch per unit effort’ declined, as the larger shells (up to 6 kg) were quickly harvested, and the shell weight decreased from about 3 kg per shell to about 1 kg per shell. The industry records chart an inverse relationship between fishing intensity and relative productivity, so that it overcame its three major resources crises (1898-1905, 1913-14, and 1930-32) by contraction: only by reducing the total yield could the shell stocks be stabilised.
Pearls were only ever a by-product of the Australian pearl fishery which was geared to procuring mother-of-pearl for overseas markets, of which 80% was turned into buttons. Australian master pearlers were therefore disinterested in research on pearl culture, and Japanese became the proponents and leaders of this new industry. Australian pearl-shellers were sure that all they needed to do was to continue doing what they had been doing successfully for nearly 100 years. They were wrong. When new durable plastic substances were developed for buttons the international market for pearl-shell crashed in the 1960s. The pearl-fishery was replaced by pearl-culture farms, which involve very little diving, and produce cultured pearls.
References and Further reading (Note):
Regina Ganter, The pearl-shellers of Torres Strait: resource use, development and decline, 1860s-1960s, Carlton, Melbourne University Press, 1994