

Interesting questions, and I don’t have any answers, only some opinions.
-
Marxism defines classes, within a historical context, and in relation to the ownership of the means of production; being a paid and/or subordinate relationship it’s important, but it’s not the key concept of the Marxist definition. For example, digital platform workers (Glovo, Uber…) are members of the working class, regardless of whether they use their own means (car, bicycle…) and regardless of whether they are paid by the platform or the end user. Since they do not own the digital platform.
-
I do not know the historical context of colonization and mining in Australia in the 19th century. From the Wikipedia article, it seems that there were people who acted individually, people in groups (apparently communally) and wage earners[1]. One of the Wikipedia references seems to relate it to the working class: “Miners’ Rights: explaining the ‘Lambing Flat’ riots of 1860–61” in Curthoys, A & Markus, A (eds) Who are our Enemies?: racism and the working class in Australia, Sydney, 1978.
-
There are articles that are published that are not directly related to the working class, especially linked to anti-colonialism, feminism, LGTBIQA+… I think it’s good that they appear here.
Europeans tended to work alone or in small groups, concentrating on rich patches of ground, and frequently abandoning a reasonably rich claim to take up another one rumoured to be richer. Very few miners became wealthy; the reality of the diggings was that relatively few miners found even enough gold to earn them a living. The Chinese generally worked in large organised groups, covering the entire ground’s surface, so that if there was any gold there, the Chinese miners usually found it. They lived communally and frugally, and could subsist on a much lower return than Europeans.
Direct link to the pdf