oppression and to remain resilient in the face of harsh conditions.  You allude to this in your second sentence.  I would simply use the second sentence as my thesis.  I would change a few things to make it grammatical, though.  I would say “Despite the controls over their lives as they worked as indentured labourers (please note that you are no longer calling them slaves here)…”  You also say “lived” when you mean “lives.”

I would then add a second sentence that said something like “they maintained traditional habits, cultural beliefs, foods, and religions.” 

You mention foods that were eaten only on special occasions.  What did they eat on regular occasions? 

Finally, your last sentence does not have a clear purpose here.  I would add to it to make its purpose clearer.  I would say something like “Islanders also kept their spirits up by learning new ways of recreation.  In particular, they have excelled in the sport of rugby league.  In these ways, Islanders coped with the harsh conditions by keeping their old culture and by adopting some aspects of Australian culture.”

The first of these paragraphs still shows some of the problems with your essay as originally written.  Its purpose is not as clear as that of the other paragraphs in your revised essay.

This could be helped by removing the second and third sentences.  These sentences are about the difficulties that the Islanders faced when they first arrived.  This would really go quite well in your paragraph about how many of them died of homesickness and such.  It would go well because it explains why their lives were hard and why so many died.

Once this is removed, you need to find a new thesis statement.  This paragraph seems to be about the idea that the Islanders have helped Australia and yet have been treated badly.  I would start the paragraph by saying “During their time in Australia, Islanders have contributed to Australian society.  Even so, Australians have continued to ignore them and treat them badly.  I would then remove the sentence that begins “On the other hand” and would leave the rest as is.

I would then add a little more, if possible, about how their efforts have not been appreciated and why they have still lived in poverty.

Overall, though, you have improved your essay a great deal.  Well done. 

It is hard to offer much assistance, as this appears to be an introductory paragraph to a larger work. I will list a few stylistic recommendations, and then a few susbstantive recommendations.

• Be more specific about which "people" believed that whites couldn't work in the tropics. 
• I'd change the word "communities" to people in the second sentence.
• The final sentence should probably read significant role in Australia's development.
• You need to discuss (in what I assume will be the rest of a longer essay) the reasons why it was believed that whites couldn't work in tropical conditions. This will bring to light a number of racial assumptions that may help to frame your discussion of the nature of labor on cotton and sugar plantations. It might also open the door to the possibility of comparison with other societies like the Caribbean or India. 
• I would also caution against leaving the category "South Sea Islanders" unexamined. Were there people from specific locations within the South Sea Islands that were particularly desirable to Europeans for racial, economic, or political reasons? Why were these people preferred as laborers to aboriginal Australians, for example?
• Of course, you'll also want to show exactly what impact these workers had on Australian society, and try to do so in a way that discusses economics, culture, and even politics. 

First, please be certain that you are including appropriate citations.  You have included many statistics here whose source(s) need(s) to be cited. 

Second, you need a better topic sentence.  Your topic sentence says that you are talking about how important the islanders were.  However, the body of the paragraph is mostly about ways in which the islanders have been treated badly.  Therefore, you should have a topic sentence that is about mistreatment, not simply about the idea that these islanders were important to these industries.

Third, the sentence that begins “Labourers, few women…” is rather awkward.  Perhaps you could say “The labourers were mostly young boys and men under the age of 30.  A few women came as well.  They were known…”

Finally, you claim that the whole system was based on racial discrimination.  However, you show no evidence to prove this.

Here, too, the changes I would make are minor and mostly have to do with wording.

“Magnificent afflict” is definitely not the phrase you want to use here.  “One of the most important difficulties” would be better. 

The word “had” in that sentence should be removed.

“Discrimination” and “mistreatment” typically do not get made into plurals.

Do you need to define “blackbirding” or is that a term that has been introduced in your class and/or is in common usage in Australia?  Here in the US, it is not a commonly used term.

In the sentence that begins “They signed…” the word “discriminates” should be in the past tense to agree with the words “signed” and “revealed.”

In the last sentence, you should start with “The Australian Government…”

Finally, please be sure to cite your sources in the finished document.  All of these statistics need to be cited.

Your first sentence might be clearer if broken up.  In addition, I think that you might mean that they had no choice but to endure the harsh conditions.  So, I would say “…Islanders had no choice but to endure the harsh outback environments.  They had no choice because they had signed three-year work contracts even though…”

“Those who had not died of homesickness” doesn’t quite work.  You can change it in one of two ways.  First, you could put a date in; “Those who had not died of homesickness within the first X years…”  Second, you could simply say “Those who did not die of homesickness…”  Also, remove the word “they” from this sentence.

Decide whether you are going to capitalize “kanakas” and be consistent with that throughout the essay.

Finally, I still think that you need to justify your use of the words “enslaved” and “slave labour.”  You have not made it clear that the islanders were actually slaves. 

Once again, you have done well with the changes made so far.  A few more minor things:

“Sugar Plantation” is not a proper noun.  It was in previous drafts when you mentioned one specific plantation, but it is not now.

In US usage, we would not say “yield the cane.”  Do you mean “harvest?”  Again, if this is proper Australian usage, please disregard.

I think you mean “banks” and “loan” in your fifth sentence. 

In the next sentence, perhaps you should say “the mechanization of the cutting process.”  Or you could say “using machines instead of human labor in the cutting process…”

In the next sentence, it would be better to say either “change in technology” or “technological change.”

In the sentence that begins “After a clash arose…” you might want to specify what “trade” you are talking about.

Finally, “desisted” is not used in the best way here.  People “desist” when they stop doing something.  The trade can’t desist because it’s not the actor.  So, maybe just say “when the trade ended…” 

It is good to see the changes that you have made here.  It is good that you have included citations and defined blackbirding.  A couple things that I guess I missed last time you posted this:

You can’t say “between the period…”  You could say “In the period from 1863 to 1904…”  Or you could say “Between 1863 and 1904…”  But “between the period is not correct.

In the US, at least, we refer to the Solomon Islands and not to “Solomon.”  Unless this is different in Australia, you should change that.

Similarly, we would not say “25 hundred” of “80 thousand.”  We would put it in numerals as you did earlier in the paragraph. 

In that same sentence, perhaps you should say “of the 80,000 people in the urban area.”

Overall, though, this is better than previous drafts.

This is, presumably, your introduction.  If so, some changes you should make include:

Remove the last sentence.  You have already provided your topic sentence.  You have at least implied that you are going to be proving that these islanders were important to Australia’s history. 

Break up the second sentence.  It is too long and does not make your point clearly.  Break it after “south seas islanders.” 

Then make the rest of that sentence into a strong topic sentence.  Say something like “The assiduous effort of these islanders have had a major part in making Australia what it is today.”  That will tell us that your essay is meant to prove that this group has been important. 

Remove the quote.  This is more optional, but you are not really supposed to start bringing evidence in to your essay in the introduction.  Just start with “In the 1860s, people believed that white labour…” 

In the first sentence, “remained to be” should be replaced with “continued to be.”

In the third sentence, the use of “arrival” as a noun would not be proper here in the US.  We would say something like “The first groups of South Sea Islanders to arrive in Australia…”

In the fifth sentence, “against which they had little resistance to” is not grammatically correct.  You could just say “against which they had little resistance.”

As for the last sentence of the entire essay, I think it would be clearer if you said “Australians today do not acknowledge the characteristics, determination, and contributions of the South Sea Islanders as much as they should.”

If this essay is really about how important these islanders have been to the development of Australia, this paragraph does not fit in.  It says very little about the impact that the islanders have had on the country.  A similar comment could be made about your previous paragraph as well.  This essay is appearing to be much more about how the islanders were treated and how they lived than it is about their contributions to Australia.

Therefore, you have three options.  First, you can change the thesis of your whole essay.  Instead of saying that you are showing how they were important, you can change it and say that your essay is about how they were mistreated and about how they dealt with this mistreatment.  Second, you can keep the overall thesis but explain in this paragraph how any of their practices affected Australia.  Have any of their cultural habits and such had an impact on Australian culture in general?  Third, you can delete this paragraph if islander cultures have had no impact on Australian culture and you are trying to show how the islanders have mattered to Australia.

Now, you are back to saying that this is an essay about how the islanders have impacted Australia.  But you really have said very little in this essay about how this has been true.  This paragraph, too, does little to prove that the islanders have had an impact.  At least half of this paragraph (the first five sentences) shows nothing about how islanders have impacted Australia.  Your final three sentences in the first paragraph of this excerpt claim that islanders have had major impacts, but give no proof.

Overall, then, this essay does not really prove what you have set out to prove.  You say that the essay is about the impact islanders have had on Australia, but your essay is really about what a hard time they had and how badly they were treated.  If you are allowed to do so, you should change the whole topic of the essay.  You should change your introduction and conclusion to say that this is an essay about what a hard time these islanders had.  If you are not going to change your thesis, you need a lot more information about how islanders have had an impact on the country. 

First, this paragraph really should be your third paragraph.  It would fit much better as the third paragraph.  In that case, your essay would in essence be saying (one sentence per paragraph) “The islanders who were so important to Australia’s development had a very tough experience.  They were brought in large numbers to work in sugar cane and cotton.  They worked in very harsh conditions.  They maintained their own cultural practices in an attempt to make their lives better.”

Second, is it valid to call these people slaves?  If so, you need to justify it better.  You have them signing contracts, which implies they were paid.  Are they really slaves or are they exploited and abused workers?

A few minor things.  “White Citizens” is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized unless this is the accepted practice in Australia.  “Slave Labour” should not be capitalized.