1  

The  Stolen  Generation  and  Reconciliation  

 

 

Laura  Donohue  

 

 

 

 

 

Fig  1.  Children  from  the  Stolen  Generation1  

                                                                                                                         1  Stolen  Generation  Children  [image],  (1  Jan.  1930)  http://hdl.handle.net/10070/33986,  accessed  14  Oct.  2015.  

  2  

When   thinking   about   the   Stolen  Generation,   there   are   many   important  elements  or  themes  to  consider:  grief,  loss,  persistence,   and   survival. 2  For   many  people,   it   is   something   that   is   also   very  personal   and   intimate   in   nature.3  There  are  very  good  reasons  for  this.  

According   to   the   Bringing   Them  Home   report,   “indigenous   children   have  been   forcibly   separated   from   their  families   and   communities   since   the   very  first   days   of   the   European   occupation   of  Australia.” 4  Laws   were   introduced   in  different   states   in   the   late   1800s   that  allowed   for   the   removal   of   children  deemed  neglected  or  unprotected.5  This  is  because   the   government   believed   that  ‘full   blood’   Aboriginal   people   would  eventually   “die   out”. 6  In   Victoria,   the  Aboriginal  Protection  Act  1869  meant  that  it   was   lawful   that   the   Governor   could  make   orders   “from   time   to   time”   about  where   the   Aboriginals   could   live,   the  terms   of   the   contracts   that   they   made  with   Europeans,   and   the   care   and  education  of  Aboriginal  children.7  

                                                                                                                         2  National  Inquiry  into  the  Separation  of  Aboriginal  and  Torres  Strait  Islander  Children  from  their  Families,  Bringing  Them  Home  (1997),  <  https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/bringing_them_home_report.pdf>,  accessed  14  Oct.  2015,  4.  3  Ibid,  4.  4  Ibid,  22.  5    ‘Sorry  Day  and  the  Stolen  Generations’,  Australian  Government  [website],  (20  May  2015)  <http://www.australia.gov.au/about-­‐australia/australian-­‐story/sorry-­‐day-­‐stolen-­‐generations>,  accessed  14  Oct.  2015,  para.  6-­‐9.  6  ‘Stolen  generation  in  damages  action’,  Canberra  Times,  10  Apr.  1995,  3,  in  Trove  [online  database],  accessed  18  Oct.  2015.  7  Aboriginal  Protection  Act  1869  (VIC)  s  2.  

The   law   in   New   South  Wales   was  very   similar.   The   Aborigines   Protecting  Amending   Act   1915   specified   that   if   the  moral   or   physical   well-­‐being   of   a   child   is  “likely   to   be   impaired”   by   working,   then  they  can  be  taken  to  a  home  or  institution  and,   as   such,   deemed  what   they   refer   to  as   a   “neglected   child”.8  In   addition,   the  government   would   “assume   full   control  and  custody  of  the  child  of  any  Aborigine”  if   it   is  deemed  to  be   in   the  best   interests  of   the   child;   that   is,   they   can   remove  children   from   their   homes   “as   it   thinks  best”.9  From  1915,  there  was  no  minimum  age   at   which   they   could   work,   and   the  courts   also   did   not   have   to   approve   the  child’s  removal,  but  if  a  child  was  removed,  it  had  to  be   justified.10  However,  some  of  the   most   common   reasons   for   removal  were   ‘for   being   Aboriginal’,   ‘being   14  years’,   ‘neglected’,   ‘to   send   to   service’,  and   ‘orphan’.11  In   New   South   Wales,   up  until   1921,   a   significantly  majority   of   the  children  removed  were  female  (81%).12  

In   1937,   the   practice   of  assimilation  began,  where   it  also  become  legal   for   children   to   be   removed   from  their   homes   in   order   for   them   to   attend  school,   receive   medical   treatment,   or   to  be  adopted  out  to  new  families  who  could  provide   for   them   better.13  By   the   early  1960s,   it   was   clear   that   this   policy   was  unsuccessful:  non-­‐indigenous  people  were  discriminatory   towards   the   indigenous  people,   and   the   indigenous   people                                                                                                                            8  Aborigines  Protection  Amending  Act  1915  (NSW)  s  3  p  2.  9  Ibid  s  3  p  2.  10  Bringing  Them  Home,  35.  11  Ibid,  35.  12  Ibid,  37.  13  Sorry  Day,  para.  10.  

  3  

refused   to   leave  behind   their   culture  and  lifestyles.14  Some   children   were   taken   to  new  homes,   others  were   forced   to  work,  while  others  were  taken  to  institutions.15  

Conditions  were  very  harsh  for  the  children   that   were   taken   away   to  institutions.   Pilkington   described   it   as  being   “more   like   a   concentration   camp  than   a   residential   school   for   Aboriginal  children”.16  They  were  vulnerable  to  being  sexually  abused,  they  received  little  to  no  education,  and  they  were  not  trusted  with  their   own   wages,   although   they   could  keep  “a   small  proportion  of   their  meagre  earnings   as   pocket   money”. 17  In   1955,  McLean  investigated  the  living  conditions:  he  reported  that  the  children  were  “dirty,  undernourished,   neglected,   and   very  irregular  in  attendance  at  school”.18  

In   addition   to   this,   the   children  who   got   taken   away   from   their   families  and  communities  experienced  fear,  terror,  and  discrimination:  

• “They   told   me   that   my  family   didn’t   care   or   want  me   and   I   had   to   forget  them   …   I   should   be  ashamed   of   myself,   I   was  

                                                                                                                         14  Ibid,  para.  14.  15  Sorry  Day,  para.  7.  16  Doris  Pilkington,  Follow  the  Rabbit-­‐Proof  Fence  (St  Lucia:  University  of  Queensland  Press,  1996),  cited  in  ‘Sorry  Day  and  the  Stolen  Generations’,  Australian  Government  [website],  (20  May  2015)  <http://www.australia.gov.au/about-­‐australia/australian-­‐story/sorry-­‐day-­‐stolen-­‐generations>,  accessed  14  Oct.  2015,  para.  20.  17  Sorry  Day,  para.  22,  24.  18  Bringing  Them  Home,  53.  

inferior   to   whitefellas.”   –  Millicent19  

• “They   never   called   you   by  your  name;   they  called  you  by  your  number.”  –  John20  

• “To   wake   us   up   in   the  morning   we   were   sprayed  up   the   backside   with   an  old-­‐fashioned   pump   fly-­‐spray.”  –  Millicent21  

• “I   had   nobody   to   talk   to.   I  don't   know   how   long   it  went  on  for,  but  night  after  night  I'd  see  the  bogeyman.”  –  William22  

• “My  mother  never  gave  up  trying   to   locate   me   …   The  State   Welfare   Department  treated  my  mother   like  dirt  and  with  utter  contempt,  as  if   she   never   existed.”   –  Paul23  

• “I  myself  found  it  very  hard  to   show   any   love   to   my  children   because   I   wasn’t  given  that.”  –  Carol24  

• “The   Protector   of  Aborigines  …  said  we  would  have   a   better   life   and  future   brought   up   as  whitefellas   away   from   our  parents.”  –  Millicent25  

• “Our  culture  was  gone,  our  family   was   gone,  

                                                                                                                         19  Melanie  Clark,  ‘Stolen  Generation’,  Index  on  Censorship,  29/4  (2000),  138-­‐139.  20  Clark,  139.  21  Ibid,  139.  22  Ibid,  139.  23  Ibid,  139-­‐140.  24  Ibid,  140.  25  Ibid,  140.  

  4  

everything  that  was  dear  to  us  was  gone.”  –  Fiona26  

These   feelings   can   be   contrasted  with   the   feelings   of   loneliness,   loss,   and  the  unknown  that  were  also  experienced,  therefore   showing   the   impact   of   their  removal  in  the  short-­‐  and  long-­‐term:  

• “In   terms   of   having   a  direction  in  life,  how  do  you  know  where  you’re  going  if  you   don’t   know   where  you’ve   come   from?”   –  Unknown27  

• “There  was   just   this   feeling  that   I  did  not  belong  there.  The  best  day  of  my  life  was  when   I   met   my   brothers  because   I   felt   like   I  belonged  and  I  finally  had  a  family.”  –  Unknown28  

Overall,   it   is   not   possible   to   say  exactly   how  many   people   were   removed  from   their   homes,   as   there   are   very   few  records   that   survive   and   are   also  accurate.29  However,  from  various  surveys  that   have   been   conducted,   the   Bringing  Them   Home   report   concludes   that  between   one   in   three   and   one   in   ten  children  were  removed   from  their  homes  between  1910  and  1970,  adding:  “not  one  indigenous  family  has  escaped  the  effects  of  forcible  removal.”30  

But   for   the   government,   the  removal  of  children  was  not  as  ‘successful’  

                                                                                                                         26  Ibid,  140.  27  Bringing  Them  Home,  11.  28  Ibid,  11.  29  Ibid,  30.  30  Ibid,  31.  

as  what  they  had  aimed  for.  As  a  result  of  the  laws  and  policies  that  existed,  there  is  hostility  and  alienation  towards  Aboriginal  people  today.   In  1996,  Sir  William  Deane,  the   then-­‐Governor-­‐General,   argued   that  the   Aboriginals’   “present   plight,   in   terms  of   health,   employment,   education,   living  conditions   and   self-­‐esteem   …   must   be  acknowledged   as   largely   flowing   from  what  happened…”.31  

The   Bringing   Them   Home   report  also   references   many   studies   that   show  how   those   who   were   removed   did   not  have   better   outcomes   overall   than   those  who  were  removed.  For  example,  a  three-­‐year   longitudinal   study   from   the   1980s  found  that  those  who  were  removed  were  less   educated   than   those   who   had   not  been   removed,   had   less   stable   living  conditions,   had   poorer   quality  relationships   with   others,   were   three  times  more  likely  to  have  gone  to  jail,  and  were  twice  as  likely  to  have  used  drugs.32  In  a   self-­‐assessment,  36.1%  of   those  who  were   removed   from   their   families  reported  an  excellent  or  very  good  health  status,   compared   to   47.8%   of   those  who  were  not   removed   reporting  an  excellent  or   very   good   health   status.33  This   shows  that  not  being  removed  resulted  in  better  outcomes  in  the  long-­‐term.  

Furthermore,   in   1975,   the  Victorian   Aboriginal   Legal   Service  reported   that   90%   of   their   clients   who  were   involved   in   criminal   proceedings  were   removed   from   their   families   as   a  

                                                                                                                         31  Bringing  Them  Home,  4.  32  Ibid,  11.  33  Ibid,  13.  

  5  

child.34  In   fact,   an   Australian   Bureau   of  Statistics   (ABS)  survey   in  1994   found  that  22%   of   people   who   had   been   removed  from   their   families   had   been   arrested  multiple   times   in   the   last   five   years,  compared  to  11%  of  people  arrested  who  were   not   removed. 35  The   only   instance  where   removed   people   had   better  outcomes   than   those   who   were   not  removed  is  in  terms  of  income:  those  who  were   removed   earned   slightly   more  (between   $8,000-­‐12,000   per   year)   than  those   who   were   not   removed   ($0-­‐3000),  however   it   is   suggested   that   this   is  possibly   due   to   a   higher   level   of  urbanisation  instead.36  

It   is   clear   that   we   need   to   make  things   right   again.   In   recent   times,   prime  ministers  have  apologised  and  attempted  to   repair   our   relationship   with   the  Aboriginal   people;   Paul   Keating   admitted  that  “we  committed  the  murders,  we  took  the   children   from   their   mothers”. 37  Arguably   the  most   well   known   and  most  powerful   of   these   was   when   Prime  Minister   Kevin   Rudd   apologised   to   the  Aboriginal   people   in   front   of   federal  parliament  in  2008:  

                                                                                                                         34  Ibid,  58.  35  Australian  Bureau  of  Statistics,  National  Aboriginal  and  Torres  Strait  Islander  Survey  1994,  cat.  no.  4190.0,  <  http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/0604B8F7C929EB69CA2572250004958B/$File/41900_1994.pdf>,  accessed  17  Oct.  2015,  2.  36  Bringing  Them  Home,  13.  37  Hayden  Cooper,  Right  Words  Shape  as  Biggest  Barrier  to  Recognize  Indigenous  Australians  in  Constitution  [video],  (Australian  Broadcasting  Corporation,  6  July  2015),  <  http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4268622.htm>,  accessed  18  Oct.  2015.  

We  apologise  for  the  laws  and  policies  of   successive   parliaments   and  governments   that   have   inflicted  profound   grief,   suffering   and   loss   on  these   our   fellow   Australians.   We  apologise   especially   for   the   removal  of   Aboriginal   and   Torres   Strait  Islander   children   from   their   families,  their  communities  and  their  country.38  

Sadly,   it   does   not   seem   that   we  have   entirely   moved   forwards   from   this,  however.   In   reference   to   the   Stolen  Generation,  John  Howard  said  that   it  was  “an   absolute   myth,   it   is   absolutely  contrary   to   the   fact   and   I   absolutely  repudiate   it.”39  Abbott   also   recently   said  what  was  referred  to  as  a  “very  stupid  and  lazy   comment”:   “What   we   can’t   do   is  endlessly   subsidise   [the]   lifestyle   choices  [of   Aboriginal   people  who   live   in   remote  communities  if  they]  are  not  conducive  to  …   full   participation   in   Australian  society…”.40  This   shows   that   we   may   not  be   effectively   progressing   towards  reconciliation.  

Regardless   of   this,   people   who  were   removed   have   gone   to   court,  seeking   compensation   from   the  government.  One  of  these  was  Hilda  Muir  is   a   Darwin   woman   who   was   removed  from  her   family   in  1928,  and  “still  always  regret[s]  that  [she]  never  went  back  to  see  [her]   people   or   see   [her]  mother   [before  she   died]”.41  The   High   Court   has   deemed  that   the   laws   in   the   Northern   Territory  

                                                                                                                         38  Kevin  Rudd,  Sorry,  Kevin  Rudd’s  Apology  to  “The  Stolen  Generation”  [video],  (Channel  Ten,  12  Feb.  2008),  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3TZOGpG6cM>,  accessed  17  Oct.  2015.  39  Cooper  [video].  40  Ibid.  41  Stolen  Generation  in  damages  action,  3.  

  6  

were   invalid,   as   they   breached   the  Constitution:   only   the   courts   had   the  power  to  detain  people;  all  people  should  be   treated   equally;   and   people   had  freedom   of   movement. 42  Ms   Muir   was  taken  to  a  compound  where  she  slept  on  the  floor,  and  had  to  risk  being  beaten   in  order   to   scavenge   for   food. 43  She   said  [sic]:   “Everything   had   to   be   forgotten,  your   culture,   your   people.   That   was   the  idea  of  it,  that  once  you  was  in  the  home,  you  was  forgotten  –  to  leave  your  people,  not  associate  with  them.”44  

Bruce  Trevorrow  was  an  Aboriginal  man   who   was   taken   from   his   parents  when   he   was   13   months   old.45  He   was  living   with   his   parents   at   the   time   and   a  neighbour   took   him   to   hospital   when   he  was   ill;   the   Aboriginal   Protection   Board  took  him  away  while  he  was  being  treated,  without   telling   his   parents.46  During   the  court  case,  it  was  argued  that  “prior  to  or  when  making   the   decision   …   no   attempt  was   made   by   the   Crown   to   contact   or  consult  the  plaintiff’s  parents  about  the  …  state  of  health  or   living   conditions  of   the  plaintiff”.47  Six   months   after   he   went   to  hospital,  his  mother  asked  when  he  would  return   home,   and   she   was   told   that   he  was   still   being   treated. 48  Mr   Trevorrow  

                                                                                                                         42  Stolen  generation  in  damages  action,  3.  43  Ibid,  3.  44  Ibid,  3.  45  Trevorrow  v  State  Of  South  Australia  (2004)  SASC  355,  point  3.  46  Ibid,  point  3,  20.  47  Trevorrow  v  SA,  point  138.2.1.  48  Penelope  Debelle  and  Jo  Chandler,  ‘Stolen  Generation  Payout’,  Age,  2  Aug.  2007,  <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/stolen-­‐generation-­‐payout/2007/08/01/1185647978562.html?page=f

stayed   with   another   family   for   12   years,  and,   as   such,   he   argued   that   the  government   breached   their   duty   of   care  and   he   “assert[ed]   that   his   rights   were  infringed”.49  In   2007,   Mr   Trevorrow   was  awarded  $525,000  in  compensation  in  the  first   successful   compensation  claim  made  by   members   of   the   Stolen   Generation,  which   was   described   as   “a   landmark  judgement”.50  

This   is   an   encouraging   sign   that  there   is   some   progress   towards  reconciliation   and   moving   forward   from  the  aptly  named  “quiet  genocide”.51  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                               ullpage#contentSwap1>,  accessed  18  Oct.  2015,  para.  8-­‐9.  49  Trevorrow  v  SA,  point  20.  50  Debelle  and  Chandler,  para.  1,  3.  51  Clark,  138.  

  7  

REFERENCES  

Aboriginal  Protection  Act  1869  (VIC).  

Aborigines  Protection  Amending  Act  1915  (NSW).  

Australian  Bureau  of  Statistics,  National  Aboriginal  and  Torres  Strait  Islander  Survey  1994,  cat.  no.  4190.0,  <  http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/0604B8F7C929EB69CA2572250004958B/$File/41900_1994.pdf>,  accessed  17  Oct.  2015.  

Clark,  Melanie,  ‘Stolen  Generation’,  Index  on  Censorship,  29/4  (2000),  138-­‐140.  

Cooper,  Hayden,  Right  Words  Shape  as  Biggest  Barrier  to  Recognize  Indigenous  Australians  in  Constitution  [video],  (Australian  Broadcasting  Corporation,  6  July  2015),  <  http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4268622.htm>,  accessed  18  Oct.  2015.  

Debelle,  Penelope,  and  Chandler,  Jo,  ‘Stolen  Generation  Payout’,  Age,  2  Aug.  2007,  <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/stolen-­‐generation-­‐payout/2007/08/01/1185647978562.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1>,  accessed  18  Oct.  2015.  

National  Inquiry  into  the  Separation  of  Aboriginal  and  Torres  Strait  Islander  Children  from  their  Families,  Bringing  Them  Home  (1997),  <  https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/bringing_them_home_report.pdf>,  accessed  14  Oct.  2015.  

Rudd,  Kevin,  Sorry,  Kevin  Rudd’s  Apology  to  “The  Stolen  Generation”  [video],  (Channel  Ten,  12  Feb.  2008),  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3TZOGpG6cM>,  accessed  13  Oct.  2015.  

‘Sorry  Day  and  the  Stolen  Generations’,  Australian  Government  [website],  (20  May  2015)  <http://www.australia.gov.au/about-­‐australia/australian-­‐story/sorry-­‐day-­‐stolen-­‐generations>,  accessed  14  Oct.  2015.  

Stolen  Generation  Children  [image],  (1  Jan.  1930)  http://hdl.handle.net/10070/33986,  accessed  14  Oct.  2015.  

‘Stolen  generation  in  damages  action’,  Canberra  Times,  10  Apr.  1995,  3,  in  Trove  [online  database],  accessed  18  Oct.  2015.  

Trevorrow  v  State  Of  South  Australia  (2004)  SASC  355.