AUSTRALIA
THE STOLEN GENERATIONS
FALSIFYING HISTORY & CREATING A LIE
1. INTRODUCTION
The term Stolen Generations is used to describe the purported systemic and forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their families in order to assimilate them into white society, with the aim of destroying their language and culture between 1910 and 1970. The Human Rights Commission reviewed all States and came to the conclusion that all States had been engaged in this practice which effectively, they claimed, amounted to genocide.
Upon careful examination of the evidence presented/reviewed, it becomes evident that this conclusion is undeniably erroneous. The Foundation has diligently conducted extensive research, delving into historical records, laws, policies, and data-driven studies on child welfare. Consequently, it has uncovered a multitude of factual inaccuracies surrounding the portrayal of child welfare as "Stolen Generations." The overwhelming weight of evidence contradicts claims made in the Human Rights Commission's Bringing Them Home report [BTHR].
Aboriginal children, like many other children, were rescued or saved from their circumstances and environment. Laws were passed at all State levels for the protection of children and their removal was not “stolen” but legally ratified and appropriate action.
There were many forcible removals in the period under discussion, just as there are today. The children of parents who neglected them, who let them go hungry, who abused them with violence, who prostituted them, who let them run wild with no supervision, or who drank themselves into an alcoholic stupor while leaving the children to their own devices, all faced forcible removals—often by the police and occasionally under scenes of great duress. Historians and Aboriginal activists, however, have redefined all these legitimate removals as racist and genocidal.
Aboriginal children were never removed from their families in order to put an end to Aboriginality or, indeed, to serve any improper government policy or program. The small numbers of Aboriginal child removals in the twentieth century were almost all based on traditional grounds of child welfare.
Most children affected had been orphaned, abandoned, destitute, neglected or subject to various forms of domestic violence, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. A significant number of other children were voluntarily placed in institutions by Aboriginal parents to give them an education and a better chance in life.
Upon analysis of the welfare policy for non-Aborigianl children, it can be found that none of the policies that allowed the removal of Aboriginal children were unique to them. Aboriginal children were removed for the same reason as other children in similar circumstances. Even the program to place Aboriginal children in apprenticeships was a replica of measures that had already been applied to white children in welfare institutions in New South Wales for several decades, and to poor English children for several centuries before that.
2. "THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS" ARE THE SAME AS THE STOLEN GENERATIONS
The 2004 Inquiry of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee estimated that more than 500,000 children have experienced life in an orphanage, Children’s Home, gaol, training school, adult psychiatric (asylum) hospital, or foster care and other forms of out-of-home care in the 20th century in Australia. The Human Rights Commission described this report as the third part of a trilogy relating to Child Welfare failures which included the Stolen Generations report and the inquiry into the "Lost Innocents: Righting the Record" on Child Migrants.
The Forgotten Australians report stated that out of 500,000 children taken into welfare of all races, 60,000 or 12% were subject to sexual abuse and many others suffered physical and emotional abuse. The BTHR stated that out of the 500 people interviewed – 7% of the boys had suffered sexual abuse and 17% of the girls. The results produced in the BTHR appear to be consistent with the findings of the Forgotten Australians report. In addition to the horror of sexual abuse in welfare, there was physical and psychological abuse that was directed at children of all races.
This is the disgraceful and disgusting history of welfare in Australia. This is not race-based. This happened to all races and we as Australians have no focus or knowledge of this.
On 16 November 2009, the Australian Parliament, through Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, formally acknowledged and apologised for the experiences of Forgotten Australians and Child Migrants, their harsh treatment and their ongoing trauma. This is virtually unknown.
Just like the Stolen Generations, the effects of institutionalisation specified in the Forgotten Australians report included:
Separation, Abandonment and Loss of Family
Deception
Neglect and Exploitation
Sustained Brutality
Sexual Assault
Poor Health Care, including Denial of Dental Care
Denial of Educational Opportunity
Removal/Loss of Identity
Statistically, there were less than 10,000 people of Aboriginal descent taken into welfare and 10,000 child migrants taken into welfare - at the same time there were at least 480,000 other children taken into welfare.
Where all State governments failed was in the abuse, both physical and sexual, which occurred in institutions – and this is the national shame that was promulgated by the Forgotten Australians inquiry relating to all children in welfare but is barely known. Instead, Australians selectively apologise annually on 26 May for a Stolen Generation which relates only to people of Aboriginal decent taken into welfare for exactly the same reasons.
Sorry Day should represent an acknowledgment of and an apology for all children taken into welfare and the appalling treatment should be acknowledged in an annual day of mourning. This affected all races and the treatment of these poor unfortunate children in the care of the State is despicable. It is not just the treatment of the Aboriginal children that we should focus on but the treatment of all children during this period.
3. THE FOUNDATIONS REVIEW
The Foundation has conducted a detailed historical, legal and statistical review of the Solen Generations in each of the States of Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria. The detailed research is provided on the following pages: Tasmania South Australia Victoria
This review was greatly enhanced by the information provided as a result of the reparations scheme introduced in those States, specifically.
i) Tasmania Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children Reparations Act 2006
ii) South Australia Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme 2016
iii) Victoria Stolen Generations Package 2022
The Foundation review uncovers:
a) the very flawed and biased content and commentary for each of these States presented in the Bringing Them Home Report [BTHR];
b) the legal basis of removal for the small number of Aboriginal descent children was not based on any racially based laws but rather, general welfare, and the BTHR directly misrepresents that;
c) the statistical information which demonstrates that there were no Stolen Generations and that the legally sanctioned removal of children of Aboriginal descent was very significantly lower than that proposed by the BTHR which was based on obscure.anecdotal information
The table below shows the statistical result of welfare removals for the 3 States that is now available.
Rather than acting for racist reasons, government officers and religious missionaries wanted to rescue children from welfare camps and shanty settlements riddled with alcoholism, domestic violence and sexual abuse. Public servants, doctors, police and missionaries were appalled to find Aboriginal girls between five and eight years of age suffering from sexual abuse and venereal disease. They were dismayed to sometimes find girls of nine and ten years old hired out as prostitutes by their own parents. That was why the great majority of children removed by authorities were female.
The fringe camps where this occurred were early twentieth-century versions of today’s notorious remote communities of central and northern Australia. Indeed, there is a direct line of descent from one to the other—the culture of these camps has been reproducing itself across rural Australia for more than 100 years. Government officials had a duty to rescue children from such settings, as much then as they do now. From the perspective of child welfare officials, the major problem was that state treasuries would not give the relevant departments and boards sufficient funds to accommodate all the neglected and abused children who should have been removed.