Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Why do our governments and public institutions defame Australia by embracing an embellished 'Stolen Generations' narrative?

By Brendan O'Reilly - posted Wednesday, 17 November 2021


To determine which version of history is correct, what is needed is an objective assessment of the facts.  Such assessment has already been conducted by a trustworthy authority, namely the highest courts in the land.

Conservative historians have been substantially vindicated because court action on behalf of members of the "Stolen Generations" has nearly always been unsuccessful, even though the test cases presented were those that plaintiff lawyers thought most likely to succeed.

In Kruger v Commonwealth, the High Court found that the (NT) Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion.  It instead found that the Ordinance required action to be taken in the best interests of the Aboriginal people.  The Court also unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

Advertisement

Only one such compensation court case has ever succeeded, involving an Adelaide welfare officer who separated infant Bruce Trevorrow from his family.

In 1957 the plaintiff, an Aboriginal child of 13 months, was sent by his parents to hospital with stomach problems.  Two weeks later the plaintiff was removed from hospital and placed in the care of a foster family by an officer of the Aborigines Department.  The plaintiff continued to live with his foster family until the age of 10, in spite of frequent requests by his natural mother that he be returned. The plaintiff was then returned to live with his Aboriginal family.

The plaintiff suffered a range of emotional and physical problems, and only remained with his family for 14 months. He spent the remainder of his childhood life in and out of state institutions.  Trevorrow ended up being awarded $775,000 in damages, a decision confirmed on appeal.

In Collard vState ofWestern Australia (2013) WASC 455, the test case for families affected by the "Stolen Generations" policies in Western Australia, the action was dismissed entirely.  The court found that the children were not removed pursuant to a policy of assimilation.  Instead, the judgment suggested that the Collards were neglectful parents who had their vulnerable children taken by a government only seeking to protect the children.

In NSW only one "Stolen Generations" child has gone to court.  In the Joy Williams case, it too failed after the court found she'd been willingly given up by her troubled mother.

In the Northern Territory the courts have consistently found against all "Stolen Generations" claims.  In Cubillo and Gunner v Commonwealth, Counsel for the applicants had submitted that the Northern Territory in the 1940s and 1950s had a policy called “the removal policy” and “the half-caste policy”.  The Court however rejected all the applicants’ claims against the Commonwealth, while acknowledging the continuing trauma and suffering that resulted from their removal and detention.

Advertisement

Overall, when tested before the courts, the narrative of the "Stolen Generations" does not stand up.  Despite this, many states have introduced reparations schemes (many ex-gratia).  The Morrison government is in the course of delivering $378.6 million in compensation for living "Stolen Generations" members in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

In my opinion, the use of the term "Stolen" is inappropriate in the case of Indigenous children who generally might be better described as "institutionalised".  "Generations" similarly seems to be an overstatement of the numbers affected.

That said, being placed in an institution is amongst the worst possible outcomes for a child.  Where the State breached its duty of care in operating such facilities, there is a case for proper compensation.  A problem, however, arises in paying compensation (with few questions asked) for being allegedly "stolen", when in fact most (contrary to the official narrative) were found to have been either given up by a parent or had been in danger.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

26 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brendan O’Reilly is a retired commonwealth public servant with a background in economics and accounting. He is currently pursuing private business interests.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brendan O'Reilly

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 26 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy