Part 3 Consequences of Removal Chapter 10 Children’s Experiences

AndI invite the House to join with me in that apology, and in doingso, acknowledge,with deep regretParliament’s ownrole in endorsing policies and actions of successive governments whichdevastatedAboriginal communities and inflicted, and continues to inflict, griefand suffering upon Aboriginal familiesandcommunities.

I extend thisapology as an essential step in the processofreconciliation.

Acknowledgment an d apology – Parliaments and police forces Recommendation 5a: That all Australian Parliaments

1.officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal, 2.negotiate with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission a form of wordsforofficialapologiestoIndigenousindividuals,familiesand communities and extend those apologies withwide and culturally appropriate publicity, and 3.make appropriate reparation as detailed in following recommendations. Recommendation 5b:That State and Territory police forces, having played a prominentrole in the implementation of the laws and policies of forcible removal, acknowledge that role and, in consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, make such formal apologies and participate in such commemorations as are determined.

Submissions to the Inquiry similarly called on the churches to acknowledge their respective roles and extend apologies to the children, their families and communities.

[That] Churches acknowledge what happened, support Aboriginal initiatives to beginhealing process,openup their archives providing information about people’s families and resolve any outstanding land issues with relevantcommunities (Broome and DerbyWorking Groups submission 518 recommendation 3.2.8).

Church statements Most churches recognise the devastating effects of the forcible removal policies and practices.

Centacare Catholic Community Services on behalfof the NSW Catholic Church’s diocesan welfare agencies deeply regrets the enormoussuffering to individuals andthe aboriginal people as a community as a result of the massive social dislocationcausedby theremoval of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander childrenfrom their families(Centacare Catholic Community Service submission 478page 5).

There is no doubt that the policy of taking childrenfrom their naturalfamilies has had devastating effects on many of the people who were takenaway,on theirfamilies and on the community as a whole. Although many of the peoplehave since become leaders in the Aboriginal community,many othershave beendevastatedby the experience …

Aswell, the secondgenerationhave felt theeffectsof thedeprivation suffered by the generation that was taken away. For them the loss alsoof parenting, relationship and life-skills,of howto giveand receivelove has been devastating.There has beenaloss of identity, of self-respectand hope(Uniting Church inAustralia firstsubmission457page 10).

Agencies of the Catholic Church in Australia have acknowledged their role and its effects while other branches have extended apologies in submissions to the Inquiry. On 18 July 1996 representatives from three national groups of the Roman Catholic Church delivered a Joint Statement to the Inquiry.

On behalf of our constituentnationalgroups wesincerely and deeply regret any involvement Church agencies had in any injustices that have been visited upon Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islanderfamilies.It is apparent with hindsight that some Church agencies, alongwith othernon-government organisations, playeda role in the implementation ofgovernment policies and legislationwhich led to theseparation of many childrenfrom theirfamilies and communities.

We sincerely regret that some of the Church’s child welfareservices andorganisations, whichwere amongst those non-government organisations inAustralia that provided residential services and institutional care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children forcibly removedfrom their families by agentsof the state, assisted governments’ implement assimilationist policies and practices.

To thebest of ourknowledge, at no time have the Church’s child welfareservices and organisations beengiven any legislative poweror authority to forcibly orphysically remove any children from their families … Wedo acceptthat therewere cases where the actions of Church childwelfare services andorganisations were instrumental in keeping children separatefrom theirfamilies and in this respect the Church holds some responsibility in playing a role for the state tokeep these children separate from their families(Chairman, Bishops’ Committee for SocialWelfare, Chairperson, NationalAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council and NationalDirector, AustralianCatholic SocialWelfare Commission, extract from page 1).

We Pallottinesfreely admit andregret our mistakes in this area. Our attitudes were in some ways typical of theprevailingmindset of the generalpopulation.Wedeeply regret everyhurt visitedon Aboriginal and Islanderpeoplewho havebeen taken from theirheritageof family, community, culture and language.We apologise for any role which anyof our group, however well meaning, might have played in such activities (Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines) submission 433 page1).

We are also mindful of the role our orderplayed in thedevastation that is now known as the removal of theStolenGeneration andwe areendeavouring to come to terms ourselveswith the hurt and pain that this policy of assimilation has caused those Aboriginal people that were removedfrom their families and the members of the families thatwere left behind to grieve their loss. In the spirit of Reconciliation we offer unreservedly our apologies for anyhurtour role in this process has caused and offerwhateverresources we have available tous tohelp people come to terms with the hurt that has occurred(Kimberley Sisters of St John of God submission 521 page 6).

To those whohave sufferedpersonal deprivation andhurt in Church institutionsbecause of the effects of thispolicy, theChurch of thisDiocese unreservedly apologizes. Further, She regrets the great suffering that continues in theheartsof some people andextends to them a compassionate wish for peace and reconciliation(Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Broome submission 519page 3).

The Anglican Church Social Responsibilities Commission referred to apologies extended by other parts of the Anglican Church of Australia.

The SRC joins with other partsoftheAnglicanChurch of Australia in offering its unreserved apologyfor the involvement of Anglicans, both individuallyand corporately, in the policies and practices that allowed the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island childrenfrom their families.It may be that the churchhadno direct control over the policies themselves.It

may be that its members and agencies, to the extent that they were involved, acted as part of already existingnetworksofwelfare arrangements.

It may be that many of thoseinvolvedbelieved that they were acting in the best interestsof the children concerned. It may also be thatmany of them didnot understand thefull implications of their actions,performing only the tasks immediately in frontof them. The SRC doesnotwish to impute anyparticularmotives to those involved.Itsimply states that no amountof explanation candetract from the now observable consequences of those misguided policiesand practices. A great wrong has been donetotheindigenous people of Australia.It is forparticipation in that wrongthat this apology is offered(Anglican Church Social Responsibilities Commission submission 525 pages3-4).

The National Assembly of the Uniting Church passed the following resolution in September 1996.

… that Standing Committee, on behalf of the Uniting Church in Australia, acknowledge to the Aboriginalcommunity:

• the trauma and on-goingharm caused to individuals, families, theAboriginal community as a whole and the entire Australian community by thepractice of separating Aboriginal childrenfrom their parents and raising them in institutions,fosterhomes or adoptive homes;

• that the church thought it was acting in a lovingwayby providing them with homes, butwas blind to the racist assumptionsthatunderlay the policy and practice;

• the fact that these assumptions, spoken andunspoken conveyed destructive, negative messages to the children about Aboriginal culture and their Aboriginality;

• that fact that although it was the intention and policy of thechurch to provide childrenwho hadbeen separated from theirparentswith a loving, secure environment in which theywere encouragedto develop theirgifts and graces, and althoughfaithful women and men who worked in the institutions often provided such an atmosphere, therewerealso times when the reality contradicted the intention and goal, and where children even met violence and abuse at the handsof some of thevery staffwhom they should havebeen able to trust;

• that there were many good, faithful and self-sacrificing houseparents, fosterparents and adoptiveparentswho provided lovinghomes for the children in their care, and encouraged their self-esteem,theirgrowth, theirpride in Aboriginal culture and their achievement; many of thepeoplewho grew up in the institutionshave continued a close relationship with former house parentsuntil the present time(second submission 457).

The Federal Aborigines Board of the Churches of Christ, the Anglican Church Diocese of Perth and the Baptist Church of WA acknowledged their complicity as did the Catholic Social Welfare Commission (submission 479 page2).

Churchesof Christrecognize and acknowledge thepain suffered by the children andparents who experienced separation.Werecogniseour complicity in a system which we understood at the time to be beneficial but now is seen tohave beendestructive. To the degree which we werea part of the destruction processesweseek forgivenessand offerour repentance. We also acknowledge thatwe sought to dowhat was most appropriate and for some the experience was positive and for suchpeoplewe affirm the outcome(Churchesof Christ Federal Aborigines Board submission 411page8).

It must be acknowledged that,no matter howwell intentioned the motives of the Church were in its involvement in separating childrenfrom their families, it’s complicity has contributed to thedislocationof thepeople concerned, and therefore to their loss of land, language, and identity.

It is evident that the presenthighrateof continuingsocialdislocation andAboriginal imprisonment is directresult of the separationof children from their families in which the Church was complicit(Anglican Church of Australia, Diocese of Perth submission 410 page 2).

In retrospect,however, Baptist ChurchesofWestern Australia acknowledges that its efforts to reach out with Christian compassion,practical care and spiritualhelpwereunfortunately combined with an unconsciouscomplicitywiththe Governmentpolicy of assimilation of ‘part-Aboriginal’ people.While rightly deploring thedegrading impact of European settlement uponAboriginalpeoples, and takingnopart in theremoval ofchildren, Baptist ChurchesofWesternAustralia failed toprovide a clear propheticvoice tochallenge the Government policies of the day and thegeneral community philosophy of racial superiority. Wefailed to publicly proclaim, in respectofAboriginal and Islander peoples, the Biblical viewof the intrinsic worthofall people as individuals made in God’s image(Baptist Churches of Western Australiasubmission674page 2).

The Australian Association of Social Workers also expressed its regrets.

Weknow andsincerely regret that social workers, and unqualifiedworkers known as ‘Social Workers’, were actively involved in the removalof aboriginal childrenfrom their families even up torelatively recent times. As far as we are aware,ourprofessional association has not made any comment or apology about theinvolvement of socialworkers in the separation of families whichhashad such a dramatic impact on aboriginal communities …

TheAssociation acknowledges that social workers were involved in theforced separationof Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander childrenfrom their families in every state and territory in Australiaduring this century (AustralianAssociationofSocialWorkers submission 721 pages1 and 2).

Doomadgee Inc is the successor of the Aborigines Inland Mission at Doomadgee in Queensland.

… we are sensitive to the perception of some DoomadgeeAborigines thatmissionarieswere sometimes toofirm in their administrationof discipline,or too assertive in theirpresentation of the Christiangospel. To these Aborigines we expressour sincere apologies. Thedesire of all the missionaries was to achieve theverybest outcomesfor Aborigines and anything perceived by them to fall short of this is a matter of deep regret tous(Doomadgee (Inc) submission 78 page 8).

Acknowledgment and apol ogy – Ch urches and others Recommendation6:That churches and other non-government agencies which played a role in the administration of the laws and policies under which Indigenous children were forcibly removed acknowledge that role and in consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission make such formal apologies and participate in such commemorations as may be determined.

Comparable experience suggests that satisfaction should go beyond a single instance of acknowledgmentandapology.Victimsshouldbeappropriately commemorated (Correa 1992 page 1478). The Inquiry received a number of submissions as to forms of commemoration.

Public tributemust be paid to the survivors,and thosewhohave not survived thepolicies and practicesof separation. Public recognition of the ongoing courage and determination of Aboriginalpeople to resist the genocidal policies of separation is essential.Commemoration can and should take place at different levels.Nationally, there should be a ‘SorryDay’ commemorating Aboriginalsurvivalof the holocaustwhich is accorded the same recognition as ANZAC day. On a local level, communities may wish to establish commemorative places, or have a ‘Welcome Home Day’ (Link-Up (NSW)submission186).

Other proposals concerning forms of commemoration include establishing education centres,namingofstreets,endowingscholarships,memorialservicesand monuments(see also van Boven 1992 page 15). Commentators have observed that commemoration is important not only for victims but also for the society as a whole.

Commemorations can fill the vacuum with creative responses and may helpheal therupture notonly internally but also the rupture thevictimization created between the survivors and their society. It is a shared context,shared mourning, shared memory. The memory is preserved; thenation has transformed it intopartof its consciousness. Thenation shares the horrible pain (Danieli 1992 page210).

Commemoration Recommendation7a:Thatthe AboriginalandTorres Strait Islander Commission, in consultation with theCouncil for Aboriginal Reconciliation, arrange for a national ‘Sorry Day’ to be celebrated each year to commemorate the history of forcible removals and its effects. Recommendation7b:Thatthe AboriginalandTorres Strait Islander Commission, in consultation with the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, seek proposals for furthercommemorating the individuals, families and communities affected by forcible removal at the local and regional levels. That proposals be implemented when a widespread consensuswithin the Indigenous community has been reached.

Guarantees against repetition UN Special Rapporteur van Boven identified a need for guarantees to prevent any repetition of the gross violations of human rights. Appropriate measures must be implemented to ensure that Indigenous families and communities in Australia never again suffer the forcible removal of their children simply because of their race. Governments and responsible agencies are encouraged to consider sympathetically and respond to proposals submitted by Indigenous organisations, communities and individualswith a view to the prevention of repetition.

Teaching the history of the removal policies to all school students was widely supported in submissions to the Inquiry. The importance of a wider public education campaign was emphasised, aswas the need for professionals working with Indigenouschildren and families to develop a complete understanding of the history

and effects of forcible removals.

Justice requires that the wider Australia community be informed about these policies and practices,andbe informed about theresolute resistance Aboriginalpeople have continuously maintained.We want thewider community,Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, to be informed about and recognisenotonly the adversitieswehave endured as a result of separations,but the courage and strengthwehave had in surviving as a people and in seeking to reunite withourpeopledespite yearsof detention innon-Aboriginal environments.It is equally important for it to berecognised that separation policy andpractice is not something that happeneda long time ago, it isnot ancient history. Rather it has continued invarious forms andguises up to the present and for the future of many Aboriginals(Link-Up (NSW) submission 186 page 6).

Specific proposals to the Inquiry included,

• rewritingof school textbooks andofficial histories to include the policiesand practices of separation;

• education forthoseworking with Aboriginal peoplewithrespect to the issues and effectsof separation, including the judiciary, solicitors, social service workers, doctors, psychiatrists, health workers,mental health workers, teachers and other educators,prison workers and archivists;

• generalcommunityeducation (Link-Up (NSW)submission 186 page 6).

That the history of forced family separations of Aboriginal and Islander children be mademorewidely known through whatever avenues available eg school education curriculums(including arts, drama), media, publication of the history of separations and individual stories (SAACCA Forum Inc submission 347 recommendation 4). Thehistory ofremoval of childrenbe incorporated intoAboriginal studies programs andthat thesebe compulsory for all students in all schools (Broome andDerbyWorkingGroups submission 518 recommendation 3.2.7).

Truth and reconciliationprocesses established in Chile, El Salvador and Honduras to address the impacts of periods of gross and systematic human rights violations have also emphasised the importance of general education to reinforce the values of human rights in the culture of the nation (Correa 1992 page 1478). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa has expressed a similar view.

School education Recommendation8a:That State and Territory Governments ensure that primary and secondary school curricula include substantial compulsory modules on the history and continuing effects of forcible removal.

Recommendation8b:That the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies be funded by theCommonwealth to develop these modules.

Professional training Recommendation9a:That all professionals who work with Indigenous children, families and communities receive in-servicetraining about the history and effects

of forcible removal.

Recommendation9b:Thatallunder-graduatesandtraineesin relevant professionsreceive, as part of theircore curriculum, education about the history and effects of forcible removal.

While Australia ratified the 1948 Genocide Convention, its provisions have not been incorporated into Australian law. The Genocide Act 1949 (Cth) merely approved ratificationof the Convention and extended its provisions to external territories. Australian service personnel engaged in conflicts overseas are covered by its provisions but not those working within Australia.In 1992 the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended that the Australian Government introduce legislation to implement the Genocide Convention fully. The effect of implementation would be to create a criminal offence of genocide, including attempting to commit genocide, complicity in the crime of genocide and inciting others to commit genocide. Effective penalties would have to be provided.Implementation would establish a right to compensation for victims of genocide.

Genocide Convention Recommendation 10: ThattheCommonwealthlegislatetoimplementthe Genocide Convention with full domestic effect.

Land, culture and language restitution The purpose of restitution is to re-establish, to the extent possible, the situation that existed prior to the perpetration of gross violations of human rights. The children who were removed have typically lost the use of their languages, been denied cultural knowledgeand inclusion, been deprived of opportunities to take on cultural responsibilities and are often unable to assert their native title rights.

Many stolen children will be unable to satisfy the requirement of a continuing relationshipwith their traditional land on their own.

It is undeniable that the forcedremoval of Aboriginal people from their families and the legacy of assimilationpolicies will have an impact on theability of some Aboriginal people to claim native title rights … NSWALC would expect thecourts to approach the issue of connection to land in a manner which is sensitive to the historical realities of Aboriginal people and understandingof the ability ofAboriginal communities to rebuilddespite the impact ofpolicies aimed at their destruction. NSWALC believes the Inquiry into theremoval of Aboriginal children shouldencourage such sensitivity and understanding (NSW Aboriginal Land Council submission 643page3).

However, native title is communal in nature and traditional Law recognises the authority of traditional owners to define the content and scope of that title.In other words, the traditional owners or claimants are entitled to determine whether or not to include a person removed in childhood.

The contentofa particulargroup’s native title, including what it has to say about the rightsof particular individualswithin thegroup, isdeterminedby the indigenousgroup concerned according to their traditional lawand custom, not the common law.

[Thus] it will be the relevant indigenousgroup which determines according to its traditional law and customs whether a particular individualwho was taken away fromtheir community and their land continues to enjoynative title rights and interests in relationto that land in common with theother membersof the community (CapeYork Land Council submission 576).

Traditional owners and claimant groups should, of course, remain free to define their membership to include people forcibly removed from their families, thereby including these people among those entitled to the benefits of a successful statutory or native title land claim.

Returning to country can be a critical step in the reunification and healing process for people removed as children. However, it is fraught with difficulties.

Many found the task of re-establishing themselves in theircountrywas achievable,but others didnot. Communities sometimes found it difficult to accept people whohad spent so long away from countryback into their social networkson a basis of equality with those who had notbeenremoved. People whohad sufferedthe trauma of removal often encountered the double jeopardy of suspicion,mistrust or evenblame upon theirreturn,despite the locationof real responsibility in the governments of theday(CapeYork Land Council submission 576).

Support is required to facilitate return. This support has two key aspects. First the ‘returnee’ must be prepared for his or her return. This preparation would usually include some information about appropriate behaviour. Second the community needs to be prepared to receive the person returning. This preparation would usually include provision of information about the policies and effects of forcible removal. Where support is available, the return is more likely to be a success and the traditional owners are more likely to accept the ‘returnee’ and reintegrate him or her into the community. Developing communitygenealogies will assist community leaders in their decision making on the return of people affected by removals.