Part 5 Services for Those Affected

19 Responses of Churches and Other Non-Government Agencies

With the wisdom of hindsight we can only wonder how as a nation, and as a Church, we failed to see the violence of what we were doing. Hopefully, today we are more vigilant regarding the values we espouse (Catholic Church of the Diocese of Darwin submission 536 page 2).

Sharing responsibility

In most cases of forcible removal government officials and agents were responsible for the removal under legislation or regulations. However, there were early cases of removal of children by missionaries without the consent of the parents. In Victoria the absence of government oversight of welfare services enabled churches and other non-government agencies to remove children from their families without any court order or other official approval.
The churches share some responsibility for forcible removals because of their involvement in providing accommodation, education, training and work placements for the children.
With hindsight, we recognise that our provision of services enabled these policies to be implemented. We sincerely and deeply regret any hurt, however unwittingly caused, to any child in our care (The Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Australian Province submission 541 page 1).

To the best of our knowledge, at no time have the Church’s child welfare services and organisations been given any legislative power or authority to forcibly or physically remove any children from their families. This is so in the case of any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children. We do accept that there were cases where the actions of Church child welfare services and organisations were instrumental in keeping children separate from their families and in this respect the Church holds some responsibility in playing a role for the state to keep these children separate from their families (Joint Statement to the Inquiry on behalf of the Bishops’ Committee for Social Welfare, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council and the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission).

The Aboriginal Legal Service of WA advised the Inquiry that 85% of the people it interviewed who had been forcibly removed as children had spent at least part of their childhood in the care of a mission. Nationally the proportion is probably somewhat lower.

The experiences of children cared for in church homes and missions varied considerably.

As individuals, there are memories which we can recall with some fondness. The friendships that bonded us as orphanage kids, the weekends at Riddell Beach and other happy occasions. But as individuals also, each of us could pick out at least half a dozen grievances with Nuns as our caretakers – the discipline, the notes made on our records in relation to our intelligence, the removal of personal possessions, the removal of birth names, the denial of access to family members, the chores, being locked up… (former resident quoted by Holy Child Orphanage, Broome, submission 520 on page 1).
At the age of 16, when most of us left the care of the Church, we were young girls; we were very vulnerable. We didn’t have much skills in terms of preparation for life or life experiences. So consequently most of us had kids, went from one relationship to another, from one broken marriage to another. Most of us have ended up being drunks and alcoholics at early ages. But there’s been nothing there to help us through, to unshackle that shame and blame. And what the Church has done, it just continuously reinforced to us all the negative things about us. And it makes us feel guilty. And it’s done nothing to remove any of that guilt. And what I’m saying is that the apology isn’t enough. There’s got to be some sort of public statement to say to us, ‘You are not to blame for it. And we were wrong’.

Confidential evidence 548, Northern Territory: WA woman removed to a Catholic orphanage at 4 years in the 1950s.
I found the Methodist Mission [Croker Island] very helpful and myself, from my experience, I really can’t condemn the United Church, or Methodist Mission. Because they’ve been excellent to us. There were one hundred children and they showed a little bit of affection to each of us, y’know. They didn’t show any favouritism.

Confidential evidence 544, Northern Territory: woman removed to The Bungalow at 5 years in the 1930s; after seven years transferred to Croker Island Mission.

Contemporary attitudes

Many church organisations provided information, submissions and evidence to the Inquiry. Generally the churches expressed interest in assisting and supporting all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and doing what they can to remedy the hurt and damage suffered by those affected by forcible removal in particular. Many statements expressing understanding of that hurt and damage, acceptance of a share of responsibility and regret were made publicly to the Inquiry (Chapter 14). The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission expressed a view we believe to be widely shared.
… the Church has a moral responsibility to work towards healing the pain that separation has caused Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (submission 479 page 36).
The Rev. Aubrey Quick, a former Methodist minister, also made this point.
… the fact that things happened with even the best of motives does not absolve us from our present responsibility to make what amends we can (submission 234 page 1).

General proposals

The churches can provide practical assistance to those suffering the effects of forcible removals. The National Standing Committee of the Uniting Church in Australia recently passed a number of resolutions including,
that Standing Committee support and encourage the Northern Synod and the Northern Regional Committee of Congress to continue discussions with the former Croker Island residents and if appropriate to bring recommendations as to how the Uniting Church within the limits of its resources may best express its support for the Croker Islanders and their descendants (submission 457).
The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission recognised the need for consultation with Indigenous people in the design of any programs the churches might offer.
… in seeking to compensate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for the pain that its involvement in separation has caused, the Church must enter into honest and open dialogue with those people, in order that true reconciliation can occur (submission 479 page 36).
Of particular interest to Inquiry witnesses affected by forcible removal are,

1. provision of access to personal and family records and other information held in church archives,

2. the availability of counselling and related services provided by churches and non-government agencies, and

3. the return of mission and institution lands.